mikegogulski



Offline



Activity: 360

Merit: 250









Sr. MemberActivity: 360Merit: 250 The Bitcoin Foundation is TOXIC and must dissolve, plus a call to action May 19, 2013, 01:00:55 PM #1



"Outgoing" Bitcoin Foundation Executive Director Peter Vessenes, aka "vess" here, @vessenes on Twitter, states in video from Bitcoin 2013 (



https://twitter.com/mikegogulski/status/335820053926797312



As I wrote:

Quote #BitcoinFoundation is DEAD TO ME. Lobbyists? Fuck you @Vessenes shyster sellout! Give my BTC 25 back! http://ow.ly/lai8e #Bitcoin2013

Then:

Quote Is that why you sold me http://app.bitlaundry.com/ @vessenes? So you could look squeaky clean while cozying up to politicians?#Bitcoin2013 ( https://twitter.com/mikegogulski/status/335822417400324097

And:

Quote I got into #Bitcoin to improve this miserable planet and ESCAPE the iron grip of privileged moneyed interests, not JOIN THEM! #Bitcoin2013

And:

Quote And @Vessenes sues @MtGox for $75m. Send the king's swordsmen! I need more money! #Bitcoin2013 #Bitcoin #betrayal #rat #statist #sellout

Plenty more follows in my tweet stream, and includes a conversation with Smári McCarthy of the International (formerly Icelandic) Modern Media Institute (



I provided more of my reasoning (after a nice barbiturates-and-vodka cocktail and a bit of sleep) on Google+, in comments on Declan McCullagh's article (



Quote



+Jon Matonis Despite my rantings, for me it's not about purity either, but about the Foundation running off in a direction starkly counter to the motivations of a good many members, without any consultation at all. I believe I also heard +Peter Vessenes say, in that opening pitch, that there would be a Bitcoin Foundation members' meeting during the conference. I guess that means that I'll be getting an invitation with a teleconference number soon(?).



+Jerry Brito and +Declan McCullagh Yes, the exchanges are a vulnerable point, almost a "systempunkt" in John Robb's terminology, the resiliency of the underlying protocol aside. At the same time, it's already widely recognized that the best solutions to that sort of risk in the Bitcoin ecosystem involve peer-to-peer fiat/BTC exchange on the lines of #bitcoin-otc, localbitcoins.com and/or some kind of price discovery and exchange mechanism, with market actor reputation tracking, working in distributed fashion either in the BTC blockchain itself or as part of some kind of complementary system based roughly on the same principles. It's into those kinds of solutions that I'd like to see funding from whatever replaces the now toxic Bitcoin foundation and where I'd like to see the massive amounts of human energy that will otherwise be sucked into the interdimensional tentacle-monster maelstrom of KYC/AML/FinCEN/FATF/make-it-play-in-Peoria compliance (vendor AND customer side) spent.



As +Nick Weaver alludes to, Bitcoin really is fundamentally incompatible with the pharaonic pyramids of the legacy banking system, or, in my parting words from last night, sending Bitcoin to DC is like sending My Little Pony to the veterinarian. Even though we lot on this thread may share similar ideas about the ideal end state for Bitcoin, I think we all agree that the means to reach those ends are important as well. There is clear disagreement about what sorts of means are the most efficient in bringing us all to shiny happy crypto-ponycoin utopia, and that's fine. I'm asking folks to consider the entire picture very carefully, and especially not with America-centric blinders on.



I could go on to complain (but won't do so here, hehe) that the Bitcoin core dev team -- and, by extension, the Foundation which pays +Gavin Andresen -- are, in my opinion, spending a disproportionate amount of time/energy on work which primarily benefits a small number of mining pool operators (taken collectively, another systempunkt!) and on work which tends more and more to support centralized and institutionalized structures such as BitPay and BitInstant -- with all due respect to those teams -- and to toward the deprioritization of work support independent merchants and the actual peer-to-peer future. Perhaps this is simply a disagreement regarding how to sequence priorities, but I can't help but think it points to the same sort of issues I mention above, which actually turn out to be key ones as indicated by others.



+Jerry Brito "Allowed" is a hobgoblin. Bitcoin doesn't need permission from the existing state/corporate financial system. In fact, it presents an existential threat to both. Fine, though, send some "diplomats" out to spread confusion in the enemy's ranks.



And to +Jeffrey Tucker, it is indeed sad that freedom itself is simply unthinkable, where in a proper society it would be the reflexive, unconsidered default posture and where that society would react swiftly and forcefully to deviations from its principles. Alas, even with several thousand years of thought and experience to guide us, we have not yet collectively made the freedom posture the default.



(https://plus.google.com/u/1/112961607570158342254/posts/YLe37k7vonQ) TL;DR: Sending Bitcoin to DC is like sending My Little Pony to the veterinarian.+Jon Matonis Despite my rantings, for me it's not about purity either, but about the Foundation running off in a direction starkly counter to the motivations of a good many members, without any consultation at all. I believe I also heard +Peter Vessenes say, in that opening pitch, that there would be a Bitcoin Foundation members' meeting during the conference. I guess that means that I'll be getting an invitation with a teleconference number soon(?).+Jerry Brito and +Declan McCullagh Yes, the exchanges are a vulnerable point, almost a "systempunkt" in John Robb's terminology, the resiliency of the underlying protocol aside. At the same time, it's already widely recognized that the best solutions to that sort of risk in the Bitcoin ecosystem involve peer-to-peer fiat/BTC exchange on the lines of #bitcoin-otc, localbitcoins.com and/or some kind of price discovery and exchange mechanism, with market actor reputation tracking, working in distributed fashion either in the BTC blockchain itself or as part of some kind of complementary system based roughly on the same principles. It's into those kinds of solutions that I'd like to see funding from whatever replaces the now toxic Bitcoin foundation and where I'd like to see the massive amounts of human energy that will otherwise be sucked into the interdimensional tentacle-monster maelstrom of KYC/AML/FinCEN/FATF/make-it-play-in-Peoria compliance (vendor AND customer side) spent.As +Nick Weaver alludes to, Bitcoin really is fundamentally incompatible with the pharaonic pyramids of the legacy banking system, or, in my parting words from last night, sending Bitcoin to DC is like sending My Little Pony to the veterinarian. Even though we lot on this thread may share similar ideas about the ideal end state for Bitcoin, I think we all agree that the means to reach those ends are important as well. There is clear disagreement about what sorts of means are the most efficient in bringing us all to shiny happy crypto-ponycoin utopia, and that's fine. I'm asking folks to consider the entire picture very carefully, and especially not with America-centric blinders on.I could go on to complain (but won't do so here, hehe) that the Bitcoin core dev team -- and, by extension, the Foundation which pays +Gavin Andresen -- are, in my opinion, spending a disproportionate amount of time/energy on work which primarily benefits a small number of mining pool operators (taken collectively, another systempunkt!) and on work which tends more and more to support centralized and institutionalized structures such as BitPay and BitInstant -- with all due respect to those teams -- and to toward the deprioritization of work support independent merchants and the actual peer-to-peer future. Perhaps this is simply a disagreement regarding how to sequence priorities, but I can't help but think it points to the same sort of issues I mention above, which actually turn out to be key ones as indicated by others.+Jerry Brito "Allowed" is a hobgoblin. Bitcoin doesn't need permission from the existing state/corporate financial system. In fact, it presents an existential threat to both. Fine, though, send some "diplomats" out to spread confusion in the enemy's ranks.And to +Jeffrey Tucker, it is indeed sad that freedom itself is simply unthinkable, where in a proper society it would be the reflexive, unconsidered default posture and where that society would react swiftly and forcefully to deviations from its principles. Alas, even with several thousand years of thought and experience to guide us, we have not yet collectively made the freedom posture the default.

CLEARLY, Bitcoin no longer needs the Bitcoin Foundation as it's currently constituted, and it is probably too toxic to be salvaged in any form. The conflicts of interest among directors should make this perfectly clear. Plus, we now have Vessenes suing Karpeles over the MtGox/Coinlab deal while they are both on the same board. They both should have resigned immediately at the time the suit was filed and served.



Even worse, and utterly inexcusably, Peter Vessenes hired Patrick Murck as the Foundation's general counsel. This of course is the very same Patrick Murck who serves as Coinlab's General Counsel, and who is therefore Coinlab's top litigator in the suit against MtGox.



And, worse still, this is yet the same Patrick Murck who drew up the Coinlab/Bitcoinica/Bitcoin Consultancy deal which turned into such a massive clusterfuck that exactly none of the players involved emerged in any other manner than smeared with shit from head to toe. (



Note also that NONE of these highly controversial acts and omissions were placed before votes of the Foundation's membership, in radical contravention of the founding spirit of the organization if not the language of its founding charter.



THUS, IMHO, and as a Foundation Life Member, I hereby move that the Foundation dissolve itself, immediately, and enter into a binding legal plan to reimburse all donors proportionately, once legitimate expenses and outstanding debt incurred to date is covered. Additionally, I move that the Foundation immediately terminate all relations with Peter Vessenes, Mark Karpeles (sorry, dude) and Patrick Murck, and that Jon Matonis be appointed interim Executive Director, to serve during the company's receivership and through it's final dissolution as a legal entity.



