Topic: The EFF's damage to Bitcoin continues. (Read 13270 times)

cause almost everyone is a leftist there

Ok, The EFF has been in DC and San Fran for a long time. I think it's getting to them.

reddit is shitty for different reasons

My intention here was not to stir up ill-feelings towards the EFF, despite my obvious consternation. They are invaluable on many fronts, and the Bitcoin community may quite likely rely on their assistance in future.

I'll even begrudgingly grant that their failure to put forth their own stance on Bitcoin in a way that didn't appear like a more general warning against it, is mostly a function of them not having the resources to take on this particular battle.

I suspect recent media reports that Wikileaks is considered an 'enemy of the State' are not accurate representations of the US gov position - but it does seem incongruous for them to advocate for others to directly support Wikileaks, whilst simultaneously giving a negative portrayal of the risks for supporting/using Bitcoin:  I haven't seen 'possible subject role' or 'untested legal concerns' type statements re Wikileaks.  In the scheme of things, I can see that support for government transparency and media freedom are likely to be considered by many to be more important and pressing than the monetary freedom we in the Bitcoin community generally espouse.

A good way forward I think would be for someone to present a case for the EFF to accept donations via a Bitcoin intermediary such as Bitpay or Paysius.
Someone from one of those intermediaries would probably be best placed to do that.

They have one guy in DC, the rest are in San Fran.

e-gold worked with virtual goal and the trust that someone was holding your fractional gold bar. It dealt with fiat currencies in exchange for gold. My point is that the e-gold people relied on some technicalities thinking it would keep them out of trouble and jail. It seems others didn't agree with their hope in technicalities.

Don't underestimate the motivation and lack of understanding of financial regulators.

I think it's more part of the lifecycle of how edgy ideas, products and even people become subsumed into the mainstream. Though still perceived as edgy, their interests become more in line with the status quo than with the outliers they were once associated with.

The EFF has been in DC for a long time. I think it's getting to them.

I'm quite sure. e-gold dealt directly with fiat. Bitcoin has *nothing* to do with fiat. Someone like MtGox has to be concerned, but that's an entirely separate issue.

They used to push envelopes:


I'm not buying the EFF's explanations. I think they made an economic decision in order to protect their current interests and relationships but don't wish to say so publicly.

Probably so, but they should just pack it up if they are afraid to be on the frontier.

Very this.  The EFF isn't here to push the envelope themselves.  They're here to advocate (and sometimes provide legal assistance for) rights and free speech in the context of the internet and high tech, on the behalf of others.

It's very unlikely that they'd take a public position on bitcoin without an actual legal case.  It's disappointing, but not surprising, that they wouldn't want to be that case.

That's good. If they won't use them, then will they help us use them?

They don't accept bitcoin donations, but will they try to defend someone that used Bitcoin and/or accepted bitcoin donations?
Someone should ask them this question.

Thank you EFF.
At this point in the adoption curve we are all better off with a slower growth.  Right? 

Actually i think they are afraid, rather than cooperating with authorities.
They do not want to touch anything with undefined legal status

They all had to ramp down because their default unit of account is also a legal instrument bound by more regulations than a shark has teeth. Bitcoin doesn't suffer that shortcoming.

The fact is, the banking powers and their biggest vassal, the US government, will have little interest in calling attention to Bitcoin. If they communicate in any way, shape or form that Bitcoin is a threat, it will undermine their own game and strengthen Bitcoin's status as a currency and a commodity.

The EFF is just afraid of ticking off Paypal, Visa and Mastercard by taking bitcoin. IOW, they don't want to tick off the banks. They're not scared of the government. They've taken them to court frequently.

Bitcoin will continue to suffer the sneaky propaganda and disinfo tactics that are employed when something is to be marginalized. Expect a huge media splash about pedophiles or white slavery involving Bitcoin down the road, not a legal case.

No it won't! TBF will protect us.

Are you sure about that? The e-gold people felt the same way until the US treasury arrested them and threatened them with money laundering. Here's a fine summary of the situation, http://stakeventures.com/articles/2008/07/22/the-man-finally-brought-e-gold-down

My guess is that this situation is exactly what the EFF is nervous about. They can continue to sue the NSA and US Government all day long on fundamental freedom rights. But taking on the banking regulation industry is an entirely different thing. Just because bitcoins use cryptography and mostly exist on the Internet, doesn't mean it's an "electronic frontier" anything. It's just a form of currency. Some places use sheep (as in the livestock) as currency.

Stripe, dwolla, and paypal all took on the banking regulation industry with wide-eyed plans to revolutionize how people do banking. And now look, each one of them has been coerced into accepting the common regulations and acting more like a bank. Look at MtGox and Intersango. They both have to honor banking regulations or they get shut down. "Know your customer" and anti-fraud regulations are an unforgiving bitch.

As soon as the treasury and their enforcement regimes wake up to bitcoins, or find evidence of heavy illegal activity with bitcoins, you can be sure the multi-pronged attack will make bitcoins sure seem illegal. None of this will matter until there is a court case precedent (at least in the US) stating bitcoins are legal or illegal as a currency.

The global banking world doesn't like competition. You can be sure when the eye of sauron gazes on bitcoin, it will separate the adults from the children quickly.

According to their latest available annual report, https://www.eff.org/files/eff-2009-2010-annual-report.pdf, they have no government funding of any kind. And according to charity navigator, http://www.charitynavigator.org/index.cfm?bay=search.summary&orgid=7576, this was true for 2011 too.

Let's pit you against their lawyers, then, and see who knows more about this sort of thing.