Topic: The Bitcoin Foundation is TOXIC and must dissolve, plus a call to action - page 6. (Read 24469 times)

Got to agree that the vulnerable point is still the exchange from bitcoin to Fiat. That's where the regulatory impact is clear -- and real. Obviously, people could choose to ignore this and just take what comes -- which I agree seems seems short-sighted -- or they could find smart people  who are looking out for Bitcoin's future to represent the interests of the community. I have no opinion on whether or not the Bitcoin Foundation is that organization. However, it's very clear that there are divergent points of view and having a discussion about them publicly can only be a good thing -- i.e. I disagree with your comment about "arguing on a forum..." has no impact.

With respect to representation, the issues are clearly complex and require more than part-time volunteers -- both on the technology and the regulatory side. Someone has to pay for that, which means some sort of trade group unless Bill Gates or Warren Buffet take a starring role. Right now, it's clear that the only people stumping up significant chunks of money are the for-profit organizations with a vested interest -- which is one reason why the initial board appeared so incestuous. To be fair, Peter deserves Kudos for stepping down -- and someone else probably should step down as well hint hint. Having said that, if you eliminate two of the major funders from the board, you have to ask yourself who steps in to replace them if not other CEO's of for-profit operations -- and probably VC backed ones at that? This brings me back to my first point about the need/value of a public discussion of where should/could the Bitcoin Foundation go from here.

When I started looking into Bitcoin a month or so ago, I was really excited about the potential. Now what I see is Bitcoin's "Wild West" level of development and the coordination problems inherent in any growth strategy. For a distributed network like Bitcoin with multiple interest groups, a forum like this one is an essential place to discuss and coordinate opinions on how to move forward -- regulatory and developmental Github if you will.

Just my $.02.

Then donations from individual users will fall to ZERO BTC. Who would want to send money to be used for a lawyer? In this event Peter Vessenes will be covering the lawyer's bill from his own pocket or from the soon-to-be-dried funds available at Bitcoin Foundation (at the expense of programmers).

What should be noted is that Peter Vessenes spoke on behalf of himself + maybe a few other persons only. He neither represents you (you did not give him the power of attorney) nor me (I didn't give the power of attorney) nor thousands of other Bitcoin users.


Please someone do this. 100% of donations should go for the client development + similar. 0% should go for politics (politics is anti-business).

This needs to be said more often.  Such pieces of shit, really.

SOME of you guys have little to no clue about real world stuff..

if you want bitcoin to fiat conversions then you have to accept that things need regulating. and if you want more relaxed regulations such as cheaper regulatory licensing to allow small businesses have the ability to compete against the centralised giants then that requires lobbying.

those that dont want lobbying or regulations. give me your FIAT and stop using it. find other methods of dealing with bitcoin EG trading bitcoins for bread, milk, meat and veg. dont touch the FIAT if you want a free market.

that is the simple answer.

regulations will not/have not made bitcoin owned by governments, what regulations do though is ensure that FIAT transactions are traceable, which is the same laws that have been around for years. the regulations have not changed.

bitcoin is not money. remember that. FIAT is money. and the government regulations are about FIAT.
you know the coins and bank notes with £$ symbols on them, they are trademarks of their respective governments/countries.
$ is a trademark of the US governments. £ is the trademark of the UK government. its their property so they have the rights to licence it however they please.

if you trade milk for bread that is not making a profit, due to the fact that with bartering it is a straight swap. but if you then sell the swapped item back to FIAT they will then want to know about this sudden appearance of their property.

so make your own personal decisions, do you want some lobbying to make it more fair and cheaper to offer bitcoin/fiat exchanges or will you get out of the basement and start up grocery stores to trade and barter bitcoins for other items.

arguing on a forum is just whispers that can be ignored if you think that just revoking membership from your sofa cushion will change anything.

bitcoin can never be owned by any sole person/entity/business... because bitcoin is not a single thing. the bitcoin is the blockchain, which can never be taken away.

if the government were to buy up or take ownership of the trademark "bitcoin" that is fine too.. it does not affect the blockchain, all it means is we rename the blockchain currency satoshi's or something else, within minutes we are back in business without any damage.

so stop getting hysterical about government taking over bitcoin.
if the government wanted to take a 20% cut of virtual currency(which is impossible). then make some game-bots to make billions upon billions of game gold in zynga, world of warcraft, etc and send that to the government as a form of protest, while still "paying them".. they will soon see that the value they get given is not as valuable as what we hold. and will soon learn to work with us, instead of against us.

the new hampshire project is working in the right direction, so is the sea-steading projects, actually speaking to government departments to make it easier to trade freely. which will surprisingly make their beloved FIAT move more freely from bank account to bank account. rather then being hoarded in secret off shore accounts.

think about the big picture guys and stop getting hysterical about "government is out to get us" .. seriously arguing on a forum wont change the laws for our benefit and ignoring the laws that have been around for many many years wont benefit you either.

