Forget Europe. The only nation we know of that might be up to the task is in South America, but no nation should be given such a dangerous task.
The network peers worldwide is what gives the coin strength. It always was
Topic: Should the Bitcoin Foundation be moved to a Neutral Country... - page 3. (Read 7326 times)
November 15, 2013, 05:43:02 PM
November 15, 2013, 05:30:48 PM
well if its true then foundation is gonna lose their credibility in this community. but it wouldnt stop gov to push the sheep public for bitcoin adoption with foundations like these backing that. bitcoin-qt is the only possible centralisation mechanism right now and they are trying to sieze it before it grows bigger than the powers in charge of usa.
I think what is needed at this point is an official Anti-Bitcoin Foundation.
Just a simple website that states the position of bitcoin users who do not agree that the Bitcoin Foundation represents them, and explicitly refuses to be bound by any agreements made by the Bitcoin Foundation, and makes it clear that we refuse to comply with the regulations of any state, whether it be Thailand or the USA.
Why? Because we want Freedom, we are tired of Slavery, and we will NOT comply any longer.
+1 Just a simple website that states the position of bitcoin users who do not agree that the Bitcoin Foundation represents them, and explicitly refuses to be bound by any agreements made by the Bitcoin Foundation, and makes it clear that we refuse to comply with the regulations of any state, whether it be Thailand or the USA.
Why? Because we want Freedom, we are tired of Slavery, and we will NOT comply any longer.
November 15, 2013, 05:22:06 PM
I think what is needed at this point is an official Anti-Bitcoin Foundation.
Just a simple website that states the position of bitcoin users who do not agree that the Bitcoin Foundation represents them, and explicitly refuses to be bound by any agreements made by the Bitcoin Foundation, and makes it clear that we refuse to comply with the regulations of any state, whether it be Thailand or the USA.
Why? Because we want Freedom, we are tired of Slavery, and we will NOT comply any longer.
Just a simple website that states the position of bitcoin users who do not agree that the Bitcoin Foundation represents them, and explicitly refuses to be bound by any agreements made by the Bitcoin Foundation, and makes it clear that we refuse to comply with the regulations of any state, whether it be Thailand or the USA.
Why? Because we want Freedom, we are tired of Slavery, and we will NOT comply any longer.
November 15, 2013, 04:27:10 PM
the problem is that there needs to be a foundation,
There needs to be a bridge (or multiple bridges) between the Bitcoin distributed/decentralized world and the "normal" world, because the normal one is not decentralized.or an institution that decides what happens or doesn't..
Foundation should mainly lobby & collect funds for the development of Bitcoin, NOT DECIDE anything.This only shows that the current "foundation" has gone wrong.
November 15, 2013, 02:37:37 PM
AND Members in bitcointalk should have rights to vote on every big issue of foundation .
lots of polling the community by the Foundation before they decide anything
Your wish is my command...
https://www.agoravoting.com/misc/page/professional/
https://github.com/agoraciudadana/agora-ciudadana
and draw up a constitution, outlining the core values of the community
Agree...
November 15, 2013, 02:35:17 PM
the problem is that there needs to be a foundation, or an institution that decides what happens or doesn't.. and any time when a person or group of people are given power, they tend to misuse it for their own self gain and purposes. it's a tough pickle to be in, isn't it? in order to move forward, there has to be rules.
November 15, 2013, 02:30:25 PM
Yeah, I personally think that the Bitcoin Foundation is a horrible idea. Rather than self assigning a group of people to represent a community that doesn't want to be represented, and making yourselves a huge legal target, its a good idea to have one. I don't see why we don't just have reputable business owners and lead developers independantly speaking about Bitcoin?
I'm confused as to how the Bitcoin Foundation can even say that they represent the Bitcoin community, when truthfully there is no more a Bitcoin community than a fiat community.
I'm confused as to how the Bitcoin Foundation can even say that they represent the Bitcoin community, when truthfully there is no more a Bitcoin community than a fiat community.
November 15, 2013, 02:25:05 PM
a "foundation" is a word used which requires registration to a country. alot of people seen it early on that as soon as bitcoin foundation registered itself it became tied to the US.
i seek that if the bitcoin foundation becomes abolished and a better place was chosen then using a word such as a 'consortium' be used.
EG W3C, which does not need official bureaucratic registration to a particular country
i seek that if the bitcoin foundation becomes abolished and a better place was chosen then using a word such as a 'consortium' be used.
EG W3C, which does not need official bureaucratic registration to a particular country
Collective ie as in the link below.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Borg_(Star_Trek)
"The Borg have become a symbol in popular culture for any juggernaut against which "resistance is futile".
November 15, 2013, 12:25:22 PM
OP, answer to your question is yes. One way or another, changes and/or alternatives are coming, and soon. Quoting myself from another thread:
It seems this is regularly thrown at anyone who criticises the foundation, apparently in the belief it's impossible someone could do just that. Not only is it a poor and defensive line of argument, it's also an increasingly likely outcome.
If the US bitcoin foundation continues down its path of cosying up to politicians and bankers while removing core aspects of bitcoin, that is exactly what will happen. I can't imagine it being particularly pretty if it does though.