And I am ready to support a new organization which actually serves the interests of Bitcoin (and other cryptocurrencies, as appropriate), with such egregious conflicts of interest excluded from decision-taking power and with a broad umbrella missing to accommodate ALL of the Bitcoin community, not just those who are only too delighted to cuddle up to regulators and politicians on the little-guy donor's coin. The new organization shall operate democratically from day zero. I move that Jon Matonis be named custodian of founding donations and that he shall serve, once and only once, as Chairman of the founding, general meeting of the entire membership, at which a full charter and a full set of by-laws shall be adopted and a new slate of directors and executives elected, such meeting to be held not less than 60 days from now and not less than 120 days from now, and to include the technical capacity for as many voices as possible to participate and be heard (that is founding-donors-only google hangout, IRC channel, toll-free teleconference linked to a skype teleconference, etc.).



Who's with me?

My apologies for the length of this post, but I believe that it sums up what is broken with the Foundation, shows it is essentially unfixable, and includes at the end a call to action to form a new, democratically-constituted umbrella organization for the advancement and defense of cryptocurrencies, Bitcoin first and foremost among them. I also believe you will find it valuable reading, if you're not already closely familiar with the matters at hand."Outgoing" Bitcoin Foundation Executive Director Peter Vessenes, aka "vess" here, @vessenes on Twitter, states in video from Bitcoin 2013 ( https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=I6jfPXFAToM ) at 5:23 that the Foundation will be hiring a lawyer to lobby regulators in Washington DC:As I wrote:Then:And:And:Plenty more follows in my tweet stream, and includes a conversation with Smári McCarthy of the International (formerly Icelandic) Modern Media Institute ( http://www.immi.is/ ).I provided more of my reasoning (after a nice barbiturates-and-vodka cocktail and a bit of sleep) on Google+, in comments on Declan McCullagh's article ( http://news.cnet.com/8301-13578_3-57585151-38/winklevoss-twins-on-bitcoin-time-to-work-with-the-feds/ ) from today:CLEARLY, Bitcoin no longer needs the Bitcoin Foundation as it's currently constituted, and it is probably too toxic to be salvaged in any form. The conflicts of interest among directors should make this perfectly clear. Plus, we now have Vessenes suing Karpeles over the MtGox/Coinlab deal while they are both on the same board. They both should have resigned immediately at the time the suit was filed and served.Even worse, and utterly inexcusably, Peter Vessenes hired Patrick Murck as the Foundation's general counsel. This of course is the very same Patrick Murck who serves as Coinlab's General Counsel, and who is therefore Coinlab's top litigator in the suit against MtGox.And, worse still, this is yet the same Patrick Murck who drew up the Coinlab/Bitcoinica/Bitcoin Consultancy deal which turned into such a massive clusterfuck that exactly none of the players involved emerged in any other manner than smeared with shit from head to toe. ( https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=196150.0;all Note also that NONE of these highly controversial acts and omissions were placed before votes of the Foundation's membership, in radical contravention of the founding spirit of the organization if not the language of its founding charter.And I am ready to support a new organization which actually serves the interests of Bitcoin (and other cryptocurrencies, as appropriate), with such egregious conflicts of interest excluded from decision-taking power and with a broad umbrella missing to accommodate ALL of the Bitcoin community, not just those who are only too delighted to cuddle up to regulators and politicians on the little-guy donor's coin. The new organization shall operate democratically from day zero. I move that Jon Matonis be named custodian of founding donations and that he shall serve, once and only once, as Chairman of the founding, general meeting of the entire membership, at which a full charter and a full set of by-laws shall be adopted and a new slate of directors and executives elected, such meeting to be held not less than 60 days from now and not less than 120 days from now, and to include the technical capacity for as many voices as possible to participate and be heard (that is founding-donors-only google hangout, IRC channel, toll-free teleconference linked to a skype teleconference, etc.). FREE ROSS ULBRICHT , allegedly one of the Dread Pirates Roberts of the Silk Road

AWARD-WINNING

CASINO CRYPTO EXCLUSIVE

CLUBHOUSE 1500+

GAMES 2 MIN

CASH-OUTS 24/7

SUPPORT 100s OF

FREE SPINS PLAY NOW ertised sites are not endorsed by the Bitcoin Forum. They may be unsafe, untrustworthy, or illegal in your jurisdiction. Advertise here. Advertised sites are not endorsedby the Bitcoin Forum. They maybe unsafe,untrustworthy, or illegal inyour jurisdiction.

Raoul Duke

Legendary



Offline



Activity: 1456

Merit: 1000









aka psyLegendaryActivity: 1456Merit: 1000 Re: The Bitcoin Foundation is TOXIC and must dissolve, plus a call to action May 19, 2013, 01:12:17 PM #2

You, Mike, of all people, couldn't see the bitcoin foundation would just turn into a lobbying institution and paid for a lifetime membership...

I mean, really? Even I could see their true purpose, and I'm not as smart as you, not even close



Not being a foundation member I can't do much more than offer my support to your proposal, useless as that support may be. You know what I find surprising?You, Mike, of all people, couldn't see the bitcoin foundation would just turn into a lobbying institution and paid for a lifetime membership...I mean, really? Even I could see their true purpose, and I'm not as smart as you, not even closeNot being a foundation member I can't do much more than offer my support to your proposal, useless as that support may be. BTCAddress/OTC ID/GPG Key

QuantPlus



Offline



Activity: 280

Merit: 250









Sr. MemberActivity: 280Merit: 250 Re: The Bitcoin Foundation is TOXIC and must dissolve, plus a call to action May 19, 2013, 01:20:48 PM #4 Quote from: mikegogulski on May 19, 2013, 01:00:55 PM +Jerry Brito and +Declan McCullagh Yes, the exchanges are a vulnerable point, almost a "systempunkt"...



As +Nick Weaver alludes to, Bitcoin really is fundamentally incompatible with the pharaonic pyramids of the legacy banking system...



The [financial and litigation] conflicts of interest among directors...



Who's with me?





How exactly did Bitcoin control become centralized and Made in America...

The single most dangerous jurisdiction for BTC?



Why are open source decentralized exchanges not a top priority?

Why should BTC 100% depend on small businessmen rolling their own exchange sites?



And why is it always BTC to Fiat?



Fiat is owned by Central Banks. You don't "own" that dollar in your pocket.



It should be BTC to commodity (gold, gasoline, beads, whatever)...

There is infinitely less regulation of commodities...

And BTC (as of 2013), has the velocity of a commodity, not a currency. How exactly did Bitcoin control become centralized and Made in America...The single most dangerous jurisdiction for BTC?Why are open source decentralized exchanges not a top priority?Why should BTC 100% depend on small businessmen rolling their own exchange sites?And why is it always BTC to Fiat?Fiat is owned by Central Banks. You don't "own" that dollar in your pocket.It should be BTC to commodity (gold, gasoline, beads, whatever)...There is infinitely less regulation of commodities...And BTC (as of 2013), has the velocity of a commodity, not a currency.

mikegogulski



Offline



Activity: 360

Merit: 250









Sr. MemberActivity: 360Merit: 250 Re: The Bitcoin Foundation is TOXIC and must dissolve, plus a call to action May 19, 2013, 01:22:12 PM #5 Quote from: psy on May 19, 2013, 01:12:17 PM

You, Mike, of all people, couldn't see the bitcoin foundation would just turn into a lobbying institution and paid for a lifetime membership...

I mean, really? Even I could see their true purpose, and I'm not as smart as you, not even close



Not being a foundation member I can't do much more than offer my support to your proposal, useless as that support may be.

You know what I find surprising?You, Mike, of all people, couldn't see the bitcoin foundation would just turn into a lobbying institution and paid for a lifetime membership...I mean, really? Even I could see their true purpose, and I'm not as smart as you, not even closeNot being a foundation member I can't do much more than offer my support to your proposal, useless as that support may be.

Call it a blessing, call it a curse, but I'm one of those people with the "I'm OK, you're OK" orientation imprinted at the lowest level. This means that I tend to trust people complete at first sight rather than to begin from suspicion. For me, trust is not earned, but destroyed by betrayal or damaged by ill action.



Thanks for the compliment, too, although this isn't about being smart in the one-dimensional way intelligence is usually defined. I can be a complete dumbass in terms of social and emotional intelligence, to the point of making people cry IRL when trying to persuade them intellectually about something I believe in passionately.



You don't have to be a member of the now-moribund foundation to make a contribution here, and to join and support a new effort (whether one emerges from my proposals here or not). I've just pushed the RESET button on the whole thing, at least in my own mind. So, new world. Where shall we go? Call it a blessing, call it a curse, but I'm one of those people with the "I'm OK, you're OK" orientation imprinted at the lowest level. This means that I tend to trust people complete at first sight rather than to begin from suspicion. For me, trust is not earned, but destroyed by betrayal or damaged by ill action.Thanks for the compliment, too, although this isn't about being smart in the one-dimensional way intelligence is usually defined. I can be a complete dumbass in terms of social and emotional intelligence, to the point of making people cry IRL when trying to persuade them intellectually about something I believe in passionately.You don't have to be a member of the now-moribund foundation to make a contribution here, and to join and support a new effort (whether one emerges from my proposals here or not). I've just pushed the RESET button on the whole thing, at least in my own mind. So, new world. Where shall we go? FREE ROSS ULBRICHT , allegedly one of the Dread Pirates Roberts of the Silk Road

cbeast

Legendary



Offline



Activity: 1736

Merit: 1002



Let's talk governance, lipstick, and pigs.







