Topic: Very severe blow to bitcoin - page 2. (Read 8814 times)

Olivier Janssens was completely right on looking for alternative to the foundation.

That makes sense since a DAC will provide an incentive to user in that ecosystem strangely enough even though Bitcoin is a new and emerging technology its going through another transition phase towards these 2.0 Variants so in the future it may be possible to have decentralized organizations in charge to fund projects.

Interesting stuff from a wired article on DAC's
http://www.wired.com/2014/07/inside-dark-wallet/

Taaki goes on to describe the bitcoin anarchist’s elusive ideal: decentralized, autonomous corporations whose equity is tracked in the bitcoin blockchain rather than in legal contracts and whose funds are held at a bitcoin address controlled in part by every stakeholder. With tricks like multisignature transactions, it’s theoretically possible to create accounts in which thousands of people control a pool of bitcoins simultaneously with no leader, and coins can only be moved when some majority agrees to cryptographically sign a transaction.

In that future, math and consensus, not violence, might govern the control of resources. The result, as Taaki describes it, would be a new society where code replaces courts and men with guns as the arbiter of civilization. “We have new tools, a new class of mathematical contracts, based on the incorruptible rules of the cosmos,” he says, his voice resonating through the empty building.

It was Andreas who said that. Gavin apparently disputed his claim.

If the mission of the BF was limited to maintaining the software and coordinating protocol changes, a closed management might be justifiable.  

However, the BF was created with the goal of keeping its founders in control of the Bitcoin "industry", e.g. by endorsing or blacklisting exchanges and other bitcoin ventures, by being the obvious representatives of the community for the media and in negotiations with the government, by running and being keynote speakers at bitcoin conferences, and so on.  Wanting to do that with a closed-club structure is totally evil, no matter what one thinks of bitcoin.  

The BF has in the past endorsed MtGOX, and given the 1984 treatment to bitcoiners who would not cooperate with the club, like Mircea Popescu and the Chinese exchange owners other than Bobby Lee.

If someone decided to corner the Bitcoin "industry" for his own profit, he should begin by buying his way into the top ranks of the BF.  Then he could even create his own centralized altcoin to compete with bitcoin, and the BF would not even whisper a "but-but-but...".

I think that as blockchain technology develops, it will become possible to design decentralized autonomous organizations that are more efficient than any traditional structure. Paying Gavin does not require a human middleman, at the very least.

In any event, Andreas' criticism was lack of transparency, not that the organization is centralized. I don't see how more transparency would make the Foundation less efficient. They shouldn't be planning the types of things that would fail under public scrutiny.

Economical, the BF has not much saying anyway, comparing it to a king in a kingdom is a faulty comparison. The BF is more a coordinator than a king.

A protocol can work very well decentralized. But an organization can't work decentralized in an efficient manner. Sure bitcoin can also develop if everyone does their own thing, but it will take longer.

Lets assume the Bitcoin Foundation members decided to hire an additional developper and then had to vote for the right person.
In fact Gavin Anderson would have to work with that person the most. So wouldn't it be right that he can choose the person?

Reather than letting hundrets of people around the world voting for someone that they might not even know?

Democracy is good, but it has disadvantages and decentralization has it's limits.

Well, I don't know if it was him, but the invention of WWW was a bit more than that.  It looks trivial in retrospect, but it took years to be invented.  like using \n to separate lines in files, instead of fixed-length records; or many other great inventions.  You know the story of the egg of Columbus?

I used the internet for 10-12 years before WWW.  It was basically FTP, Telnet (remote lohin), SMTP (email) and USENET (a big set of forums).  You used FTP to download a text file, read it using you favorite editor (emacs, 'more', 'cat', whatever); if it referenced another remote file you entered its location and name into FTP, manually, and repeated.  

I used briefly Hypercard on Macintosh, a rudimentary hyperlink system; but links were limited to "stacks of cards" (Hypercard files) on the same machine.  And they were unportable outsdie the Macs.  

When WWW came out, it had several things that worked together, that made it revolutionary and an instant succes: the (then-)standardized and (then-)simple and (then-)efficient platform-independent HTML document format (at the time, not even text files were easily ported between Unix, Mac and Windows);  "logical" markup, instead of "physical", that would allow the same document to be read in any machine, with any screen resolution and size, and any font of any size; easily embedded images;  hyperlinks and the HTTP protocol to fetch a file automatically by clicking on the link;  and the concept of WWW files being served to absolutely any requesting machines, without need for registration or login and without setting up a "session".  (Public FTP servers were available at some sites but they still required a formal login as "guest").  And the concept of a "WWW browser" that would display HTML and fetch HTTP links without the users having to learn any commands.  And a FREE serviceable borwser -- not Andreessen's Netscape, which came out years later, but a thing caled Mosaic that had been written by the National Center for Supercomputer Applications (NCSA), which IIRC was the browser used at CERN.

