Topic: Should Peter Vessenes resign as the Executive Director for Bitcoin Foundation ? - page 7. (Read 24387 times)

I agree.

But I also reiterate 'go ~vess!'  Some things are well worth standing on principle, some are not, and some switch categories.  Bitcoin is among the last group.  To me.

I was never strongly against the BCF anyway.  Just voiced some theoretical concerns and reservations about how it could influence the evolution of the Bitcoin solution.  I cannot help but feel slightly vindicated at this point.

This is just about the worst possible reasoning you could ever make for giving your support to any kind of authority, ever.

Well I have to admit, with shame, that I've yet to contribute to the foundation.

I was one of the distinct minority who spoke up with reservations about the Bitcoin Foundation's creation prior to the event.  But we got it now so there is little reason not to go ahead and make lemonade out of lemons.

Good point - unless it's FAKE regulation - like those on Wall Street enjoy.  Then it becomes "unfair advantage".
And guess what: the bitcoin regulation bribe/payoff will be hard to track... LOL

Humor - Swap Meet Louie:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2gZr6w82zAA

Lol, a vote with your dollars. I like it.

Voted 'hell no'.  The guy is making me money, and is my best bet to make a genuine fortune.  Three cheers for ~vess!

Now, how about an update on Coinlab/MtGox for Christsake!

This. Regulation is the enemy of Bitcoin. Regulation won't make volatility go away - volatility will go away on its own once market-makers start getting serious, liquidity develops, super-concentrated positions are diluted, and exchanges get their acts together. We don't need regulation to do these things, but regulation will surely increase centralization and corruption among the already-established bitcoin companies; same thing it has done in every other industry. We don't need a socialist in charge of the Foundation.

Governments need to come to bitcoin on Bitcoin's own terms, not the other way around. And it's our jobs to make our governments realize this - by continuing to use bitcoin in as free a manner as possible. Continuing to navigate our way around the KYC/IRS traps set up for us, and avoiding the companies that could become "too big to fail" thanks to regulatory advantage.

All these elements in the bitcoin eco-system which are not breathing the spirit of decentralisation and p2p are enemies for the project.
That starts with way too dominant exchanges like MtGox, mining pools controlling a large part of the mining power and also touches the problem that the core developer team has a central power (that does not mean any disrespect, but I think that is a problematic situation - at least a potential risk for the future).

So in fact we have something like a central bank (not to control money issueing but we got central power structures).
The bitcoin foundation seems to me just another part in the wrong direction.

Why not use the power in the underlying technology to create a democratic system out of these problematic regions?

Peer2Peer exchanges are in discussion and I hope they become reality soon!

A voting mechanism could be implemented to be used as a tool to find global democratic consensus.
Some ideas like liquid democracy used by the pirate parties (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liquid_Democracy#Delegated_voting) could be applied. So basically every bitcoin user would have the same voting power (not less then any company paying a gold premium membership). But of course there are situations where he prefers to delegate his vote to someone else who has more expertise. So a fluent delegate system could lead automatically to elected "board members" as well as it could be used as basis for decisions implemented by the core developer team.

I do not say that this process is easy. But I think for the money of the future we need also new structures and not concepts from the last century.

They need to maintain their 'independence' from oversight to help them regulate Bitcoin

If I recall correctly, the current board members have a two year term.  That struck me as a little odd as generally the initial board of a new organisation like this is basically a steering committee and elections of office-bearers from the membership are held reasonably rapidly.

I also seem to recall that they won't be making public how they spend their funds, which is also an odd decision.

My comment on this topic was initially meant more as a joke. However, as I researched the "foundation" it became clear that things are not quite what they appear to be. Other Bitcoiners had concerns about the "foundation" long before me and I now stand with them.

What election? have you seen election in corporation ?BITCOIN INC

The issue is really quite simple, just don't vote for Peter Vessenes on the next election pursuant to the by-laws of the foundation. If members are really upset they can vote to impeach him. 

Jon, another great article.

They are the Bitcoin Foundation. Unfortunately that means any regulation of Bitcoin which they approve of will be seen as having been done with the support of and after consultation with the Bitcoin community. If a few people pipe up with complaints afterwards then they are just the ranting libertarian/anarchist fringe that the Bitcoin community has "outgrown".

Usually it means you're using the foundation as a means to promote your business and lock out competition. The first job generally pays a lot better than the second.

You aren't reading my post, I don't give a shit about self-appointed community leaders and organisations, you can want things all you want, doesn't mean you'll get them.

+1 to everyone recognizing that the purpose of a government-sanctioned Bitcoin "foundation" is to centralize and control and sell-out.

Here here. Join my class

Maybe I'm paranoid, but I don't trust a "foundation" for bitcoin one ounce. I feel it somewhat goes against the principles bitcoin was founded on.