Topic: Regarding the Bitcoin Foundation....... (Read 6450 times)

Maybe the coin center think thank can make a change in the game and gaining some influence the bitcoin foundation could not built up.

The bitcoin foundation is a bunch of overpaid marons as it seems. No leaders there.

I do hope the bitcoin foundation financies are happy with it work. In my opinon the bitcoin foundation should be suspended as they were not able to built up a world wide network of working local bitcoin foundation representation.

thats my point to the bitcoin foundation and think alot would agree with me.

So your argument is, that because there is no authority behind the bitcoin, it need to be threatet differently by law. You implicate kind of god status for bitcoin, with the argument of decentralisation power. With Jesus and Christians it worked in Rom but thats a big ball of BS, because people dont believe more in the 21st century in easy things. Even if you talk about smth hoping other dont understand what you are talking about, its not good at all for your business either.

There is always are power or authority behind something even its decentralized. There must be a representation behind the system of issuing and the transactions of bitcoins.

But i guess you dont understand me. I feel like talking to a maron, so please explain me some basics. A system without power of representation is a system with no power. Thats the rule for a decentraliced sociaty like a democrasy. The democrasy had to fight for his constitution against several parties with principles. And as we see, bitcoin is losing against olipols like banks etc. So I am asking, who is having the power of representation bitcoins and you say no one, because no one is controlling its issue and transactions.

I understand the present situation of the bitcoinfoundation focusing on education and providing information. But for a salary of $220k you could expect a REAL representation, who is an authorized entity too, focusing on the getting the bitcoin as a monetary good and saying that its not a currency.

But of course, we can just dump the bitcoin and wait for cryptocurrency 2.0 with cryptocurrency foundation 2.0

Well, the Foundation doesn't issue bitcoins nor control how they are issued, transacted, or destroyed.

Bitcoin gets banned in Countries like Bolivia, Bangladesh, Colombia, Russia, China and many more the authorities are saying that

“It is illegal to use any kind of currency that is not issued and controlled by a government or an authorized entity.”

So my question is, why is the Bitcoin Foundation not accepted as a authorized entity?

Whats wrong with their status?

What could help, so they are getting the status of an authorized entity?

I think the main point is to act as a public front and means of delegating resources to tasks that will promote the spread of Bitcoin...I'm not quite sure why so many people are so worried...

As I understand from their posts, controlling the Bitcoin network is not among functions or goals of the organization discussed here. Moreover, I think that having anyone who actually controls something in the Bitcoin network among board members may be a bad idea in the face of possible pressure from govt.

Genius. Those suspicious of the foundation would be incentivized to donate more to dev (and do it consistently) because every BTC they sent would subtract from the foundation's leverage over development. Either way the devs get paid.

Linux has a very hierarchal community with a sense of authority.

Bitcoin? Hell no. We don't play by anybodies rules. Not even our own.

Anyways, the inspiration for this was The Linux Foundation with everyone giving Torvalds a handjob. Guess who wants to be Torvalds?

I honestly think the foundation would have gotten more support of board positions were open from the start and people could be nominated then voted on.

Not having any pools represented on the board is silly since they basically control a majority of hashing power.

The name would be better as abitcoinfoundation, which could also stand for american bitcoin foundation  

Mining and Privacy needs to have equal board seats imo with Falkvinge and Graet nominated.

I dont think I'll be joining the Mt Gox and Bitinstant happy fun times club untill the above is considered.

+1

I think the foundation is very premature and the seats I think should be separated a bit more. I think people like Mike Hearn (bitcoinj), etotheipi (armory), jed, theymos, just to name a few should be on the board, to just give it more of a community feeling, right now I think it is very agenda orientated people that have the seats. While bitinstant is an amazing service, and it is killing it on the currency to bitcoin exchange. It is a profitable business, and so is mt gox, and having two people on a board where there companies are in direct line of this, never turns out to be a good thing. Also not having any competing services to hold seats, doesn't give a lot checks and balances. While the terms are only set for two years, in internet time that is a very long time and can be easy use to position certain companies in a very good ways.

Thanks for answering quickly.