Netscape was an improved and expanded version of Mosaic and a commercial or semi-comercial product, but I don't recall it having contributed any notable innovations.  Perhaps Javascript, and/or WYSIWYG editing of HTML files, and/or secure HTTP?  (But the public-key crypto protocols that made secure HTTP possible were not Netscape's invention.)

I don't know if Andreessen's made much money with Netscape; IIRC he made his millions later, as manager or something of eBay.  Or did I get it backwards?
[/quote]

Tim Berners Lee who runs around telling journalists he invented the internet runs (in part) W3C.  They try to make things standard - it just doesn't work.  The community does what they like despite any standards authority.  Finally, the standards authority adjusts the standards down to what those in the community are doing.  It is a real apple cart / donkey thing.  

btw - Berners Lee didn't even invent the hyperlink, which more or less started it all going.  The only thing Berners Lee did, was to say: "don't call me and ask me what encoding I'll use, if you go on my network (www), then just use "  That's it.  He merely published his version of a hyperlink encoding to be used on his network www.  Then everyone used that one as a
default.  Now he likes to run around taking credit for the entire Internet.  He actually did almost nothing.

Conversely, our friend Marc Andreesen built an awesome browser which made using the Internet really easy.  Andreesen doesn't go around telling journalists he invented the Internet but did 1000X what Berners Lee did to get it going.  

That's why Berners Lee works at a bullshit org like W3C and Andreesen is going very cool cutting edge VC shit. 

TBF really is a very opaque entity, especially considering how transparent the blockchain makes sending money.

IMO there should be some kind of forum where the devs can meet and discuss ideas as to how to improve bitcoin and the protocol and respond to potential attacks, but I don't think TBF is the right one. 

Good slam.  I approve!  You know what they say: "It's hard to be humble when one is perfect in every way."


I need to finally get around to researching Mastercoin one of these days (and, unfortunately, understanding the players and the relationships they form is a key part of a full understanding.)

From what little I've run across, it seems like it might be associated with Todd's concept of a 'generic timestamping system' which could be used for many purposes (including monetary systems.)  That is a really interesting and potentially very valuable thing.  If such a thing develops and is implementable I would say that Bitcoin has truly succeeded sparking a revolution.

I don't know much about the W3C, but it seems to be respected by everybody EXCEPT Microsoft, who has always ignored standards.

Reminds me of W3C who held themselves out to be the supreme authority on what HTML is.  Everyone (Microsoft) ignored their commandments and just carried on doing it the way they like.  W3C is totally marginalized by the fact that the community will do what works and what they like - without regard to what some central authority thinks.  Trying to impose ideals on others tends to be met with raging failure.

But in the past month, this neighborhood certainly has not deterred bitcoin trading volume in the market. Although the future is unknown, bitcoin prices have been trending up over the last month.

As the number of regulatory issues being discussed, many are wondering what it will do to the value of bitcoin. BTC did not operate in a vacuum. Regulatory decisions that will affect the price of bitcoin. The question is: will it help or hurt the value?

Why do people always look to one source for leadership? Is this because we are all programmed to be slaves under kingly rule.

Who is the foundation anyway? How do they own the Bitcoin Network? Bitcoin needs to stay decentralized in all aspects. We all know what happens when there is too much concentration of power in any one thing. Greed, corruption, fraud, abuse......

Just ignore the foundation and continue doing what we do here.

I read their bylaws a while ago.  IIRC they gave the board of directors total power, including changing the bylaws without even telling the ordinary members.  Perhaps I misread, you'd better check. (But one is not a true bitcoiner if one does not give one's bitcoins to a bitcoin outfit before reading the contract, ain't that so?  )

The market disagrees with the thread title, and from what I gather most of the BTC community doesn't give a hoot about the foundation.

But you guys should listen to this speech given by Andreas not too long ago, if you haven't heard it already, about why regulation doesn't work in the financial industry.

Its brilliant and should be required listening for modern day earth citizens.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tgEDOBgYg-g

I think there is a need for the Bitcoin Foundation. That's why I recently joined as a member.
I think it's the right place to pay the coredeveloper(s) by a member-fee.

So the main purpose is get some (more than 1 hopefully soon) fulltime developers working with the code and as project managers.

Besides that there is also a need for marketing, that's not existent at the moment. imho
This could be financed through member-fees too, if there are enough.
Or the foundation could sell high quality promotion items. The ones I found where kinda cheap.

I think we don't want a big "waterhead", but just having nothing would mean to run like a headless chicken.

As a benefit for members they should be able to vote. There should be regular online-votings about unimportant things at first to find out what people expect from the foundation to do.

To have such a process could be vital to a coordinated and directed support reather than just a chaotic ammount of comments in maillists, opinions in boards and github-comments.

Ok. Got it. You were the first. Cool.

Moving on to things of greater import, what more info exists of BP being cast off the 'Mastercoin Board' (whatever the hell that is)?

Ya, sure, AFTER the Bitcoin Foundation was created (and nearly immediately proved a disaster), AND after a few intrepid people pushed out into the realm of negativity THEN lots of people piled on.  Big deal.  That's usually how it works.  Same thing happened with Mike Hearn and his various bullshit.