DonatorLegendaryActivity: 1736Merit: 1002Let's talk governance, lipstick, and pigs. Re: The Bitcoin Foundation is TOXIC and must dissolve, plus a call to action May 19, 2013, 02:01:33 PM #9 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. Any significantly advanced cryptocurrency is indistinguishable from Ponzi Tulips.

wumpus



Offline



Activity: 812

Merit: 1000



No Maps for These Territories







Hero MemberActivity: 812Merit: 1000No Maps for These Territories Re: The Bitcoin Foundation is TOXIC and must dissolve, plus a call to action May 19, 2013, 02:30:18 PM #11 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. Warning: For most, coin loss is a larger risk than coin theft. A disk can die any time. Regularly back up your wallet through File → Backup Wallet to an external storage or the (encrypted!) cloud. Use a separate offline wallet for storing larger amounts. Bitcoin Core developer [PGP] For most, coin loss is a larger risk than coin theft. A disk can die any time. Regularly back up your wallet throughto an external storage or the (encrypted!) cloud. Use a separate offline wallet for storing larger amounts.

ktttn



Offline



Activity: 126

Merit: 100





Capitalism is the crisis.







Full MemberActivity: 126Merit: 100Capitalism is the crisis. Re: The Bitcoin Foundation is TOXIC and must dissolve, plus a call to action May 19, 2013, 03:28:46 PM #16 Quote from: cbeast on May 19, 2013, 02:01:33 PM 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.



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. 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.

-ktttn Ever see a gutterpunk spanging for cryptocoins?

LfkJXVy8DanHm6aKegnmzvY8ZJuw8Dp4Qc Wit all my solidarities,

wumpus



Offline



Activity: 812

Merit: 1000



No Maps for These Territories







Hero MemberActivity: 812Merit: 1000No Maps for These Territories Re: The Bitcoin Foundation is TOXIC and must dissolve, plus a call to action May 19, 2013, 04:03:20 PM #18 Quote from: psy on May 19, 2013, 03:02:38 PM 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.

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



Quote 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"

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

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.

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. Warning: For most, coin loss is a larger risk than coin theft. A disk can die any time. Regularly back up your wallet through File → Backup Wallet to an external storage or the (encrypted!) cloud. Use a separate offline wallet for storing larger amounts. Bitcoin Core developer [PGP] For most, coin loss is a larger risk than coin theft. A disk can die any time. Regularly back up your wallet throughto an external storage or the (encrypted!) cloud. Use a separate offline wallet for storing larger amounts.

franky1



Offline



Activity: 2884

Merit: 1751









LegendaryActivity: 2884Merit: 1751 Re: The Bitcoin Foundation is TOXIC and must dissolve, plus a call to action May 19, 2013, 04:23:06 PM #21 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 DO NOT TRADE OR ACT AS ESCROW ON THIS FORUM EVER.

Please do your own research & respect what is written here as both opinion & information gleaned from experience. many people replying with insults but no on-topic content substance, automatically are 'facepalmed' and yawned at

SamS



Offline



Activity: 70

Merit: 10







MemberActivity: 70Merit: 10 Re: The Bitcoin Foundation is TOXIC and must dissolve, plus a call to action May 19, 2013, 05:00:35 PM #24 Quote from: franky1 on May 19, 2013, 04:23:06 PM 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.



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.







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. Bitcoin: 16i8sQWjZo3QPhhSfWupJff5PtwTxxpRJJ

Ripple: rL7mRCDYBXsVSM2obdvEjwft5fPUmxv3ra

franky1



Offline



Activity: 2884

Merit: 1751









LegendaryActivity: 2884Merit: 1751 Re: The Bitcoin Foundation is TOXIC and must dissolve, plus a call to action May 19, 2013, 07:14:25 PM #29 for the whole lobbying government to help free market and entrepeuners, i would prefer to use the people in new hampshire as oppose to the bitcoin foundation as they seem to have a community philospohy, where as the bitcoin foundation as a more commercial philosophy.



the only way to change that is not by arguing against them, but to change them from within.. that goes for the foundation and government departments I DO NOT TRADE OR ACT AS ESCROW ON THIS FORUM EVER.

Please do your own research & respect what is written here as both opinion & information gleaned from experience. many people replying with insults but no on-topic content substance, automatically are 'facepalmed' and yawned at

SamS



Offline



Activity: 70

Merit: 10







MemberActivity: 70Merit: 10 Re: The Bitcoin Foundation is TOXIC and must dissolve, plus a call to action May 19, 2013, 07:26:11 PM #32 Quote from: franky1 on May 19, 2013, 07:14:25 PM for the whole lobbying government to help free market and entrepeuners, i would prefer to use the people in new hampshire as oppose to the bitcoin foundation as they seem to have a community philospohy, where as the bitcoin foundation as a more commercial philosophy.



the only way to change that is not by arguing against them, but to change them from within.. that goes for the foundation and government departments



The issue, of course, is who is going to fund the lobbying effort. The commercial groups fund it because it helps them make money. Since they are setting up to make lots of money, they have investors who will fund lobbying as another business cost.



A "community philosophy" on the other hand is not commercial. It takes visionary altruists to be willing to fund this on a large scale. I'm sure, given the right approach, that they can be found. But someone has to be willing to invest the time, energy, and brain power, to work out the mechanics. I don't want to be pessimistic here, but I'm not seeing the coordination that can lead to this outcome thus far. The issue, of course, is who is going to fund the lobbying effort. The commercial groups fund it because it helps them make money. Since they are setting up to make lots of money, they have investors who will fund lobbying as another business cost.A "community philosophy" on the other hand is not commercial. It takes visionary altruists to be willing to fund this on a large scale. I'm sure, given the right approach, that they can be found. But someone has to be willing to invest the time, energy, and brain power, to work out the mechanics. I don't want to be pessimistic here, but I'm not seeing the coordination that can lead to this outcome thus far. Bitcoin: 16i8sQWjZo3QPhhSfWupJff5PtwTxxpRJJ

Ripple: rL7mRCDYBXsVSM2obdvEjwft5fPUmxv3ra

SamS



Offline



Activity: 70

Merit: 10







MemberActivity: 70Merit: 10 Re: The Bitcoin Foundation is TOXIC and must dissolve, plus a call to action May 19, 2013, 07:36:13 PM #35 Quote from: QuestionAuthority on May 19, 2013, 07:29:50 PM Quote from: 100x on May 19, 2013, 07:27:23 PM Quote from: SamS on May 19, 2013, 07:26:11 PM Quote from: franky1 on May 19, 2013, 07:14:25 PM for the whole lobbying government to help free market and entrepeuners, i would prefer to use the people in new hampshire as oppose to the bitcoin foundation as they seem to have a community philospohy, where as the bitcoin foundation as a more commercial philosophy.



the only way to change that is not by arguing against them, but to change them from within.. that goes for the foundation and government departments



The issue, of course, is who is going to fund the lobbying effort. The commercial groups fund it because it helps them make money. Since they are setting up to make lots of money, they have investors who will fund lobbying as another business cost.



A "community philosophy" on the other hand is not commercial. It takes visionary altruists to be willing to fund this on a large scale. I'm sure, given the right approach, that they can be found. But someone has to be willing to invest the time, energy, and brain power, to work out the mechanics. I don't want to be pessimistic here, but I'm not seeing the coordination that can lead to this outcome thus far.

The issue, of course, is who is going to fund the lobbying effort. The commercial groups fund it because it helps them make money. Since they are setting up to make lots of money, they have investors who will fund lobbying as another business cost.A "community philosophy" on the other hand is not commercial. It takes visionary altruists to be willing to fund this on a large scale. I'm sure, given the right approach, that they can be found. But someone has to be willing to invest the time, energy, and brain power, to work out the mechanics. I don't want to be pessimistic here, but I'm not seeing the coordination that can lead to this outcome thus far.

Bitcoin can succeed without lobbyists.

Bitcoin can succeed without lobbyists.

Bitcoin can succeed without TBF. They are just an action group focusing on the needs of Bitcoin businesses.

Bitcoin can succeed without TBF. They are just an action group focusing on the needs of Bitcoin businesses.

