Topic: The Bitcoin Foundation Needs To Be Disbanded & Done Away With (Read 1029 times)

make your own foundation and outcompete them.

anything else is useless bitching and moaning.

one crippling problem with libertarian movements is they generally lack organization because by design the advocates are generally speaking anti-social(ist?). as a movement attracts more attention to itself questions from the public arise. this is when the sociopaths enter the stage and assume authority. is there a way to organize while being decentralized or is that a paradox?

i believe this forum addresses the above question but is not the formation of a forum a form of centralization? what would happen to the crypto community if it were compromised?

I by no means like or support the Bitcoin Foundation. Personally, I'd swear most of them are there for the ride and have done absolutely nothing for Bitcoin is general except rake in money from morons who want to join their exclusive 'club'. Anyway, that being said, I'd say what your suggesting is too much of a conspiracy theory notion for me to believe it. If the government truly wanted to regulate it, they could just come up with an excuse (ie. BTC used for money laundering/supporting terrorism etc) and hence it must be regulated. Much easier and convincing then hiring people onto the Foundation and then 'exposing' them for scumbags.

+ no 1 can disband them.... i mean thats all kids talk

Just discredit/ignore them completely. Dont even report anything they do or pay any attention to them.

if theyre really as bad as all that why disband them when you can simply discredit them

Well, that's all good, but that's to say that Syrians burning a Flag would actually harm the Country. Nevertheless, they are starting to give us a bad image and any effort to disband them or shift the attention to another group or system as "The Face of Bitcoin" wou7ld be great

This is true. No centralized authority, even one named directly as the "official" Bitcoin Foundation, can have any true effect except for perhaps indirectly in the following scenario that I could see occuring:

Since Bitcoin has no "arms" to tie behind its back (being decentralized), unscrupulous individuals create an "arm" to grab by creating and naming a foundation as the "central authority" of Bitcoin (as has been done with the Bitcoin Foundation). Then they proceed to plant criminals and illegal activities within this organization. The next step is they "discover" this and arrest this planted group and say that Bitcoin is bad/illegal and the government should then regulate it. In this manner, there could then be an artificially created "reason to regulate bitcoin" because the very "head organization was corrupt".

By this, they could indirectly create regulation. But I guess you can't really stop corrupt governments/entities from being corrupt so it may happen. It wouldn't stop Bitcoin anyway, but may slow its adoption by FUD that it instills in the population and government officials (all created intentionally for this purpose of course). The media would be all over that sort of thing and 99% of the population would believe that because their favorite corrupt TV media station reported it.

This would be the reason the group should be eliminated.

True, people should just ignore TBF and just support decentralized efforts to support the currency and the people who're actually making a difference (people actively engaged in getting merchant adoption, bitcoin-accepting merchants, bitcoin "evangelists", etc)

The Foundation has lost all sense of transparency and even left the core devs without any sort of stable funding. This has to stop

I'm curious why people think centralized efforts and pooling of resources somehow "violates" some fundamental principle of Bitcoin.  The foundation can not hurt Bitcoin. The foundation can not "run" Bitcoin. Centralized efforts and decentralized efforts are orthogonal to each other -- both can exist without affecting the other.

The foundation is, at worst, a paper tiger. Having the foundation as "a central target" would amount to nothing but a decoy -- the foundation is not Bitcoin. 

If I pay a developer's salary, or 5 developers salaries, does that make me a centralized entity?  What if theymos used donated funds to pay Bitcoin core devs? Would he be a centralized entity? Of course not.

No need to disband it if people simply ignore it. The bit coin foundation is irrelevant. No need to give them any relevance by trying to disband them.

The Bitcoin Foundation needs to be disbanded.  I certainly didn't vote on having a Foundation and I don't think many/any of us did. It violates the entire principal of decentralization.

A centralized entity such as the Bitcoin Foundation will only try to introduce centralized solutions to a decentralized technology, and it can become a target for governments and corruption and manipulation.

I suspect The Bitcoin Foundation has motives counter to the purpose of Bitcoin itself.  It wouldn't surprise me if goverments are trying to plant people inside this Foundation to alter its course and attempt to gain a foothold on how Bitcoin develops.

Without the Foundation there is no central target, which is how it is supposed to be.

The next step is: How is this accomplished?



While the Foundation is irrelevant and one could generally ignore it, I could see this one scenario occurring:

Since Bitcoin has no "arms" to tie behind its back (being decentralized), unscrupulous individuals create an "arm" to grab by creating and naming a foundation as the "central authority" of Bitcoin (as has been done with the Bitcoin Foundation). Then they proceed to plant criminals and illegal activities within this organization. The next step is they "discover" this and arrest this planted group and say that Bitcoin is bad/illegal and the government should then regulate it. In this manner, there could then be an artificially created "reason to regulate bitcoin" because the very "head organization was corrupt".

By this, they could indirectly create regulation. But I guess you can't really stop corrupt governments/entities from being corrupt so it may happen. It wouldn't stop Bitcoin anyway, but may slow its adoption by FUD that it instills in the population and government officials (all created intentionally for this purpose of course). The media would be all over that sort of thing and 99% of the population would believe that because their favorite corrupt TV media station reported it.

This would be the reason the group should be eliminated. We should have no organization creating a false image of Bitcoin by acting in its name.