Ok, I guess I need to quote everything in order to show how the conversation actually went (relevant parts are underlined and red):


To which I wrote:


To which you replied:


To which I replied:


To which you replied with a non answer:


To which I replied with my conclusion:


And you replied with another non answer:



And finally I'm waiting to hear your answer to:

This seems reasonable at the moment but as more and more economic activity takes place with bitcoin I can very easily see this not being sufficient for any govt. They will want to know who is paying who and for what and will want a cut in taxes, and to impose controls. When enough users have useful holding in bitcoin such that they can thrive without fiat they will be wanting to know more. And isn't that what we're all here for? To eventually make Bitcoin so useful that we no longer need to depend on govt fiat money?

See my response above.

Also,

Everyone has to get over the fact he met with the CIA, its not a big deal.

A bunch of analysts in the room who just wanted to ask some questions, stop being so paranoid

So you aren't going to point to the section of the bylaws the supposedly highly limits the Bitcoin Foundation as was implied with "We cant gain power, in fact we cannot do anything outside the bylaws." ?

I'm worried the foundation will grab the power to:
- claim to speak in the name of all users of the Bitcoin software
- claim to speak as the authority on Bitcoin software
- claim to be a watchdog over the code so individual members needn't worry
- claim to be the authority deciding which Bitcoin businesses are legitimate
- claim to be the authority that decides which Bitcoin projects are worthy of founding
- claim to be the authority that decides which developer's improvements should/shouldn't be added to the core Bitcoin code
- sell a change of Bitcoin or any "approved" layers on top, or just simply a policy or a mission statement to the corporate membership, shoved down the throats of all of the users through a founders 1 + corporate 2 vote giving them the majority

and I could think of more.. So please how are you going to prevent this from happening some day. I realize you probably aren't doing this today, but what about in a year, or 2 or 3 or 5?


After you are done addressing these, don't forget to explain what you meant by "We cant gain power, in fact we cannot do anything outside the bylaws.". It's extremely important that we understand how did you limit yourself through the bylaws as implied by your post. Preferably quote the bylaws. And if you didn't limit yourself, please explain why you worded your post in a manner leaving an impression you did.

Also, who the hell is Matt?

You are afraid of TBF implementing code in the software to leak user data? Is that what you're trying to say?

I like the idea of the Foundation and have joined up for life, I can vote now.
Imo your average person/bizz needs something like this or otherwise Bitcoin is just like bobbing for apples in a tub when you need answers.
The Atlas campaign smacks of ol style propaganda, repeat something often enough and people will eventually believe it.

Get ready...its a long one!  


Hey dude,

Have I every taken offense to a question, moreover a question from you? You and I go back a while now, I would never think you had ill intentions.

Your question is a good one, and it comes down to representation..the same reason the US has a Senate where each state is represented equally.

Allow me to answer your question with a parable.

In a situation with 1 membership fee with 1 vote per member, we were afraid what could happen is that different sectors and industries within Bitcoin (now and in the future) would not be properly represented. As a group, we felt sure that we wanted to represent both commercial and individual interests in the community. We also wanted a structure flexible enough to adjust to the community's input.

If all miners decided to team up and take all 5 board seats and change the rules, that would be a terrible thing.
However, in the current structure, miners get 2 seats only, therefore they cannot assert control.
Same thing with corporate members not being able to asserts control over individual members.

I'm sure this may not be the -best- way in your opinion, but thats totally cool!
If you think it needs changing, get in touch! Even better, run for a board seat and change the rules yourself!

-Charlie


The Foundation and the core dev team are 2 separate things. The Foundation will not be able to control the code or dev team.

The Foundation is merely an entity to protects and promote Bitcoin. We will not attempt to control it, as long as I am on the board.


Matt,

Again, I clearly said the bylaws limit our corporate power which you already quoted. I did not say the bylaws limit the power over its control of Bitcoin.
Please stop trying to twist my words. I wrote "Your bylaws reference is speaking of something totally different, corporate law, that states that the foundation can sell t-shirts but not illegal firearms..nothing to do with promoting Bitcoin"

Now, onto the real issue...

I'm worried the foundation will grab the power to:

- claim to speak in the name of all users of the Bitcoin software
>> We claim to speak in the name of all members of the foundation. Bitcoin is open source, no one owns it.

