Should the Bitcoin Foundation be moved to a Neutral Country... - page 2.

niothor

hero member

Activity: 826

Merit: 501

in defi we trust

Quote from: leopard2 on November 15, 2013, 07:19:02 PM

Switzerland has allowed the US to buttfuck and buttrape its banking system Angry

Iceland is probably a better choice because it is of extreme strategic importance for NATO forces due to its particular location. It is unlikely that the USA would use brute force against Iceland and stir hate against themselves...

Or Russia - not neutral but more likely to support a technology that the US government combats. And strong enough to resist threats. A country that is strong enough to protect Snowden is strong enough to protect Bitcoin.

Russia? common...
The country where journalist disappear because they write something against Putin? Where if you criticize him you have 100% more chances to die in a tragic accident ?
If Snowden was russian you wouldn't have heard of him , just in a local paper about how somebody died of "overdose".

Ecurb123

full member

Activity: 182

Merit: 100

I agree, if there is such a foundation, it should not be in the US.

Lauda

legendary

Activity: 2674

Merit: 2965

Terminated.

Quote from: MoonShadow on November 15, 2013, 08:59:14 PM

Why? The Bitcoin Foundation is no more able to enact it's agenda than anyone else is. Their impotent. Their only function is to play the part of the, ultimately ineffective, NGO for the major governments of the world; because that is how the statist psycology works. The protocol doesn't provide a mechanism for blacklisting, and simply wishing for it doesn't make it so. But making the case for same, even if you know in your deepest of hearts that it's never going to happen, does so much to divert the ire of politicos who are conditioned to believe that someone is in charge of all this bitcoin stuff. Even if the foundation can lean on US developers to cave into their desires, the open source nature of bitcoin is certain to take that development consensus away from them, and someone else is going to be releasing the dominate clients going forward. The Dark Wallet project is already doing exactly this, and those guys cite the Bitcoin Foundation itself for the motivation.

If the mainline client starts blacklisting, anyone who uses it is going to slowly remove themselves from the bitcoin economy.

The foundation is the issue. They are kind of acting like they're in control.

MoonShadow

legendary

Activity: 1708

Merit: 1010

Quote from: Lauda on November 15, 2013, 08:52:35 PM

Quote from: safeminer on November 15, 2013, 08:40:52 PM

Shouldn't we first need to worry about getting this blacklist thing off the agenda ?

Yeah, it's an huge issue.

Why? The Bitcoin Foundation is no more able to enact it's agenda than anyone else is. Their impotent. Their only function is to play the part of the, ultimately ineffective, NGO for the major governments of the world; because that is how the statist psycology works. The protocol doesn't provide a mechanism for blacklisting, and simply wishing for it doesn't make it so. But making the case for same, even if you know in your deepest of hearts that it's never going to happen, does so much to divert the ire of politicos who are conditioned to believe that someone is in charge of all this bitcoin stuff. Even if the foundation can lean on US developers to cave into their desires, the open source nature of bitcoin is certain to take that development consensus away from them, and someone else is going to be releasing the dominate clients going forward. The Dark Wallet project is already doing exactly this, and those guys cite the Bitcoin Foundation itself for the motivation.

If the mainline client starts blacklisting, anyone who uses it is going to slowly remove themselves from the bitcoin economy.

Lauda

legendary

Activity: 2674

Merit: 2965

Terminated.

Quote from: safeminer on November 15, 2013, 08:40:52 PM

Shouldn't we first need to worry about getting this blacklist thing off the agenda ?

Yeah, it's an huge issue.

safeminer

member

Activity: 110

Merit: 10

Shouldn't we first need to worry about getting this blacklist thing off the agenda ?

Luckybit

hero member

Activity: 714

Merit: 510

Quote from: ShadowOfHarbringer on November 15, 2013, 11:35:01 AM

In light of recent [1] events [2] (namely a member of Bitcoin Fundation suggesting that we should diffrentiate between "Good Bitcoins" and "Bad Bitcoins"), it becomes more and more obvious that the worst enemy of Bitcoin is the Bitcoin Foundation:

There are probably strong political pressures from USA which not only has very aggressive AML policies, but clearly is going in the direction of Fascism and Socialism while becoming more and more anti-democratic.

So what is the point of keeping Bitcoin Foundation in a country which is (or will be soon) an enemy of Bitcoin ?

Perhaps a truly democratic country should be used, such as Switzerland.

What do you think ?