• I am already in a forum and discussion.
• It will depend on where the 2013 conference is as to if I can attend.
• Member dinners and events is a good perk, again, depending on where they are.
• I am already actively promoting and protecting Bitcoin.

You are welcome for the suggestion and the highlighting.

This thread is going like gangbusters and I did not want to get left out.

Thanks.

Before: Gavin or who ever is lead dev had to personally defend his and his team's actions while the whole community was carefully monitoring what he did AND he was easily removable from his lead position

After: Gavin or who ever is lead dev can hide behind a corporation, a self admitted self imposed spokesperson, policy setting, business vetting, intertwined with corporate interest body that can shield him from any negative repercussions providing him with the excuse he was just executing their policy AND him now being a board member for the next two years and a founding member making him nearly impossible to be removed from his position

Who is paying Gavin is irrelevant, just as it is irrelevant who is Satoshi. What is relevant is who carries the responsibility to not misbehave and what kind of consequences can they face if they do.


I'm really scared by all your trickery you're employing in your PR posts.

Before:  Gavin and other lead devs could have been funded by shady unknown, undisclosed -- or, more realistically, non-shady but unpredictable -- sources.

After:  Gavin and other devs may be funded by known, disclosed, predictable sources.

+1

I've not seen evidence that bitcoin is taken seriously either. I personally feel that public opinion (as well as multi-government respect) is important for bitcoin. Short of having some manner of sovereign recognition, I don't see how bitcoin can achieve parity to any other type of financial instrument or currency. That will never happen so long as bitcoin continues to scare people.




There are legal consequences and regulation for gift cards and other forms of "stored value" as well as financial instruments such as something so simple as as a paper check. The comparison to "products/technologies" is only one aspect.

Thanks for the kind words.

Ok cool, but if he raises good points, I have to respond (or someone does) because then he (and others) will claim we are dodging questions and make false accusations

But, I will try and do my best to be civil

-Charlie


Good question, and thanks for the yellow highlighting lol.

Participating in member forums and discussions, discount for the Bitcoin 2013 Conference, Member dinners and events.
Being apart of something thats actively promoting and protecting Bitcoin.

We will outline all the benefits and put it on the Join Us page, thanks for the suggestion.

I have a question.

What are my benefits ( besides voting) for the 2.5 bitcoin I may give to the foundation?

Wow, you just got myself and a few others looking at that thread with some degree of curiosity. Thanks for pointing it out.

I am delighted by the birth of the Bitcoin Foundation, a creation I advocated several times on this forum last year (although I envisioned it more like w3c than linux.org).
However I am concerned with the presence of Mr Karpeles as a board member even though it would have been difficult to not accept his money. Here is why.


How could anyone think it is possible to "steal" a domain name by registering a trade mark ?
This is both defamatory and insulting.
Mt gox registered the trademark first internationally and in most registration classes. Our registration in some classes in France was to prevent troll registration and trolls in general to use the bitcoin name in France. It was also to go against the stronghold that mt gox is building on bitcoin.

Yes the bitcoin.fr is wasted by the current owner who is describing bitcoin on the home page as follows:

"On reproche à juste raison à cette monnaie d'être une aubaine pour les mafias : pas de trace, pas de contrôle. "

Translation:
"This currency has been criticized rightly to be a boon for the mafia : no trace, no control."
I am not talking about the bitcoin.fr wbesite design that would make any mt gox website design look good.

Yes this is problematic for the adoption of bitcoin in France because anyone googling bitcoin in France will get this page FIRST.

So I confirm: we (Paymium) would like to convince the current owner to sell it or otherwise hand over the control to the Foundation.

In my view Mr Karpeles does not belong in the Bitcoin Foundation because mt box dominant market share among exchanges is a threat to the decentralization of bitcoin.
Mr Karpeles may intend to take over the bitcoin.fr domain like a white knight to further his own interests: that's why he does not hesitate to denigrate his competitors with false accusations.
This is totally unacceptable for a board member of the Bitcoin Foundation.

Goat,

Obviously you know that to note be true. There are members, a board, and a voting process.

Please don't patronize me. I'm trying to debate you here in a civil fashion, but now your just starting to play games.

If you don't wanna debate me anymore, fine, but don't waste my time with games. Im having a real debate about the foundation in another thread

-Charlie