Topic: Is the bitcoin foundation legit? (Read 2786 times)

Well the part where they go "here, invest in this scam, it's legit, we know" is where fraud starts.

And the part where they go "we're taking donations but not publishing any reports" is where the fraud ripens.

What do you mean legit? It's a trade organization, so they're legit in that they push an agenda that the paying members agree is in their best interest.

They do not represent the whole of the community and shouldn't be considered the face of the community any more than the American Dairy Association is the face of milk.

There's this group of guys who whant to make some money, so they set up a club where you have to pay for membership, voting, and you get this member banner and a pat on the back. Some other folks want to feel elite, so they pay and walk around, waving their banners, put it in their forum profiles and on their blogs. Why even bother to talk about it, let them play in their sandbox.

 99999999 BTC   <<<<<<<<<<------------------That's how Legit the Bitcoin Foundation is.

Listen, polls don't render something "legit" or not. You're not bereft of facts; the facts have been amply provided.

Gather opinions and solicit comments all you like, but misrepresenting poll votes as indications of proof doesn't do much.

As of now it is not legit 78.8%

Anyone from the foundation want to say anything?

This is our move.

This has always puzzled me. How was it that Jed who owned and ran Mt Gox that was once a Magic: The Gathering trading card exchange, happened to stumble upon a dude that went by the moniker magicaltux during the same time frame both were around prior to Bitcoin?

In retrospect, it was like the vetting process consisted of giving Mark the keys to the exchange based on his pseudonym alone, along with having the foresight to name his umbrella company after his cat.

Here's another problem I have. When TBF was formed, and the in-depth discussion on whether Gavin should or shouldn't get paid was taking place, upon reading it at the time, I was under the assumption that Gavin didn't mine any longer, and he had limited BTC banked. Now, I discover that he can now retire handsomely due to his holdings. That bit hurt me like somebody stuck a knife in my back, him bragging on purchasing BTC when they were going for small fractions of a US dollar each.

All the while I sit here waiting for InstaWallet to return to me my 1,132 BTC, last seen almost a year ago to the day. I've outlaid a lot of time and money to make a lot of fuckers rich. Up to this point, I truly cared less about doing such, for it was from the heart. Now, I'm seeing corruption surround Bitcoin and, quite frankly, IT'S PISSING ME OFF!

POST!

Well, no. Interviews and speeches, yes. The fundamentals of the protocol were settled long before TBF came into existence. Sure, they provide Gavin some payment (and more recently, I hear, another developer), but at least so far, Gavin seems to be his own man.

Really you think that people need to pay 10€ for submit a vote? You call it legit?

This is the top of centralization. Yeah, buy the votes. Super legit.

Oh dear God...  I'm having PTSD flashbacks.  You know, from the time not so long ago that this was debated, and debated, and debated, and debated, and debated...

Do you also ask this question of The Children's Cancer Foundation?  They have, after all, named their club to be confusingly similar to the disease.

What is there really a bitcoin foundation club and they charge thats weird I never knew there was one !!

Exactly This. ^^^^^

getting better.

now you have to explain how you will quantify the community acceptance.. % or rate out of 10

and the number of bitcoins lost

lets say 2mill (gox740k, BS&T 500k bitcoinica and microscams rounded up)

so 2mill/12,000,000=0.1666 (your NBTCL/NAV)
if w4=4
0.1666*4=0.6666664

so for stealing 16% of coins in circulation. thats only negatively rating the foundation by 0.6666664??

thats just as bad as the first idea of just how many coins are lost (4x2mill=8mill negative rate) the first idea would always give a massively minus rating. and the second idea makes very little impact.. both of which are not to scale

so lets make the NBTCL a percentage. of lost coins versus amount lost. just to keep the variables static (circulation amount not changing)

so... lets say
NBD=1 (one board member is a criminal of fraud)
t=3(3 years)
c=5(i rate them as average acceptance 5 out of 10)
PNBL= 9.5 percentage number of bitcoins lost (2m of the 21m cap not the 12m circulation)

w1*T + w2*C - w3*NBD - w4*PNBL

3+10-3-38=-27
so lets say now the foundation warned everyone of gox and 740k was not lost(1.26m of 21m=6%)
3+10-3-24=-14

but if we changed it that acceptance (actually doing work was more important then criminal background (c=w3 and NBD = w2)
3+15-2-38=-22
so lets say no the foundation warned everyone of gox (1.26m of 21m=6%)
3+15-2-24=-8

now if we imagine the foundation with no criminals, they also ensured itcoin businesses ran honourably so no fraud occured meaning no loss of coins and a high acceptance.. here are the results

NBD=0 (one board member is a criminal of fraud)
t=3(3 years)
c=10(rate them 10 out of 10)
PNBL= 0 percentage number of bitcoins lost

3+30-0-0=33

atleast these numbers seem better then a massive minus figure of minus 8million+ or a large figure that thinks lost coins are worth less then 1

i see the foundation as just being the guys that make the protocol, do a few interviews & speeches..

so i see the coders such as gavin as experienced. so how long people like him have been helping to run the business is immaterial or low on the scale. as long as the job gets done
community acceptance is the "job getting done" part
and as long as they are using funds as a wage and doing tasks to help the community, them having a criminal record because they got drunk and ran down the college campus as kids is also irrelevant. again as long as the job gets done.

so i agree with the multiplications of T being just 1 but i think C should be 3 and NBD being 2 .. but thats my opinion

but the maths fails once you add on the millions of coins lost. i would change NBTCL to being a % of the total 21m. EG if only 500k was ever stolen then thats 2%or simply 2

well if you add up gox 740k along with the other losses over the years it adds up to a higher number. but is more mathematically manageable

How about a different question, then.
Is the name that they have chosen for their club deceptive or confusing?


Suppose I go create a website named "The Bitcoin Company", and my own private
digital fiat currency whilch  I'll call Bitcoin -- which will be  confusingly similar,  to the
distributed cryptocurrency.

Who is to say which has the superior right to the use of the name  Bitcoin to describe their digital currency,
or product, or service?

I'd like to propose starting the following organization: The REAL Bitcoin Foundation

Anyone can be a member (small 2BTC annual fee) and businesses can join to show that they're legitimate for just 8BTC a year.

Since we'll be The REAL Bitcoin Foundation, you know we're legit (because it says 'real'). Don't question us at all, just pay your dues on time and the world will be right.

keep on voting please

LMAO

It is not imaginary or pretend.  There actually is a private club of individuals that have organized themselves together and decided to name their club "The Bitcoin Foundation".  They actually charge fees to join their club, and they actually elect individuals within their club to run their club.  Those in charge of the club actually make decisions related to their club.

Beyond that, you'll have to explain what you mean by "legit".  Anyone can create a club with their friends and call it anything they want.  There is nothing magical about "The Bitcoin Foundation".