Why should there be a central foundation at all? Have chapters all over the world. Different countries have different political issues to solve.

safeminer

member

Activity: 110

Merit: 10

no more bitcoin foundation please, dont destroy the bitcoin it's humanitys last hope

Lauda

legendary

Activity: 2674

Merit: 2965

Terminated.

Yes and yes. Move it away from the US.

corebob

full member

Activity: 238

Merit: 100

Quote from: tspacepilot on November 15, 2013, 07:12:39 PM

Maybe the bitcoin foundation should be a distributed, peer-to-peer foundation. Not localized in any country.

This is not a bad idea. Their "votes" should probably be part of the block chain as well.

UncleBobs

member

Activity: 103

Merit: 10

It From Bit

Quote

I don't know about democratic but Switzerland sure is a decentralized country (disclaimer: I am not from Switzerland) by virtue of the canton system.
It is probably one of the most decentralized political system in the world.

Well, democracy is not an ideal.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democracy:_The_God_That_Failed

What is needed is a country that is willing to stand up to central bankers, and I cannot think of one, except Iceland. Perhaps Rick Falkvinge is the man to call?
http://falkvinge.net/2013/11/06/bitcoins-real-revolution-isnt-hard-money-its-economic-panarchy/

Boussac

legendary

Activity: 1221

Merit: 1025

e-ducat.fr

Quote from: ShadowOfHarbringer on November 15, 2013, 11:35:01 AM

In light of recent [1] events [2] (namely a member of Bitcoin Fundation suggesting that we should diffrentiate between "Good Bitcoins" and "Bad Bitcoins"), it becomes more and more obvious that the worst enemy of Bitcoin is the Bitcoin Foundation:

There are probably strong political pressures from USA which not only has very aggressive AML policies, but clearly is going in the direction of Fascism and Socialism while becoming more and more anti-democratic.

So what is the point of keeping Bitcoin Foundation in a country which is (or will be soon) an enemy of Bitcoin ?

Perhaps a truly democratic country should be used, such as Switzerland.

What do you think ?

I don't know about democratic but Switzerland sure is a decentralized country (disclaimer: I am not from Switzerland) by virtue of the canton system.
It is probably one of the most decentralized politcial system in the world.

leopard2

legendary

Activity: 1372

Merit: 1014

Switzerland has allowed the US to buttfuck and buttrape its banking system Angry

Iceland is probably a better choice because it is of extreme strategic importance for NATO forces due to its particular location. It is unlikely that the USA would use brute force against Iceland and stir hate against themselves...

Or Russia - not neutral but more likely to support a technology that the US government combats. And strong enough to resist threats. A country that is strong enough to protect Snowden is strong enough to protect Bitcoin.

tspacepilot

legendary

Activity: 1456

Merit: 1081

I may write code in exchange for bitcoins.

Maybe the bitcoin foundation should be a distributed, peer-to-peer foundation. Not localized in any country.

UncleBobs

member

Activity: 103

Merit: 10

It From Bit

Quote from: Morbid on November 15, 2013, 06:30:48 PM

well if its true then foundation is gonna lose their credibility in this community.

"Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed. That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it . . ."

Ringing any bells?

UncleBobs

member

Activity: 103

Merit: 10

It From Bit

I'm not convinced Switzerland is the best choice, although I agree that the USA is the absolute WORST choice.

How about Iceland?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pirate_Party_Iceland

ShadowOfHarbringer

legendary

Activity: 1470

Merit: 1006

Bringing Legendary Har® to you since 1952

Quote from: MoonShadow on November 15, 2013, 06:58:52 PM

Switzerland is not neutral.

Of course it is not 100% neutral. But Close Enough(tm).

Quote from: MoonShadow on November 15, 2013, 06:58:52 PM

There is no answer to this poll for the notion that no nation state can be neutral with regard to bitcoin.

Sorry, can't change the poll now, the results would be invalid.

MoonShadow

legendary

Activity: 1708

Merit: 1010

Switzerland is not neutral. There is no answer to this poll for the notion that no nation state can be neutral with regard to bitcoin.

ShadowOfHarbringer

legendary

Activity: 1470

Merit: 1006

Bringing Legendary Har® to you since 1952

Quote from: Rupture on November 15, 2013, 06:44:54 PM

Maybe they shouldn't be centred anywhere. That way it's international like btc

Nobody is saying that there should be only one foundation.

I'm talking about moving this one to Switzerland, because USA is a country fucked up beyond repair (as many many other to be fair).

Rupture

full member

Activity: 182

Merit: 100

Maybe they shouldn't be centred anywhere. That way it's international like btc

Topic: Should the Bitcoin Foundation be moved to a Neutral Country... - page 2. (Read 7317 times)