FWIW, I should be clear that I'm not talking about Bitcoin here as much as the interface between Bitcoin and Fiat. They really are two different things to my mind. Bitcoin doesn't have to have a lobby -- but loses the chance to have influence in the discussion if it doesn't. The BTF doesn't have to be the representative organization, but what other funded group is there right now? Mind you, i'm not trying to argue for or against BTF here, just trying to be practical about the alternatives. FWIW, I should be clear that I'm not talking about Bitcoin here as much as the interface between Bitcoin and Fiat. They really are two different things to my mind. Bitcoin doesn't have to have a lobby -- but loses the chance to have influence in the discussion if it doesn't. The BTF doesn't have to be the representative organization, but what other funded group is there right now? Mind you, i'm not trying to argue for or against BTF here, just trying to be practical about the alternatives. Bitcoin: 16i8sQWjZo3QPhhSfWupJff5PtwTxxpRJJ

Ripple: rL7mRCDYBXsVSM2obdvEjwft5fPUmxv3ra

Severian



Offline



Activity: 476

Merit: 250









Sr. MemberActivity: 476Merit: 250 Re: The Bitcoin Foundation is TOXIC and must dissolve, plus a call to action May 19, 2013, 08:24:26 PM #41 Quote from: mikegogulski on May 19, 2013, 01:00:55 PM THUS, IMHO, and as a Foundation Life Member, I hereby move that the Foundation dissolve itself, immediately, and enter into a binding legal plan to reimburse all donors proportionately, once legitimate expenses and outstanding debt incurred to date is covered. Additionally, I move that the Foundation immediately terminate all relations with Peter Vessenes, Mark Karpeles (sorry, dude) and Patrick Murck, and that Jon Matonis be appointed interim Executive Director, to serve during the company's receivership and through it's final dissolution as a legal entity.

I agree with this but I don't need my btc back. I donated to get Gavin paid. Otherwise, spot on.



I don't trust people seeking regulation. Their interests are aligned with the government, not with the Bitcoin community. They may think they're performing some kind of good for the community but they're actually leaving themselves and us open to surveillance and manipulation. I agree with this but I don't need my btc back. I donated to get Gavin paid. Otherwise, spot on.I don't trust people seeking regulation. Their interests are aligned with the government, not with the Bitcoin community. They maythey're performing some kind of good for the community but they're actually leaving themselves and us open to surveillance and manipulation.

Loozik



Offline



Activity: 378

Merit: 250





Born to chew bubble gum and kick ass







Sr. MemberActivity: 378Merit: 250Born to chew bubble gum and kick ass Re: The Bitcoin Foundation is TOXIC and must dissolve, plus a call to action May 19, 2013, 08:32:49 PM #44 Quote from: SamS on May 19, 2013, 08:26:09 PM I've handled the finances for a number of non-profits over the years. It's unlikely that you are talking less than $500K/annum here and it's just as likely that it will be closer to $1M to start (for developers, lobbying as needed, etc...). To get the ball rolling, if there are really people out there that want to fund such an organization, I'll donate the administration/management time pro bono.



1. I do not think it is needed to set up a formal organization.



2. In the first incarnation it could just be a crowd-financing website where non-statist developers who want to free themselves from BTF would put the features and price tags on these features. People would vote for these features with their money (BTC).



3. Not having a formal organization is even better. The so called authorities / regulators will have noone to talk to. 1. I do not think it is needed to set up a formal organization.2. In the first incarnation it could just be a crowd-financing website where non-statist developers who want to free themselves from BTF would put the features and price tags on these features. People would vote for these features with their money (BTC).3. Not having a formal organization is even better. The so called authorities / regulators will have noone to talk to.

wumpus



Offline



Activity: 812

Merit: 1000



No Maps for These Territories







Hero MemberActivity: 812Merit: 1000No Maps for These Territories Re: The Bitcoin Foundation is TOXIC and must dissolve, plus a call to action May 19, 2013, 09:58:16 PM

Last edit: May 19, 2013, 11:02:27 PM by John Smith #51 Quote from: QuestionAuthority on May 19, 2013, 08:27:56 PM I don't know that I agree with that. Private citizens don't generally hire their own developers and compete in the open market. Take Microsoft for example: closed system working for pure profit. When they develop a loser like Microsoft "BOB" no one buys it and they lose money. It's in their best interest to ensure they are catering to consumers. Bitcoin businesses are no different. If they pay a developer to produce something that the user-base dislikes it will fail. Free market economies are pretty self correcting.

The elephant in the room is that many people are setting up successful businesses on top of Bitcoin, but no one is paying the developers of the infrastructure itself. At least not the user-facing parts. The network will be fine, for example Jeff Garzik was just hired by Bitpay.



However this may mean that, for example, Bitcoin-Qt will no longer be maintained at a certain point and only the bitcoind will remain. It's not the case now, but I can see myself moving on to something else if I don't find a way to fund its development (through the Bitcoin Foundation or otherwise). The elephant in the room is that many people are setting up successful businesses on top of Bitcoin, but no one is paying the developers of the infrastructure itself. At least not the user-facing parts. The network will be fine, for example Jeff Garzik was just hired by Bitpay.However this may mean that, for example, Bitcoin-Qt will no longer be maintained at a certain point and only the bitcoind will remain. It's not the case now, but I can see myself moving on to something else if I don't find a way to fund its development (through the Bitcoin Foundation or otherwise). Warning: For most, coin loss is a larger risk than coin theft. A disk can die any time. Regularly back up your wallet through File → Backup Wallet to an external storage or the (encrypted!) cloud. Use a separate offline wallet for storing larger amounts. Bitcoin Core developer [PGP] For most, coin loss is a larger risk than coin theft. A disk can die any time. Regularly back up your wallet throughto an external storage or the (encrypted!) cloud. Use a separate offline wallet for storing larger amounts.

QuestionAuthority



Offline



Activity: 2156

Merit: 1391





You lead and I'll watch you walk away.







LegendaryActivity: 2156Merit: 1391You lead and I'll watch you walk away. Re: The Bitcoin Foundation is TOXIC and must dissolve, plus a call to action May 19, 2013, 10:05:22 PM #52 Quote from: John Smith on May 19, 2013, 09:58:16 PM Quote from: QuestionAuthority on May 19, 2013, 08:27:56 PM I don't know that I agree with that. Private citizens don't generally hire their own developers and compete in the open market. Take Microsoft for example: closed system working for pure profit. When they develop a loser like Microsoft "BOB" no one buys it and they lose money. It's in their best interest to ensure they are catering to consumers. Bitcoin businesses are no different. If they pay a developer to produce something that the user-base dislikes it will fail. Free market economies are pretty self correcting.

The elephant in the room is that many people are setting up successful businesses on top of Bitcoin, but no one is paying the developers of the infrastructure itself. At least not the user-facing parts. The network will be fine, for example Jeff Garzik was just hired by Bitpay.



This may mean that, for example, Bitcoin-Qt will no longer be maintained at a certain point and only the bitcoind will remain. It's not the case now, but I can see myself moving on to something else if I don't find a way to fund its development (through the Bitcoin Foundation or otherwise).

The elephant in the room is that many people are setting up successful businesses on top of Bitcoin, but no one is paying the developers of the infrastructure itself. At least not the user-facing parts. The network will be fine, for example Jeff Garzik was just hired by Bitpay.This may mean that, for example, Bitcoin-Qt will no longer be maintained at a certain point and only the bitcoind will remain. It's not the case now, but I can see myself moving on to something else if I don't find a way to fund its development (through the Bitcoin Foundation or otherwise).

Markets are self correcting. Consumer desire drives innovation. Someone will step in an hire a developer to continue to advance the software. If you wanted to argue anything you might be able to make a case for continued open source software but I don't even think there is a danger of closing development with TBF. Markets are self correcting. Consumer desire drives innovation. Someone will step in an hire a developer to continue to advance the software. If you wanted to argue anything you might be able to make a case for continued open source software but I don't even think there is a danger of closing development with TBF. The merit system isnt working. Read this thread to see why.



marcus_of_augustus



Offline



Activity: 3290

Merit: 1485









LegendaryActivity: 3290Merit: 1485 Re: The Bitcoin Foundation is TOXIC and must dissolve, plus a call to action May 19, 2013, 10:08:32 PM #53



And then the lawyers showed up. Didn't see this one coming.



FWIW; I donated personally to Gavin late 2012 and was extremely surprise that I appeared to be the FIRST person to do so ever. He doesn't ask for donations, but neither does he refuse them. If bitcoiners weren't such miserly bunch of skinflints then we maybe wouldn't need a 'foundation' to pay him ... but deflationary currencies attract savers, so goes with territory I suppose. "... sure all we want to do is pay Gavin, send in your bitcoins folks ... "And then the lawyers showed up.Didn't see this one coming.FWIW; I donated personally to Gavin late 2012 and was extremely surprise that I appeared to be the FIRST person to do so ever. He doesn't ask for donations, but neither does he refuse them. If bitcoiners weren't such miserly bunch of skinflints then we maybe wouldn't need a 'foundation' to pay him ... but deflationary currencies attract savers, so goes with territory I suppose. Monetary Freedom - an inalienable right

Per aspera ad astra Per aspera ad astra

wumpus



Offline



Activity: 812

Merit: 1000



No Maps for These Territories







Hero MemberActivity: 812Merit: 1000No Maps for These Territories Re: The Bitcoin Foundation is TOXIC and must dissolve, plus a call to action May 19, 2013, 10:14:34 PM #54 Quote from: QuestionAuthority on May 19, 2013, 10:05:22 PM Markets are self correcting. Consumer desire drives innovation. Someone will step in an hire a developer to continue to advance the software. If you wanted to argue anything you might be able to make a case for continued open source software but I don't even think there is a danger of closing development with TBF.

So you're proposing to make Bitcoin closed source software and sell it? Or package it with ads?

