If there is a better, sustainable, more neutral way to fund Gavin or infrastructure projects, we are all open to that.
Being funded by a neutral trade group frees developers to focus on bitcoin's needs full time, without distraction.
I've always respected your opinions jgarzik.
There's already fees paid for sending bitcoins, what if there was added a certain amount as a dev-fee. A pretty tiny amount pr. transaction, but enough that during one year it would've collected enough btc to fund one or more devs working on Bitcoin, would that be possible ? If not, perhaps showing a line in the official client letting people know they can contribute to the continued success of Bitcoin, almost like Wikipedia does, could that be an option ?
Also, we all know that the founder of bitcoin was/is anonymous, Gavin lashed out towards the 'Anonymous cowards' in this thread, which admittedly made me quite angry,and for a moment I thought, why should I care about Bitcoin and spend my time on it, with a Head Dev that's this ungrateful towards people that actually care about Bitcoin, but Gavin is just a human like the rest of us, and he becomes angry at times, he's no saint. And Bitcoin is greater than him, so even if he left Bitcoin or he continues to 'loose it' on the forums, Bitcoins as an idea and technology is larger than anyone involved in particular. There will always be someone else to take over, so even if Gavin is the Head Dev, he's nothing but an ordinary man, that can be replaced at any time.
Seeing as
Vess doesn't even post on these forums, which I see some of you refer to as the 'cesspit' of bitcoin, I can't do anything but conclude that Vess don't care much, and that you feel you're part of an elitist club where others have no say, and esp. not the 'Anonymous Cowards'. Too bad then that Satoshi is among these 'Anonymous Cowards'.
The idea of Bitcoin is that of personal freedom and changing the current system. And Bitcoin is far more important than any single person taking part in it. If at one point, the US Govt. decides that Bitcoin is a tool of domestic terrorism, for instance following a terrorist act where it's found that Bitcoin was used to buy parts for a bomb, don't be surprised if some overreaching officials determines that all Bitcoin-devs needs to be brought in for questioning and even be detained, if the Govt. then decides to press charges for whatever reason, there's not much any single person can do with it, even if the charges will be dropped in the end, if will be a complete nightmare to go through.
For example Sven Olaf Kamphuis was recently arrested:
http://krebsonsecurity.com/2013/04/dutchman-arrested-in-spamhaus-ddos/It's not sure he had any actual involvement in the DDOS-attacks described, but he put his name out there for anyone to see and was very vocal about the whole issue, and as thus become an easy target when somebody needed to be arrested.
Satoshi, being it one man or one group, created Bitcoin - and he's to this day anonymous. I believe he saw his idea as a larger thing than himself. If we look at Assange, he's a big narcissist and egomaniac, and there's been a lot of internal unrest in his organization due to the way he run things, and as we can see he's now virtually a prisoner in London, living in the Ecuadorian embassy in London. We could imagine Satoshi suffering the same fate at one point if he came forward.
In my opinion, ideas are more important than the people executing them, esp. when it has a large social impact and has the possibility to change existing structures. The idea that you need to register with your full name in the Bitcoin Foundation and pay a membership fee even to read their forum, speaks mountains for it being an elitist club with no intention of transparency. A lot of people sponsor them indirectly through doing business with all the businesses that have board-members in the foundation. The premium memberships paid by some companies to the foundation would not've been possible without the fees paid by users for using the services of these companies.
The 'trust us - we will only work to the benefit of Bitcoin'-attitude doesn't cut it. As we know power corrupts, and absolute power corrupts absolutely. If the people involved care about transparency and being a part of the community, they should involve the community more.
I have no reason to think Gavin is not a good man, wanting the best for bitcoin, but as time has showed through history, many projects have started with good intentions, and then there's battle's of power, and we're left with structures that we see in the current system that we're trying to battle: Closed systems where only a few decides what will really happen.
If the foundation really cared about bitcoin, it would seek to desentralize bitcoin trade, for instance by supporting the development of an open source trading platform that could then be used by anyone wanting to start their own exchange.
Lastly: I'm sure a lot of you are doing a great job, and that some of the criticism may seem unjust, but dismissing criticism entirely, or just frowning about it, is not a good thing. It's also Gavins choice to do interviews and being a public figure in the Bitcoin world. If he's chose to be anonymous like Satoshi, and chose to hide his identity, it wouldn't have been a problem for me. As I said earlier, an idea, a concept and a philosophy is far more important than the people executing it. And as such I think being 'anonymous', 'pseudo-anonymous' or putting your name out there is a personal choice. And as such, I don't think the people not putting out their 'real names' are 'Anonymous Cowards'. They might be 'anonymous' or 'pseudo-anonymous', but that doesn't imply that they're automatically cowards. They may be exactly the opposite, but they simply may have no desire to have their name out there on the Internet for everyone to peak at. For some people personal recognition, getting attention etc. is important, for some others it's not important at all. They work silently for a greater cause without expecting fame in return.
But the Foundation and everyone else involved in Bitcoin, should expect and welcome all criticism towards what they do. It means people are involved and interested, and I never saw that as a bad thing. However, there may always be some unwarranted criticism that's far out there that's quite different from constructive criticism, but intelligent people are able to see through that, and is able to ignore/briefly respond to the unjust criticism and then dicuss with the people that gives constructive crisicism. The attitude: "We're always right, and the others are idiots" is not a healthy attitude.
For instance, one of the things I like about MtGox, is that if you have an important query, you can actually go on irc and talk with Mark directly. Admittedly he's not always on, but if he's on and available, he will most often attend to the issues at hand. That's a direct line to the CEO of a company! How many other companies deliver the same opportunity ? Now, I realize that it's not feasible for all companies to do, as some companies are simply too big. But it certainly builds trust within the community.
As someone else in this thread mentioned: "I just want to be treated with respect, and be shown that you care". And that about sums it up. No matter how angry or unjust one thinks something is, having a major role within the Bitcoin ecosystem means that a lot of people look up to you. I kind of looked up to Gavin before his outburst as well. But in reality, we're all just humans with different positions within the ecosystem, and while some of us has a 'higher' position than others, that doesn't mean those people are 'worth more' or have the right to dismiss the criticism and input of others. The users of Bitcoin, which very often is very passionate about Bitcoin, is what makes the whole thing possible, and as such those in 'lead'-positions should be grateful that the users actually care, and not call them 'Anonymous cowards'. What I personally fear is that Bitcoin is starting to be run by big corporate entities that stop caring for it's users. Too many companies have become so big that it's not important to them to actually treat their users with respect and dignity.
That's all - thanks for listening.
)
Not that it was technically completely wrong, but I would've not have phrased it that way. So yes, the media is always not very accurate.