I'm with you and they can keep my one year subscription, I only wanted to support Gavin and his team, but he's doing an awful job lately.

https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/2577

Isn't this a Foundation issue better discussed among the membership than in open forum? TBF represents TBF interests. They do not represent the interests of all users. TBF represents a subset of American users that have donated to be a part of that group. TBF has its own forum where members can discuss Foundation interests which obviously don't coincide with the interests of all users or everyone would be a member. Soliciting involvement from non members is pointless because they already don't believe TBF represents them or they would have joined.

I know that. That's why I mentioned it.

Developer and tester bandwidth is kind of the elephant in the room for bitcoin, especially as the system grows. Gavin admits this, too (see for example http://www.cio.de/_misc/article/printoverview/index.cfm?pid=156&pk=2916242&op=lst ).
We really can't expect developers for a worldwide online currency to do their work out of altruism.

If a new bitcoin organization is just about politics and business and not development I certainly wouldn't support it.

"democratically-constituted umbrella organization" , that would be just as bad as a King (King Gavin that you rail against?)
democracy is tyranny of the majority, just as bad as a dictatorship\

no central authority is needed, no alliance with the US National government agencies is needed

Agreeing hard. I'm smolderingly new, but it makes sense for an org as by design yuppy and libtard friendly seeming as that to be sending a lobbyist to washington. It makes my stomach turn, but while these powers still exist, what other lip service fake white flag could be put up to attempt to delay or prevent raids on miners?
I can tell you from experience that when you occupy land the state doesn't want you to occupy, they truly will riotcop your ass and equipment into the ground. If playing the dumb game as a strategy succeeds, perhaps fedreserve patriots will simply look away instead of literally bombing us.

Well elections are coming up. If you feel so strongly, you could run for the board. You do after all have some vote if you're a member.

If you want it to disappear, ignore it.

I think the Bitcoin Foundation openly states that all they intend to do on that level is to pay Gavin a salary, not to fund client development and testing. You're right that any other organization should make it a priority but not on the same terms e.g."Pay developer X a salary"

Everytime i hear the Bitcoin Foundation talking about regulating Bitcoin..
http://imgur.com/H4TfQNp

If you are to start some new Bitcoin community-driven organization, please make it one of the priorities to fund client development and testing. I don't see the Bitcoin Foundation doing this enough.

Without trying to point out the obviousness here.. but Bitcoin doesn't need to start lobbying, our currency is stronger... ignore the state and let them come to us ! . . then tell them, if they want our money, they better start proving for it in competition with other providers like everyone else has to and not use force.

Look on the bright side, you can still get your moneys worth by using the "Bitcoin Foundation Lifetime member" avatar

I think it's this one right? (That's worth $3000 right?)

There are any number of ways to distance a btc quantity from the last known IP and associated address(es). Peter knows this as do most developers including the OP I would suspect. I don't understand your objection. I consider what Peter et. al. are doing as baby talking to non-bitcoiners. They need to speak with small words to small minds. Regulation is IMPOSSIBLE with Bitcoin in the context they are discussing. All they want to do is open the door of acceptance by bowing to the naked emperor. I am sure they are having a good laugh about it behind closed doors as should the OP.

Do what you want. It doesn't matter. Governments will attempt to regulate Bitcoin no matter what anyone says. They will fail no matter what anyone does. It's like catching a cold, you just chill out and let it run its course.

Peter Vessenes INVENTED bitlaundry.com. I created bitcoinlaundry.com unaware of its existence. Later, Peter offered the site and code for sale, and I bought it.

Teaser quote from an upcoming magazine article where I'm interviewed:

Mike,
are you saying that Vessenes used your service to launder bitcoins before he engaged in his regulatory escapades?

I paid 25 BTC right at the beginning for a life membership, so it was around that level.

But honestly I don't care about the money a single bit. Sure, I could use it for better things, but whatever. I *do* care about others getting theirs back, but hey, if leaving $1m of BTC/USD value in Treasurer Peter Sellout Vessenes's pocket is the price of rapidly excising this malignant tumor from the body of the Bitcoin community, well, I can't speak for others, but it's a price *I'm* willing to pay.