- claim to speak as the authority on Bitcoin software
>> Bitcoin is open source, no one owns it. Anyone can write their own Bitcoin software. The foundation does not control any of the software.

- claim to be a watchdog over the code so individual members needn't worry
>> The foundation will pay for Quality Control and Assurance of the Bitcoin code from member dues. The InfoSec type companies will be hired to test the quality of the code and look for bugs/holes (Something which the dev teams badly needs and has requested many times) Any findings will be published the an update released. Any of the individual software writers or users are free to not update their clients or software.

- claim to be the authority deciding which Bitcoin businesses are legitimate
>> The foundation will attempt to build a vetting process to prevent scammer companies from exploiting Bitcoin users. It wil not just point a finger at a company and say "This is illegitimate". The foundation will release evidence acquired and present it to its members.

- claim to be the authority that decides which Bitcoin projects are worthy of founding
>> The foundation will fund projects that request to be funded. It is legally allowed to deny/approve anyone as its a member driven organization.

- claim to be the authority that decides which developer's improvements should/shouldn't be added to the core Bitcoin code
>> The foundation has no say in what goes in the code. Recommendations could be presented to the core dev team, and they can do as they see fit.

- sell a change of Bitcoin or any "approved" layers on top, or just simply a policy or a mission statement to the corporate membership, shoved down the throats of all of the users through a founders 1 + corporate 2 vote giving them the majority
>> Most policys and major changes would require a unanimous vote, not a majority.

Let me know if you have other concerns, I'll gladly respond to them.

Some of these concerns are real, and I think need to go intro the bylaws, so thank you for pointing them out....just wish you were a little nicer about it considering you asked to be treated like an adult

-Charlie


Dude, you gotta stop with the personal insults at people. Have I insulted you? Why cant you have a normal and civilized conversion.

You asked to be treated like an adult, act like one!

And the community would reject any version that added such IP tracking.  As they should.

Each user's use of bitcoin software is a vote to accept or reject changes.  If community does not like the changes coming down the pipe, they won't use them!  Every single change is public, out in the open for inspection.  The process for firing Gavin and any other dev is therefore simple.

git and gitian guard well against "include an IP address with every transaction" back doors.

I think a bitcoin foundation is great. However, I'm concerned that, due to its likely funding sources, it will not be a democratic organization.

Consider these options.

1) (I prefer) Compulsory taxation (e.g. txn fee levy) funds organization. Users elect foundation members (one coin = one vote). This is similar to a representative democracy (though wealth is the basis of voting power). The foundation will represent the interests of the median wealth holder. I think the median wealth holder would be an upper middle class consumer or small business owner.

2) (current system; I think it is better than nothing) Voluntary donation. Only special interests find it worthwhile to volunteer donations. Foundation members elect themselves, though presumably donating businesses have the ultimate say. This is similar to an industry lobbying group. The foundation represents special interests of large-scale, bitcoin businesses and is accountable to big business.

I believe that having a foundation is much better than not having one at all. However, I think system (1) is much better than system (2). I proposed an alt-chain based on this before. However, the vast majority here seems to think that compulsory taxation is evil, so we will have only system (2).

Not trying to knock on the foundation (it is a step forward), but I wanted to put this out there.

Ok maybe you missed it at the very end, but who the hell is Matt? You want me to be nicer? Why not follow your own advice and stop calling people names that aren't theirs? I never called you any names, all I did was ask questions based off of your posts. And telling someone they are blinded by their ego just can't be an insult. No, I'm actually being extremely nice and cordial by my standards. But I'm not going not point out inconsistencies in your words for the sake of being nice.

As for your answers, I'm not happy, as you can imagine because you have just shown me with your answers that you will seek certain power to do certain things and no matter how open or well intentioned the process is going to be, given how you structured the board of directors you cannot promise me anything that would make me believe corruption and abuse isn't possible down the road. Now I have to trust you. And THAT is my main problem. Before all I needed to worry about was the code, now I need to worry about the code AND trusting you, something I did not consent to and had no need for.

And last but not least, let's clear this up please because I really wouldn't want to "twist your words". Explain what exactly did you mean in the below quote, specifically with the red underlined part: