Yeah but that dose of legitimacy is exactly what some of us were calling a power grab and now fear it's a danger in the future. I much rather see a different name that allows for likewise legitimate competition rather than a name that implies sole legitimacy but I do agree that two people can't decide what the best name should be and do hope you have a meeting, ask for suggestions and vote on a change ASAP.

As for the rest, I just want to you to take a free market voluntary approach to every aspect and couldn't understand why you didn't do so from the get go. Currently you made a lot of assertions and thereby raised red flags with some of us who are highly coercion wary. So I do hope this is the second most important topic you will discuss at your meeting then ask for suggestions and change ASAP. You can only benefit if you do so even though it might not seem like that right away because you'd be giving up some of this "power" or legitimacy.


And good morning to you too.

Would you believe me if I told you someone is paying monthly for a life insurance policy on me?

They have so much vested in me and in Bitcoin, that if I die, they want to make sure they get paid.

Obviously, if I'm murdered he won't get paid because of the "Anti Gotti" laws

Agreed.

Woah.  That is a significant abuse of moderator power.

Has hazek edited any of your other posts?
Has hazek edited any of my posts?
Has hazek edited any of satoshi's old posts?

Editing another's posts is far worse than deletion, when it comes to abuse of moderator powers.  That is misrepresenting someone else's identity.

Edit:  Yes, Gavin should have signed his post with PGP, to more easily spot things like this.

The foundation site seems to be down now?

Tried locally and on downforeveryoneorjustme.com

Please don't let this escalate into a fiasco.  From what he said, it sounded like his edits were well-intentioned, and I don't have any reason to suspect any abuse of his responsibilities.  And I'm saying that as someone that recently had a fairly heated and very public disagreement with him.

These forums need moderation, and that means that someone has to have the power to edit posts.  If nothing else, the owner of the server can just diddle the database directly.  There is a level of trust that we have to take on in exchange for the convenience of these forums.

Important things should be signed with GPG before posting.  In retrospect, perhaps this post was one of those.

Will the foundation members pay for those trips themselves, or will donations and membership-money be used to pay for holidaytrips of foundation members?

that's quite serious. i suggest to open a thread in the meta forum

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?board=24.0

Okay, this seems like a blatant political attempt to vilify hazek who has had a dissenting voice on TBF.

Under the circumstances wouldn't this be more suited to a PM? What are the charges, again? That he changed the links from .org to .com?

Let's look at this from the perspective of hazek intentionally being malicious... Seems like a pretty weak action to me. On the other hand, an honest attempt to fix what is thought to be a broken link sounds more likely, at least to me. I don't know the details surrounding this, but I've seen repeated messages about TBF site being unavailable, and one post asking about some private party owning the .com version which suggests to me such a version exists. Sounds like an honest mistake.

Second charge? That he PM'd you to clarify proper handling of placement for this thread? Again, that sounds like a pretty weak charge. I myself had the exact same question upon visiting and seeing about 7 foundation related threads moved to Service Discussion while this thread remained on the main forum. I wondered about consistency, but felt given the significance of this the inconsistency might be justified; just my own view.

Last charge? That he's "spouting off" about Gavin this or that? Please. Your behavior is really starting to worry me. Maybe you're just stressed with all that's going on. I hope that's the case rather than intentional negative political/PR tactics, because that would suggest the need to behave in a disingenuous manner over something which is supposed to be a good idea on its own merits.



Apples to oranges comparison.

Let me spell it out since you and Jeff Garzik apparently haven't any inkling about how crowdfunding Bitcoin Kickstarter style might work.

Do you know how I'd go about it? The first step would be identifying the need/problem. What exactly is it? Reading through these posts I'd say there is strain in different forms on the leading developers of Bitcoin software, including compensation. Okay. So that's a problem. What's the scope? Well, given technical threats and just the inherent needs of such a complex and large-scale project I'd say enormous, i.e., it could threaten/halt Bitcoin progress completely. Okay, so we've identified that we need to get adequate development compensation or it may halt Bitcoin progress completely.

Don't you think that sounds just a bit more urgent than a "Bitcoin Testing Project" that received 72 BTC, or a subtle donation plate style wallet address in a dev signature? You make a thread in the main forum along the lines of "Listen up everyone, Bitcoin may come to a grinding halt if we don't find a solution to X". In this case X is raising adequate developer compensation.

As a libertarian I've followed the campaign of Ron Paul, who raised millions of dollars, not from any wealthy special interests, but pretty much entirely from grassroots supporters. In fact he set a campaign fundraising single day record of about $6 million through use of a grassroots invention called the "money bomb". Why do I bring this up? Because Dr. Paul didn't have wealthy donors. His average contribution was about $25. It's just that so many people believed in the cause so much that raising these lofty figures suddenly became possible, so much so it started garnering media attention for someone way outside the mainstream.

So you set a goal. You say we need 1 million dollars raised in the next month or the current leading developers will have to retire temporarily. But if we raise it we can pay X number of developers for X amount of time which should get Bitcoin to point X, at which time we can reassess things.

Dr. Paul didn't do much with his impressive grassroots funding in his '07/08 run, but in his latest 2012 run he raised far more; his momentum had garnered far more supporters...

Make sense? Fundraising via a foundation is crowdfunding too, is it not?


I can see why you of all people would be glad to see something in the way of this foundation. I knew you were in a quasi-leadership type role for Bitcoin, but I had no appreciation for just how much you were doing before now. Let me take a quick moment to say thank you, and to the other developers as well. My impression was that people put into Bitcoin whatever they could, in the form they wished, when they wished to do so. I imagined voluntary contributions were sure to be uneven in places, but that nobody should be putting in anything that would result in any strain. Why should they? But it appears you were, at least.

So I can certainly sympathize with you in pushing for this foundation. Unfortunately, that doesn't automatically make it a good idea in my book. As I posted earlier I plan on posting another thread with my own version of solutions to perceived Bitcoin problems.