BTW there are serious, active negotiation efforts underway to significantly reform the Foundation structure and excessive US influence. If those efforts fail, it is a certainty that a decentralized alliance will emerge as a viable alternative. Any public move from the current Foundation in support of "validation" or "tainting" will accelerate the current schism and isolate the USA from the rest of the world. Read between the lines of this op-ed by Aaron Koenig:
http://bitcoinmagazine.com/7637/how-to-decentralise-the-bitcoin-foundation/
Start your own foundation or organization.
It seems this is regularly thrown at anyone who criticises the foundation, apparently in the belief it's impossible someone could do just that. Not only is it a poor and defensive line of argument, it's also an increasingly likely outcome.
If the US bitcoin foundation continues down its path of cosying up to politicians and bankers while removing core aspects of bitcoin, that is exactly what will happen. I can't imagine it being particularly pretty if it does though.
BTW there are serious, active negotiation efforts underway to significantly reform the Foundation structure and excessive US influence. If those efforts fail, it is a certainty that a decentralized alliance will emerge as a viable alternative. Any public move from the current Foundation in support of "validation" or "tainting" will accelerate the current schism and isolate the USA from the rest of the world. Read between the lines of this op-ed by Aaron Koenig:
http://bitcoinmagazine.com/7637/how-to-decentralise-the-bitcoin-foundation/
November 15, 2013, 11:56:08 AM
a "foundation" is a word used which requires registration to a country. alot of people seen it early on that as soon as bitcoin foundation registered itself it became tied to the US.
i seek that if the bitcoin foundation becomes abolished and a better place was chosen then using a word such as a 'consortium' be used.
EG W3C, which does not need official bureaucratic registration to a particular country
also using non-geographics TLD would avoid future problems too, thus avoiding future issues.
EG suppose choosing switzerland and then that countries AMLKYC reg's changed. it would be better to have bitcoin as non-geographical as possible so that the only regulations that a country could apply are simply to the exchanges that touch that countries FIAT
i seek that if the bitcoin foundation becomes abolished and a better place was chosen then using a word such as a 'consortium' be used.
EG W3C, which does not need official bureaucratic registration to a particular country
also using non-geographics TLD would avoid future problems too, thus avoiding future issues.
EG suppose choosing switzerland and then that countries AMLKYC reg's changed. it would be better to have bitcoin as non-geographical as possible so that the only regulations that a country could apply are simply to the exchanges that touch that countries FIAT
November 15, 2013, 11:55:12 AM
Agreed, but who has the rights on the bitcoin.org website?
I don't see how that matters. org TLD is very much USA, a European Bitcoin Foundation could use an .eu domain, a Chinese Bitcoin Foundation would use .cn, and so on... November 15, 2013, 11:51:29 AM
Why not multiple "bitcoin foundations" in different parts of the world?
Decentralization makes more sense than moving a centralized organization around.
An European Bitcoin Foundation could be based in Switzerland of course.
Decentralization makes more sense than moving a centralized organization around.
An European Bitcoin Foundation could be based in Switzerland of course.
Agreed, but who has the rights on the bitcoin.org website?
Regards,
lilpirata79
November 15, 2013, 11:49:08 AM
Why not multiple "bitcoin foundations" in different parts of the world?
Decentralization makes more sense than moving a centralized organization around.
An European Bitcoin Foundation could be based in Switzerland of course.
Decentralization makes more sense than moving a centralized organization around.
An European Bitcoin Foundation could be based in Switzerland of course.
November 15, 2013, 11:10:42 AM
It should be ignored 
November 15, 2013, 11:07:58 AM
Have a read of the link, Bitcoin will go the same way.
http://online.wsj.com/news/article_email/SB10001424052702303559504579198370113163530-lMyQjAxMTAzMDEwNTExNDUyWj
http://online.wsj.com/news/article_email/SB10001424052702303559504579198370113163530-lMyQjAxMTAzMDEwNTExNDUyWj
November 15, 2013, 10:49:43 AM
i'd like to see some live debates on youtube for these hard issues
lots of polling the community by the Foundation before they decide anything
and draw up a constitution, outlining the core values of the community
I feel the foundation is no longer representing the communities interest, they simply want to do wtv is necessary to get bitcoin "approved for mainstream use", when it seem clear to me that the community could not care less about conforming to the US rules even if it would make us all rich, we have values and they are not for sale! the Foundation MUST reflect that
lots of polling the community by the Foundation before they decide anything
and draw up a constitution, outlining the core values of the community
I feel the foundation is no longer representing the communities interest, they simply want to do wtv is necessary to get bitcoin "approved for mainstream use", when it seem clear to me that the community could not care less about conforming to the US rules even if it would make us all rich, we have values and they are not for sale! the Foundation MUST reflect that
November 15, 2013, 10:48:18 AM
How about we get rid of the problem instead of probably solving it temporary ?
November 15, 2013, 10:42:59 AM
Bitcoin and Bitcoin Foundation should not be supporters of the establishment.
November 15, 2013, 10:37:47 AM
AND Members in bitcointalk should have rights to vote on every big issue of foundation .
November 15, 2013, 10:35:01 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 ?
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 ?
Jump to: