Topic: Remove Satoshi as Founding Member, Says Bitcoin Foundation Director (Read 2650 times)

Ahh, sorry, now I get... I was looking at it the wrong way. To me it felt like institutional religion is trying to remove God's name from the bible 

Again, sorry for dragging this off topic, I'm trying to not derail the original thread, if the parties involved would actually like to discuss all of this, we can create a new thread.


What I meant by law enforcement, is when issues come up world wide, and whoever it is doing the blaming blames Bitcoin, TBF has created a target on themselves. Can't punish a technology that is meant to be resilliant, punish those involved. If you want to put yourselves out there, thats on you and I don't have anything bad to say about that. Just saying my prediction is that those involved in public advocacy groups like the Bitcoin Foundation will be the ones that law enforcement can target when Bitcoin is made illegal. I'm not trying to be paranoid, but Bitcoin is a disruptive technology, its not far fetched in the slightest to think that there will be resistance as it gains traction, and that resistance could make its way into laws. There are tons of examples of this happening in the past. Hell fiat is almost illegal in the name of protecting against money laundering and funding terrorism. And to reiterate, my last few sentences are explaining what I meant by law enforcement involvement, I'm not accusing anyone of any of the examples I used.

You probably went too far with 'law enforcement', but yes, policy makers and (most of all) media could see TBF as 'the official voice of bitcoin'.

But I don't see much could be done about it. It's a common mentality, that there must always be some central authority, leader etc. If there was no TBF they would just pick any other (largest available) bitcoin organisation and we'll have the same story over again.

But maybe some visible, short disclaimer on the TBF website would do the trick. Some short explanation that TBF is association of Bitcoin enthusiasts but does not represent the entire community.

Just thinking out loud...

Well if at all, Id say the other way around. But by and by I mean, why associate someone with a group unless they say they want to be associated? Satoshi didn't ask to be part of the Bitcoin foundation (to my knowledge) so wouldn't it make sense to not have Satoshi listed as a member until they ask to join?


Can I go search through the Bitcoin foundation's mission statement and look for quotes that I interpret as proving my point only to have you counter with your interpretation? Yes and I'd be happy to do so, but will I find quotes that say, "TBF was created to speak for the Bitcoin community"? Probably not, but as I said, I'd be happy to look. Before I spend time doing so, isn't it's creation implication of the need for someone to speak on behalf of "Bitcoin"? The need to push for adoption, speak to politicians who don't understand the technology, inform people that Bitcoin isn't just for online drug markets, etc? While I say most of those things are fine and good, and there isn't any ill will intended in doing those things on TBF's behalf, have you stopped and thought of the greater issues caused by making official statements for "Bitcoin" which consists of the technology itself, and the userbase? While I'm moderately hostile to the premise of a Bitcoin foundation at its roots, please make sure you understand that I don't have a single qualm with any individuals in the Bitcoin foundation (to my knowledge) so no personal biass influences my thought process. I trust individuals to speak on behalf of Bitcoin, even if what they are saying is nonsense, because everyone knows that its an individual person's testament, not an official claim. The formation of an official body to personify Bitcoin not only provides a target, but also greater room for misunderstanding of Bitcoin's nature. If one of your members says something controversial, your personal opinions or points of view reflect poorly to the technology as a whole. Thats where my resistance to an official Bitcoin foundation comes from. I'm not against advocacy groups of people who wish to speak about Bitcoin, but there really needs to be more than one to water down the role of each group. Where was the official internet foundation? Who pushed for people to understand that the internet wasn't just a way to do shady things, or to let people know the benefits of the internet? While that isn't a 100% apt comparison, some similarities are there, so hopefully you understand my meaning.
I also personally disagree with a few policies, but that isn't as big of an issue.

I read the whole thread and the news!
If they had to remove satoshi why did they include him in the foundation before?

Hey ... I actually think, they are doing Satoshi a favour by doing this. {He/She would have already come forward, if He/She wanted fame and fortune}

They used him in his absence, or should I have said... misused him/her.

Let's give him/her a honorary spot as the "creator of Bitcoin" and leave the rest of the people as the "creators of the foundation"

He/She would be happy with that. 

It was a topic that had a Reddit feedback of over 400 a year ago and was a common topic when I reached out for feedback.