We could just as well retire it completely in that case. It just won't work (no one trusts a closed client). Consumer desire works for easily marketable products, not an experimental cryptocurrency.

And if you don't see value in open source that's fine, but I'm sure there are people here who do.

Quote FWIW; I donated personally to Gavin late 2012 and was extremely surprise that I appeared to be the FIRST person to do so ever. He doesn't ask for donations, but neither does he refuse them. If bitcoiners weren't such miserly bunch of skinflints then we maybe wouldn't need a 'foundation' to pay him ...

Yep, that's how it goes...

So you're proposing to make Bitcoin closed source software and sell it? Or package it with ads?We could just as well retire it completely in that case. It just won't work (no one trusts a closed client). Consumer desire works for easily marketable products, not an experimental cryptocurrency.And if you don't see value in open source that's fine, but I'm sure there are people here who do.Yep, that's how it goes... Warning: For most, coin loss is a larger risk than coin theft. A disk can die any time. Regularly back up your wallet through File → Backup Wallet to an external storage or the (encrypted!) cloud. Use a separate offline wallet for storing larger amounts. Bitcoin Core developer [PGP] For most, coin loss is a larger risk than coin theft. A disk can die any time. Regularly back up your wallet throughto an external storage or the (encrypted!) cloud. Use a separate offline wallet for storing larger amounts.

LorenzoMoney



Offline



Activity: 335

Merit: 250









Sr. MemberActivity: 335Merit: 250 Re: The Bitcoin Foundation is TOXIC and must dissolve, plus a call to action May 19, 2013, 11:19:37 PM #56 Mike,



I read your post four times and I still am not sure what you are trying to say. Are you upset that the Bitcoin Foundation doesn't do what you want or are you upset that Gavin Andresen gets a salary, or are you upset that the Bitcoin Foundation is hiring a lobbyist to go to Washington? Or is the choice of lobbyist or lawyer that is bothering you?



From what you wrote, it is not clear to me what it is you are complaining about and what you really want.



The idea of calling out to the Bitcoin Foundation on this site Bitcointalk to disband actually goes against the principles of Bitcoin. Instead of trying to tell other people what to do, why don't you just organize your own Foundation / Organization / Association and promulgate your own ideas. The Bitcoin Foundation is not going to go away just because you are unhappy with them.



I hear that the Bitcoin Foundation has there own private secret forum on which only members can post, and which only members can read. If you really object to something they are doing, and if, as some people here say, you have lifetime membership, Why don't you just post what you have to say on their forum?



Your complaints seem disorganized and displaced.



I do welcome any new foundation you organize. Organize a new and better foundation does not require or mandate any existing organization to disband.



Let us address the issue of hiring a lawyer and a lobbyist.

Those of you in this thread who would like to just rebel and protest against the government and say that we should just use bitcoin until fiat falls into decline and the government comes to us, well, high school is over and the reality is, as we have learned from Bitfloor and Mt.Gox-Dwolla, that the rest of the universe runs on rules and widespread adoption of bitcoin will require smart navigation of various legal systems. The best way to deal with government objections is to engage the government directly. I for one and happy that the Bitcoin Foundation is hiring a lawyer and lobbyist.



I do want to point out that your goals and motivations, as you wrote in your posting here are not quite clear and I look forward to learning more about the new association you plan on organizing.





Lorenzo Money

The Bulk of mankind is as well equipped for flying as thinking. - Jonathan Swift

DOGE COIN address: DSYMgD1HfmJFwNuc6Zvhp7PkrVD1QRBsgu https://twitter.com/Lorenzo_Money -- Bitcoin Address: 1EttqaSSCksRAXrwejoChs5zmGjSikN9mC -- http://lorenzomoney.wordpress.com/ The Bulk of mankind is as well equipped for flying as thinking. - Jonathan SwiftDOGE COIN address: DSYMgD1HfmJFwNuc6Zvhp7PkrVD1QRBsgu

willphase



Offline



Activity: 769

Merit: 500







Hero MemberActivity: 769Merit: 500 Re: The Bitcoin Foundation is TOXIC and must dissolve, plus a call to action May 20, 2013, 12:37:50 AM #57 Quote from: LorenzoMoney on May 19, 2013, 11:19:37 PM Let us address the issue of hiring a lawyer and a lobbyist.

Those of you in this thread who would like to just rebel and protest against the government and say that we should just use bitcoin until fiat falls into decline and the government comes to us, well, high school is over and the reality is, as we have learned from Bitfloor and Mt.Gox-Dwolla, that the rest of the universe runs on rules and widespread adoption of bitcoin will require smart navigation of various legal systems. The best way to deal with government objections is to engage the government directly. I for one and happy that the Bitcoin Foundation is hiring a lawyer and lobbyist.



Agree with this.



History has shown that governments - that means people with the power to push legislation and vote on bills - members of congress and senators - do not really understand things (c.f. climate change) and need things explained to them. If the BCF or someone else does not lobby for things, explaining the benefits of bitcoin, explaining that it's not just used for drugs, that it isn't really anonymous and that it's not a big scary thing that they don't understand - then guess what will happen: The banks and real opposition to bitcoin (the parts of the machine that stand to lose the most if bitcoin succeeds) will lobby instead, and they will lobby for a stranglehold to be placed on bitcoin e.g. by banning bitcoin/fiat exchanges because of the fear of people using it to buy drugs and weapons and 3d printers and things that senators get scared about - and however much you think that bitcoin can succeed without regulation - this will be the death for bitcoin because if people can't use it for real transactions without fear of being arrested, then it will just die.



I, for one, agree that we should engage with DC and try and get the regulation that will help bitcoin succeed rather than put our heads in the sand and hope that government will go away because of some misguided belief that 'bitcoin is peer to peer and decentralised and you can't shut it down NO YOU CAN'T' - sigh.



Will Agree with this.History has shown that governments - that means people with the power to push legislation and vote on bills - members of congress and senators - do not really understand things (c.f. climate change) and need things explained to them. If the BCF or someone else does not lobby for things, explaining the benefits of bitcoin, explaining that it's not just used for drugs, that it isn't really anonymous and that it's not a big scary thing that they don't understand - then guess what will happen: The banks and real opposition to bitcoin (the parts of the machine that stand to lose the most if bitcoin succeeds) will lobby instead, and they will lobby for a stranglehold to be placed on bitcoin e.g. by banning bitcoin/fiat exchanges because of the fear of people using it to buy drugs and weapons and 3d printers and things that senators get scared about - and however much you think that bitcoin can succeed without regulation - this will be the death for bitcoin because if people can't use it for real transactions without fear of being arrested, then it will just die.I, for one, agree that we should engage with DC and try and get the regulation that will help bitcoin succeed rather than put our heads in the sand and hope that government will go away because of some misguided belief that 'bitcoin is peer to peer and decentralised and you can't shut it down NO YOU CAN'T' - sigh.Will firstbits.com/?a=1b1tcoin | CEX LetsDice (referral link) | Just-Dice

SamS



Offline



Activity: 70

Merit: 10







MemberActivity: 70Merit: 10 Re: The Bitcoin Foundation is TOXIC and must dissolve, plus a call to action May 20, 2013, 12:58:37 AM #59

I'm not actually sure how the BitCoin Foundation is setup as a search on the IRS 501(c)(3) non-profit status tracker showed up blank under the name "Bitcoin Foundation." I know the posted Bylaws say a District of Columbia non-profit corporation but what exactly that means in terms of its Federal non-profit status is unclear to me.



http://apps.irs.gov/app/eos/mainSearch.do;jsessionid=cIUhqFUkb4VY4X8FP5lx0w__?mainSearchChoice=pub78&dispatchMethod=selectSearch



Having said that, 501(c)(3) non-profits allow you to restrict your donations for specific uses. In effect, you could send an email with your donating saying "I am donating 5 bitcoins to pay Gavin's salary and only Gavin's Salary" and the Foundation would have to use that money for that purpose. Or you could more generally say, "My donation is restricted for core development of the Bitcoin software." That way you'd be sure your funds were being used for what they want. Otherwise, the Foundation is obligated to not take them to begin with or return them if they can't be put to that use -- if Gavin were to quit for example.



That would be one way of separating oneself from the lobbying portion of the Foundation's work without walking away from the Foundation itself.



Personally, I think that the project runs the risk of becoming balkanized if there isn't a well funded open source team maintaining the core development. If they have to go the for-profit route, then incentives change and competition would likely emerge.

