It's good that the Foundation will be funding development and representing Bitcoin legally, but it's important that the ownership of Bitcoin-related assets doesn't become too centralized. In particular, the Foundation should not:
- Control bitcoin.org
- Control any DNS seeds, etc.
- Own copyright on the Bitcoin source code
- Own any patents
- Own the Bitcoin trademark (unless someone has to own it)
I've answered this on reddit and similar sentiments in the comment section of my recent article, but I also want to post here. [No comment from me on copyrights and patents, because I don't believe in them and I don't support their infrastructure.]
theymos, thank you. I considered those issues as well prior to accepting the offer to join the board (and the specific direction is still being debated in multiple venues such as this forum). The success and organization of the
Tor Project had a lot to do with my decision.
As a libertarian and non-Statist on the Foundation board, I think that other libertarians and non-Statists would mostly agree that a transparent organization is preferable to a 'single anointed individual' that can select the next 'single anointed individual' in a non-transparent fashion (the community never voiced their opinion on Gavin taking over lead role for Satoshi it just happened). Although it has worked out well, no one can guarantee the longevity of Gavin in that role.
Open source software is actually more vulnerable to discreet State pressures and random bribery when only one, or a few, steer core protocol development without any community input on succession planning. A centralized individual is more corruptible than a group and the foundation is actually a step towards
de-centralization in that regard.
Additionally, I would think that bitcoin users in general would welcome a check-and-balance on the core development group that may or may not have been involved in receiving clandestine compensation on the side. Of course, nothing prevents that from occurring now or in the future but I believe that an accountable, nonprofit foundation would decrease its likelihood.
Come on Jon, I thought better of you.
You got it all backwards. Open source is incorruptible as long as people remain vigilant. It's impossible to sneak something malicious into the code even if some developer is getting paid on the side - if people pay attention. What you have done now is actually weaken this vigilance because a lot of the user base is going to rely on you - the board members - to be vigilant for them.
We had checks and balances - the open source code anyone could read, and everyone was forced to read if they wanted to make sure.
Now we have a political centralized service provider (the structure of which ensures that corporate + founders always have the majority) that only part of the community supports and that wants to be the face of something they have no control over, they have no ownership over and are going to give a false sense of security to some users diminishing the vigilance that will be necessary to protect the core of Bitcoin.
If this Foundation is really such a wonderful idea why then did you keep it's formation (founders, bylaws, mission statement, allocation of salaries, ect) private? Why didn't you open a public thread on this forum and let everyone have an input how such an organization, if one was wanted or warranted in the first place, should be structured.
I'm sorry but I don't like what you did with this Foundation one bit because I don't trust that you'll do what is best for my own personal interest because I do not pay you and I didn't give you my explicit consent arranged with a contract to do so. All I can do now is hope you remain powerless and hope that I am left alone to experience Bitcoin as I wish. And judging by history of mankind I get the sense this hope is all in vain.