If I hadn't mentioned it then all the people who demanded removal of the name would be out with pitchforks as well.

Can you point to some examples of where current leadership claimed to speak for what the Bitcoin community wants?

Joking aside I just do not get why this being brought up at all... Do you think Satoshi's name somehow tarnishes TBF reputation? Or fixes any problems TFB has to deal with now days?

You are welcome to, I can go off topic from time to time as well, and someone will handle it. I did keep it on topic though

If you weren't Global Moderator I would report you to one S

Bitcoin business' don't claim to speak for what the Bitcoin community wants. (Nor do I for that matter) They are in it to pay their salaries, their employee's salaries, and hey if they help Bitcoin thats a bonus. Its not about the fact that the Bitcoin foundation is a centralized organization, people get way too bent out of shape about centralization because of the percieved decentralization movement that Bitcoin is a part of. Its the fact that you get a group of people who are so above the average user and claim that you are speaking for the best of a currency and the average user. Its not that I don't support some of the individuals in the Bitcoin foundation, but creating a single group to represent a vast distribution of people all with different goals, doesn't that seem a bit counterintuitive? People are free to create their own Bitcoin foundations, and obviously you can't be held accountable for something that others are free to or not to do, but all in all I personally believe that the Bitcoin foundation is a huge issue. You may not take yourself as "the official Bitcoin foundation" but anyone from the Media, Policy makers, and law enforcement will.

And again, to avoid going too far off topic, as this really isn't the right thread to discuss the pros vs the cons of the Bitcoin foundation, I reiterate my support for removing Satoshi's name from your club. I'm going to make my own Bitcoin foundation and name Muhammad Ali as a club member 

I'm surprised people didn't make a bigger deal out of Satoshi's name being included in the first place, I think until a day when Satoshi returns and asks to be part of the Bitcoin foundation, why would their name be included?

Bruce, you seem to be trying to move the Foundation toward a better place, so maybe Satoshi wouldn't mind having her name associated with it so much anymore

What are you talking about?

No, he didn't, therefore his name should be removed, that's the topic of this thread. Your response [to removing Satoshi's name]:



Please start reading threads before replying, otherwise you're just spamming and you'll be reported.

Yes, it's true we don't need a Bitcoin Foundation.

Those who bothered to actually view the presentation before commenting would see that the very second slide says "Do we need a Bitcoin Foundation?  No."

Central organizations can be a benefit to Bitcoin.

Those in the "we don't need" crowd -- are you saying that ALL centralized organizations should be destroyed?   Does this include Circle, Coinbase, Bitpay and this forum?  Or is it just non profits?

Perhaps because of he failed to pay his membership fees . These TBF guys really have nothing else important to do? Do they sorted out every issues?

When I checked more about it, I understood this thread is misleading. Satoshi's name is removing from founding member of Bitcoin Foundation not Bitcoin. Satoshi never involved in Bitcoin Foundation but might have in a different/real name. Considering this, Satoshi didn't found Bitcoin Foundation. Hence, this name can be removed.

This thread and/or title should be phrased correctly.

What is interesting to me is this tweet where Bruce Fenton referred Satoshi as "she".

Edit: Thank you, SaltySpitoon!

The solution is to have every meetup group create their own bitcoin foundation so that each is essentially just an advocacy group. There are plenty of Bitcoin meetup groups that meet weekly in larger cities, they are probably just as qualified. The biggest issue with having one entity trying to represent a diverse group of people, is that they can't represent everyone's opinions or wishes. Thats why every country around the world has their own localized representation. People in Japan can't accurately speak for people in Argentina, but a couple of people think they can represent Bitcoin which has no national borders. Its frankly rediculous.

I don't think the Bitcoin foundation was created for malicious purposes, I believe their intentions were quite the opposite, but its the effects that matter, and I think the negative effects will far outweigh the positive.

On topic, why should Satoshi be listed as a member of an organization that he did not join? The creator is not automatically a member of an enthusiast club.

What is wrong? Did you care to read the thread?

Satoshi has never aspired/applied/agreed to be 'founder member' of TBF. Why do you think he should be listed as such?

This is completely wrong!
I don't understand why so many people are supporting this?
I don't even think bitcoin needs Bitcoin Foundation! Bitcoin was invented by satoshi without any foundation!
A very wrong move