I'm not actually sure how the BitCoin Foundation is setup as a search on the IRS 501(c)(3) non-profit status tracker showed up blank under the name "Bitcoin Foundation." I know the posted Bylaws say a District of Columbia non-profit corporation but what exactly that means in terms of its Federal non-profit status is unclear to me.Having said that, 501(c)(3) non-profits allow you to restrict your donations for specific uses. In effect, you could send an email with your donating saying "I am donating 5 bitcoins to pay Gavin's salary and only Gavin's Salary" and the Foundation would have to use that money for that purpose. Or you could more generally say, "My donation is restricted for core development of the Bitcoin software." That way you'd be sure your funds were being used for what they want. Otherwise, the Foundation is obligated to not take them to begin with or return them if they can't be put to that use -- if Gavin were to quit for example.That would be one way of separating oneself from the lobbying portion of the Foundation's work without walking away from the Foundation itself.Personally, I think that the project runs the risk of becoming balkanized if there isn't a well funded open source team maintaining the core development. If they have to go the for-profit route, then incentives change and competition would likely emerge. Bitcoin: 16i8sQWjZo3QPhhSfWupJff5PtwTxxpRJJ

Ripple: rL7mRCDYBXsVSM2obdvEjwft5fPUmxv3ra

peewee



Offline



Activity: 41

Merit: 0









NewbieActivity: 41Merit: 0 Re: The Bitcoin Foundation is TOXIC and must dissolve, plus a call to action May 20, 2013, 04:00:54 AM #60 This is painfully narrow minded and extremely short sighted. Bitcoin will only be analogous to file sharing until its market cap and volume is big enough to support arms trades and legitimate physical threats from massive drug trafficking operations . Right now bitcoin doesn't have the market cap or infrastructure to deal in either of these two government unbalancing trades....but its headed there. Guess what happens to your unlimited freedom for spending your money when that happens? Better to head this off in Washington and around the globe ahead of time.

Loozik



Offline



Activity: 378

Merit: 250





Born to chew bubble gum and kick ass







Sr. MemberActivity: 378Merit: 250Born to chew bubble gum and kick ass Re: The Bitcoin Foundation is TOXIC and must dissolve, plus a call to action May 20, 2013, 07:55:21 AM #66 Quote from: gweedo on May 20, 2013, 07:45:50 AM That is a gittip community, but if you want to tip Gavin, or any other core developer get their github name and you can tip them.



1. Okay, It is my understanding that I can pay Gavin, Jeff Garzik, John Smith and others using gittip.com, right?



2. But these guys may work on features and the type of development I am not interested to support, e.g. they may work at the moment on features that MtGox or Bitpay is interested in - just like TBF may be working on things I do not like, e.g. hiring a lobbyist; why should then I donate to TBF?



3. Where do I find a list of all developers with a list of features each of the dev is working on, so that I could donate to the feature I particularily want or like (thus supporting a particular developer)?

1. Okay, It is my understanding that I can pay Gavin, Jeff Garzik, John Smith and others using gittip.com, right?2. But these guys may work on features and the type of development I am not interested to support, e.g. they may work at the moment on features that MtGox or Bitpay is interested in - just like TBF may be working on things I do not like, e.g. hiring a lobbyist; why should then I donate to TBF?3. Where do I find a list of all developers with a list of features each of the dev is working on, so that I could donate to the feature I particularily want or like (thus supporting a particular developer)?

gweedo



Offline



Activity: 1484

Merit: 1000







LegendaryActivity: 1484Merit: 1000 Re: The Bitcoin Foundation is TOXIC and must dissolve, plus a call to action May 20, 2013, 07:58:18 AM #67 Quote from: Loozik on May 20, 2013, 07:55:21 AM Quote from: gweedo on May 20, 2013, 07:45:50 AM That is a gittip community, but if you want to tip Gavin, or any other core developer get their github name and you can tip them.



1. Okay, It is my understanding that I can pay Gavin, Jeff Garzik, John Smith and others using gittip.com, right?



2. But these guys may work on features and the type of development I am not interested to support, e.g. they may work at the moment on features that MtGox or Bitpay is interested in? - just like TBF may be working on things I do not like, e.g. hiring a lobbyst; why shouls then I donate to TBF?



3. Where do I find a list of all developers with a list of features each of the dev is working on, so that I could donate to the feature I particularily want or like (thus supporting a particular developer)?



1. Okay, It is my understanding that I can pay Gavin, Jeff Garzik, John Smith and others using gittip.com, right?2. But these guys may work on features and the type of development I am not interested to support, e.g. they may work at the moment on features that MtGox or Bitpay is interested in? - just like TBF may be working on things I do not like, e.g. hiring a lobbyst; why shouls then I donate to TBF?3. Where do I find a list of all developers with a list of features each of the dev is working on, so that I could donate to the feature I particularily want or like (thus supporting a particular developer)?

1) Correct



2) If you don't like it don't donate, that is why I am not donating, I don't like the foundation's view and where it is going



3) I would just post on the forum, or pm the developers directly then after the feature is created then donated, but Gavin holds the ability to accept features, so even if the developer creates the feature, it probably won't make it to the client unless Gavin says it should be in it. 1) Correct2) If you don't like it don't donate, that is why I am not donating, I don't like the foundation's view and where it is going3) I would just post on the forum, or pm the developers directly then after the feature is created then donated, but Gavin holds the ability to accept features, so even if the developer creates the feature, it probably won't make it to the client unless Gavin says it should be in it.

Loozik



Offline



Activity: 378

Merit: 250





Born to chew bubble gum and kick ass







Sr. MemberActivity: 378Merit: 250Born to chew bubble gum and kick ass Re: The Bitcoin Foundation is TOXIC and must dissolve, plus a call to action May 20, 2013, 08:23:21 AM #68 Quote from: gweedo on May 20, 2013, 07:58:18 AM

3) I would just post on the forum, or pm the developers directly then after the feature is created then donated, but Gavin holds the ability to accept features, so even if the developer creates the feature, it probably won't make it to the client unless Gavin says it should be in it.



You see the problem is none of the features I am aware they are working on



It is in the best interest of the developers to:

a) make a list of sensible features for retail users

b) add prices to these features

c) add ''donate'' buton to github website (or a new Bitcoin project development website) so that bitcoiners can donate to a particular feature / pay for a particular feature.



If a - c is done then retail users can compete on the market with business users over developers, i.e. over where development effort is put.



If a - c is done then developers will get some money for their services. My understanding is that TBF does not pay them (except for Gavin) and they do a charitable work. You see the problem is none of the features I am aware they are working on https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues?labels=Feature&milestone=&page=1&state=open is of interest to me (like ''address book cannot be searched'' - this is a feature for business users who have many addresses); I consider them trivial and non-important for retail users.It is in the best interest of the developers to:a) make a list of sensible features for retail usersb) add prices to these featuresc) add ''donate'' buton to github website (or a new Bitcoin project development website) so that bitcoiners can donate to a particular feature / pay for a particular feature.If a - c is done then retail users can compete on the market with business users over developers, i.e. over where development effort is put.If a - c is done then developers will get some money for their services. My understanding is that TBF does not pay them (except for Gavin) and they do a charitable work.

ktttn



Offline



Activity: 126

Merit: 100





Capitalism is the crisis.







Full MemberActivity: 126Merit: 100Capitalism is the crisis. Re: The Bitcoin Foundation is TOXIC and must dissolve, plus a call to action May 20, 2013, 08:52:14 AM #69 Quote from: 100x on May 20, 2013, 05:18:06 AM Can someone with the authority do so clarify the motivation for the lobbying/interactions with regulators and the potential end results?



Is the protocol up for debate? Will development be guided away from certain less marketable ideas such as stronger anonymity (various coin-mixing)? Is transaction filtering a possibility?



Perhaps if the goal and methods were more clearly outlined, there would be less backlash, or at the very least the backlash would be more informed.

hey... wanna see something cool?

*whipping out brown paper bag*

See that thing in there? Its my authority...

So dig this:

I want to send anyone to everywhere to convince whoever to start using and mining bitcoin.

I want to send lawyers and lobbyists to DC to convince politicians to start using and mining bitcoin.

Y'all remember how christism was instituted, right? Constantine, yo. If not the foundation, then who? If they can't beat us, they'll join us.

Opinions? hey... wanna see something cool?*whipping out brown paper bag*See that thing in there? Its my authority...So dig this:I want to send anyone to everywhere to convince whoever to start using and mining bitcoin.I want to send lawyers and lobbyists to DC to convince politicians to start using and mining bitcoin.Y'all remember how christism was instituted, right? Constantine, yo. If not the foundation, then who? If they can't beat us, they'll join us.Opinions?

-ktttn Ever see a gutterpunk spanging for cryptocoins?

LfkJXVy8DanHm6aKegnmzvY8ZJuw8Dp4Qc Wit all my solidarities,

wumpus



Offline



Activity: 812

Merit: 1000



No Maps for These Territories







Hero MemberActivity: 812Merit: 1000No Maps for These Territories Re: The Bitcoin Foundation is TOXIC and must dissolve, plus a call to action May 20, 2013, 08:53:35 AM #70 Quote from: Loozik on May 20, 2013, 08:23:21 AM is of interest to me (like ''address book cannot be searched'' - this is a feature for business users who have many addresses); I consider them trivial and non-important for retail users.

I'm kind of surprised that between 377(!) open issues there is not one that seems important to you.

Why not make one then?

Then people could use gittip (or bitcoinbounties.com) or whatever to contribute to it, and you could test out your experiment on the cheap.

I'm kind of surprised that between 377(!) open issues there is not one that seems important to you.Why not make one then?Then people could use gittip (or bitcoinbounties.com) or whatever to contribute to it, and you could test out your experiment on the cheap. Warning: For most, coin loss is a larger risk than coin theft. A disk can die any time. Regularly back up your wallet through File → Backup Wallet to an external storage or the (encrypted!) cloud. Use a separate offline wallet for storing larger amounts. Bitcoin Core developer [PGP] For most, coin loss is a larger risk than coin theft. A disk can die any time. Regularly back up your wallet throughto an external storage or the (encrypted!) cloud. Use a separate offline wallet for storing larger amounts.

Loozik



Offline



Activity: 378

Merit: 250





Born to chew bubble gum and kick ass







Sr. MemberActivity: 378Merit: 250Born to chew bubble gum and kick ass Re: The Bitcoin Foundation is TOXIC and must dissolve, plus a call to action May 20, 2013, 09:33:39 AM #71 Quote from: John Smith on May 20, 2013, 08:53:35 AM I'm kind of surprised that between 377(!) open issues there is not one that seems important to you.

There are 23 open feature requests



Quote from: John Smith on May 20, 2013, 08:53:35 AM Why not make one then?

Language barrier (my English is poor) + knowledge barrier (a newbie and a non-techie).



Quote from: John Smith on May 20, 2013, 08:53:35 AM Then people could use gittip (or bitcoinbounties.com) or whatever to contribute to it, and you could test out your experiment on the cheap.

1. There should be one project development website*. On this website retail users and business users compete with their money for the Bitcoin developers' resources.



2. The website should have built-in crowd financing mechanism. This crowd financing mechanism will be mostly used by retail users, but I can imagine that in case of complex and pricey features (more than $100k) businesses can join forces and use it too.



3. The website should work like this:

a) People / businesses submit their feature requests like in this project management site

b) Then developers put a price tag for requests they can handle + specify time they agree to complete the task.

c) Then people / businesses commit to pay the whole price (it will take a week or two if the feature is desired or years if the feature is unwanted)

d) When 100% of the price from the price tag is paid to a particular developer's address, the developer starts coding.

e) The feature is added to Bitcoin-Qt (e.g. documentation) after reviewing by other developers in context of safety.



Additional mechanisms can be added like holding some of the devs salary in escrow for a certain period of time for possible bug fixing.



Bitcoin miners jointly dispose of computer power greater than 500 top computers in the world. Bitcoin users dispose of cash (to be used for project development) greater than what you can get from MtGox, Bitpay and other businesses. You simply need to build the auction tool to let this cash flow to the developers.



* having one website = one username + all issues and feature requests in one place + easy management, like sorting issues, deleting doubling feature requests, etc. (no need to jump from bitcoinbounties to gitthyub to gittip, etc. - I do not imagine 1000 people doing all this acrobatics to donate 1 or 2 bitcoins for a small feature). There are 23 open feature requests https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues?labels=Feature&milestone=&page=1&state=open None of them interests me. Really.Language barrier (my English is poor) + knowledge barrier (a newbie and a non-techie).1. There should be one project development website*. On this website retail users and business users compete with their money for the Bitcoin developers' resources.2. The website should have built-in crowd financing mechanism. This crowd financing mechanism will be mostly used by retail users, but I can imagine that in case of complex and pricey features (more than $100k) businesses can join forces and use it too.3. The website should work like this:a) People / businesses submit their feature requests like in this project management site http://www.multicharts.com/pm/ (loads slowly).b) Then developers put a price tag for requests they can handle + specify time they agree to complete the task.c) Then people / businesses commit to pay the whole price (it will take a week or two if the feature is desired or years if the feature is unwanted)d) When 100% of the price from the price tag is paid to a particular developer's address, the developer starts coding.e) The feature is added to Bitcoin-Qt (e.g. documentation) after reviewing by other developers in context of safety.Additional mechanisms can be added like holding some of the devs salary in escrow for a certain period of time for possible bug fixing.Bitcoin miners jointly dispose of computer power greater than 500 top computers in the world. Bitcoin users dispose of cash (to be used for project development) greater than what you can get from MtGox, Bitpay and other businesses. You simply need to build the auction tool to let this cash flow to the developers.* having one website = one username + all issues and feature requests in one place + easy management, like sorting issues, deleting doubling feature requests, etc. (no need to jump from bitcoinbounties to gitthyub to gittip, etc. - I do not imagine 1000 people doing all this acrobatics to donate 1 or 2 bitcoins for a small feature).

wumpus



Offline



Activity: 812

Merit: 1000



No Maps for These Territories







Hero MemberActivity: 812Merit: 1000No Maps for These Territories Re: The Bitcoin Foundation is TOXIC and must dissolve, plus a call to action May 20, 2013, 10:16:14 AM #72 You shouldn't just look at the feature requests but the other issues as well. Not all are labeled properly (yes, no one is paid to do that either).



In any case you're kind of confirming Gavin's feeling: the non-sexy issues that badly need to be fixed would not get funded, as they're not as interesting in a casual glance by someone non-technical.



And *that's* what funding is needed for: Autotesters, small friendlyness improvements (like choosing the block chain location), robustness, fixing bugs and annoyances. That's the kind of issues that currently hardly receive attention from developers because they're not fun or even very challenging to implement. That's where an incentive is needed.

Warning: For most, coin loss is a larger risk than coin theft. A disk can die any time. Regularly back up your wallet through File → Backup Wallet to an external storage or the (encrypted!) cloud. Use a separate offline wallet for storing larger amounts. Bitcoin Core developer [PGP] For most, coin loss is a larger risk than coin theft. A disk can die any time. Regularly back up your wallet throughto an external storage or the (encrypted!) cloud. Use a separate offline wallet for storing larger amounts.

Loozik



Offline



Activity: 378

Merit: 250





Born to chew bubble gum and kick ass







Sr. MemberActivity: 378Merit: 250Born to chew bubble gum and kick ass Re: The Bitcoin Foundation is TOXIC and must dissolve, plus a call to action May 20, 2013, 10:48:50 AM #73 Quote from: John Smith on May 20, 2013, 10:16:14 AM In any case you're kind of confirming Gavin's feeling: the non-sexy issues that badly need to be fixed would not get funded, as they're not as interesting in a casual glance by someone non-technical.

John,



1. Are these non-sexy issues fixed now for free? If yes then, they will continue to be fixed for free in the future as well (by this kind soul). If these non-sexy issues are not being fixed now, then nothing would change, if you started being paid for sexy features (except you would be better off).



2. I will post a layout of the project management website today (a basic idea).



3. BTW, I do not think that people will start massively flooding you with sexy and nonsensical feature requests. If people must back their requests with their hard earned real money - trust me - the request will be well thought and sense-making.

John,1. Are these non-sexy issues fixed now for free? If yes then, they will continue to be fixed for free in the future as well (by this kind soul). If these non-sexy issues are not being fixed now, then nothing would change, if you started being paid for sexy features (except you would be better off).2. I will post a layout of the project management website today (a basic idea).3. BTW, I do not think that people will start massively flooding you with sexy and nonsensical feature requests. If people must back their requests with their hard earned real money - trust me - the request will be well thought and sense-making.

wumpus



Offline



Activity: 812

Merit: 1000



No Maps for These Territories







Hero MemberActivity: 812Merit: 1000No Maps for These Territories Re: The Bitcoin Foundation is TOXIC and must dissolve, plus a call to action May 20, 2013, 11:13:42 AM #75 Quote 1. Are these non-sexy issues fixed now for free? If yes then, they will continue to be fixed for free in the future as well (by this kind soul). If these non-sexy issues are not being fixed now, then nothing would change, if you started being paid for sexy features (except you would be better off).

No, they're not fixed right now. That's what people are complaining about; see for example.



http://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/1eb1dg/bitcoinqt_should_have_a_way_to_choose_blockchain/



And I can't speak for the other developers but at least I am tired of doing work for free.



Another example would be "sweep private key" (to redeem paper wallets etc without polluting the wallet with potentially untrusted private keys).



Or a wizard/help system to guide people through setup, shows help bubbles on first use, etc.



Basically, things that developers and advanced users don't need because they can McGyver-rig something to do the job anyway.



"sexy issues" are things like multi-wallet support, HD wallets, coin control patches, etc. Hard, very high impact, but also very hard to test properly and thus get integrated. Developers may work on them for free just for the challenge and developer cred. You can add financial incentives as you want to these, but that won't necessarily help them get integrated faster because the bottleneck is testing/code review.



Quote 2. I will post a layout of the project management website today (a basic idea).

Ok, cool



Quote 3. BTW, I do not think that people will start massively flooding you with sexy and nonsensical feature requests. If people must back their requests with their hard earned real money - trust me - the request will be well thought and sense-making.

You have a point there.

No, they're not fixed right now. That's what people are complaining about; see for example.And I can't speak for the other developers but at least I am tired of doing work for free.Another example would be "sweep private key" (to redeem paper wallets etc without polluting the wallet with potentially untrusted private keys).Or a wizard/help system to guide people through setup, shows help bubbles on first use, etc.Basically, things that developers and advanced users don't need because they can McGyver-rig something to do the job anyway."sexy issues" are things like multi-wallet support, HD wallets, coin control patches, etc. Hard, very high impact, but also very hard to test properly and thus get integrated. Developers may work on them for free just for the challenge and developer cred. You can add financial incentives as you want to these, but that won't necessarily help them get integrated faster because the bottleneck is testing/code review.Ok, coolYou have a point there. Warning: For most, coin loss is a larger risk than coin theft. A disk can die any time. Regularly back up your wallet through File → Backup Wallet to an external storage or the (encrypted!) cloud. Use a separate offline wallet for storing larger amounts. Bitcoin Core developer [PGP] For most, coin loss is a larger risk than coin theft. A disk can die any time. Regularly back up your wallet throughto an external storage or the (encrypted!) cloud. Use a separate offline wallet for storing larger amounts.

jubalix



Offline



Activity: 2156

Merit: 1007







LegendaryActivity: 2156Merit: 1007 Re: The Bitcoin Foundation is TOXIC and must dissolve, plus a call to action May 20, 2013, 11:16:46 AM #76 Quote from: mikegogulski on May 19, 2013, 01:00:55 PM



"Outgoing" Bitcoin Foundation Executive Director Peter Vessenes, aka "vess" here, @vessenes on Twitter, states in video from Bitcoin 2013 (



https://twitter.com/mikegogulski/status/335820053926797312



As I wrote:

Quote #BitcoinFoundation is DEAD TO ME. Lobbyists? Fuck you @Vessenes shyster sellout! Give my BTC 25 back! http://ow.ly/lai8e #Bitcoin2013

Then:

Quote Is that why you sold me http://app.bitlaundry.com/ @vessenes? So you could look squeaky clean while cozying up to politicians?#Bitcoin2013 ( https://twitter.com/mikegogulski/status/335822417400324097

And:

Quote I got into #Bitcoin to improve this miserable planet and ESCAPE the iron grip of privileged moneyed interests, not JOIN THEM! #Bitcoin2013

And:

Quote And @Vessenes sues @MtGox for $75m. Send the king's swordsmen! I need more money! #Bitcoin2013 #Bitcoin #betrayal #rat #statist #sellout

Plenty more follows in my tweet stream, and includes a conversation with Smári McCarthy of the International (formerly Icelandic) Modern Media Institute (



I provided more of my reasoning (after a nice barbiturates-and-vodka cocktail and a bit of sleep) on Google+, in comments on Declan McCullagh's article (



Quote



+Jon Matonis Despite my rantings, for me it's not about purity either, but about the Foundation running off in a direction starkly counter to the motivations of a good many members, without any consultation at all. I believe I also heard +Peter Vessenes say, in that opening pitch, that there would be a Bitcoin Foundation members' meeting during the conference. I guess that means that I'll be getting an invitation with a teleconference number soon(?).



+Jerry Brito and +Declan McCullagh Yes, the exchanges are a vulnerable point, almost a "systempunkt" in John Robb's terminology, the resiliency of the underlying protocol aside. At the same time, it's already widely recognized that the best solutions to that sort of risk in the Bitcoin ecosystem involve peer-to-peer fiat/BTC exchange on the lines of #bitcoin-otc, localbitcoins.com and/or some kind of price discovery and exchange mechanism, with market actor reputation tracking, working in distributed fashion either in the BTC blockchain itself or as part of some kind of complementary system based roughly on the same principles. It's into those kinds of solutions that I'd like to see funding from whatever replaces the now toxic Bitcoin foundation and where I'd like to see the massive amounts of human energy that will otherwise be sucked into the interdimensional tentacle-monster maelstrom of KYC/AML/FinCEN/FATF/make-it-play-in-Peoria compliance (vendor AND customer side) spent.



As +Nick Weaver alludes to, Bitcoin really is fundamentally incompatible with the pharaonic pyramids of the legacy banking system, or, in my parting words from last night, sending Bitcoin to DC is like sending My Little Pony to the veterinarian. Even though we lot on this thread may share similar ideas about the ideal end state for Bitcoin, I think we all agree that the means to reach those ends are important as well. There is clear disagreement about what sorts of means are the most efficient in bringing us all to shiny happy crypto-ponycoin utopia, and that's fine. I'm asking folks to consider the entire picture very carefully, and especially not with America-centric blinders on.



I could go on to complain (but won't do so here, hehe) that the Bitcoin core dev team -- and, by extension, the Foundation which pays +Gavin Andresen -- are, in my opinion, spending a disproportionate amount of time/energy on work which primarily benefits a small number of mining pool operators (taken collectively, another systempunkt!) and on work which tends more and more to support centralized and institutionalized structures such as BitPay and BitInstant -- with all due respect to those teams -- and to toward the deprioritization of work support independent merchants and the actual peer-to-peer future. Perhaps this is simply a disagreement regarding how to sequence priorities, but I can't help but think it points to the same sort of issues I mention above, which actually turn out to be key ones as indicated by others.



+Jerry Brito "Allowed" is a hobgoblin. Bitcoin doesn't need permission from the existing state/corporate financial system. In fact, it presents an existential threat to both. Fine, though, send some "diplomats" out to spread confusion in the enemy's ranks.



And to +Jeffrey Tucker, it is indeed sad that freedom itself is simply unthinkable, where in a proper society it would be the reflexive, unconsidered default posture and where that society would react swiftly and forcefully to deviations from its principles. Alas, even with several thousand years of thought and experience to guide us, we have not yet collectively made the freedom posture the default.



(https://plus.google.com/u/1/112961607570158342254/posts/YLe37k7vonQ) TL;DR: Sending Bitcoin to DC is like sending My Little Pony to the veterinarian.+Jon Matonis Despite my rantings, for me it's not about purity either, but about the Foundation running off in a direction starkly counter to the motivations of a good many members, without any consultation at all. I believe I also heard +Peter Vessenes say, in that opening pitch, that there would be a Bitcoin Foundation members' meeting during the conference. I guess that means that I'll be getting an invitation with a teleconference number soon(?).+Jerry Brito and +Declan McCullagh Yes, the exchanges are a vulnerable point, almost a "systempunkt" in John Robb's terminology, the resiliency of the underlying protocol aside. At the same time, it's already widely recognized that the best solutions to that sort of risk in the Bitcoin ecosystem involve peer-to-peer fiat/BTC exchange on the lines of #bitcoin-otc, localbitcoins.com and/or some kind of price discovery and exchange mechanism, with market actor reputation tracking, working in distributed fashion either in the BTC blockchain itself or as part of some kind of complementary system based roughly on the same principles. It's into those kinds of solutions that I'd like to see funding from whatever replaces the now toxic Bitcoin foundation and where I'd like to see the massive amounts of human energy that will otherwise be sucked into the interdimensional tentacle-monster maelstrom of KYC/AML/FinCEN/FATF/make-it-play-in-Peoria compliance (vendor AND customer side) spent.As +Nick Weaver alludes to, Bitcoin really is fundamentally incompatible with the pharaonic pyramids of the legacy banking system, or, in my parting words from last night, sending Bitcoin to DC is like sending My Little Pony to the veterinarian. Even though we lot on this thread may share similar ideas about the ideal end state for Bitcoin, I think we all agree that the means to reach those ends are important as well. There is clear disagreement about what sorts of means are the most efficient in bringing us all to shiny happy crypto-ponycoin utopia, and that's fine. I'm asking folks to consider the entire picture very carefully, and especially not with America-centric blinders on.I could go on to complain (but won't do so here, hehe) that the Bitcoin core dev team -- and, by extension, the Foundation which pays +Gavin Andresen -- are, in my opinion, spending a disproportionate amount of time/energy on work which primarily benefits a small number of mining pool operators (taken collectively, another systempunkt!) and on work which tends more and more to support centralized and institutionalized structures such as BitPay and BitInstant -- with all due respect to those teams -- and to toward the deprioritization of work support independent merchants and the actual peer-to-peer future. Perhaps this is simply a disagreement regarding how to sequence priorities, but I can't help but think it points to the same sort of issues I mention above, which actually turn out to be key ones as indicated by others.+Jerry Brito "Allowed" is a hobgoblin. Bitcoin doesn't need permission from the existing state/corporate financial system. In fact, it presents an existential threat to both. Fine, though, send some "diplomats" out to spread confusion in the enemy's ranks.And to +Jeffrey Tucker, it is indeed sad that freedom itself is simply unthinkable, where in a proper society it would be the reflexive, unconsidered default posture and where that society would react swiftly and forcefully to deviations from its principles. Alas, even with several thousand years of thought and experience to guide us, we have not yet collectively made the freedom posture the default.

CLEARLY, Bitcoin no longer needs the Bitcoin Foundation as it's currently constituted, and it is probably too toxic to be salvaged in any form. The conflicts of interest among directors should make this perfectly clear. Plus, we now have Vessenes suing Karpeles over the MtGox/Coinlab deal while they are both on the same board. They both should have resigned immediately at the time the suit was filed and served.



Even worse, and utterly inexcusably, Peter Vessenes hired Patrick Murck as the Foundation's general counsel. This of course is the very same Patrick Murck who serves as Coinlab's General Counsel, and who is therefore Coinlab's top litigator in the suit against MtGox.



And, worse still, this is yet the same Patrick Murck who drew up the Coinlab/Bitcoinica/Bitcoin Consultancy deal which turned into such a massive clusterfuck that exactly none of the players involved emerged in any other manner than smeared with shit from head to toe. (



Note also that NONE of these highly controversial acts and omissions were placed before votes of the Foundation's membership, in radical contravention of the founding spirit of the organiza