Jump to content
Bitcoin Foundation
Guest Patrick Alexander

Post Your Bitcoin Foundation Resignations Here

Recommended Posts

Guest Patrick Alexander   
Guest Patrick Alexander

Unfortunately I must resign as an individual member of the Bitcoin Foundation. Reasons are many, but the following are salient:

  • Charlie Shrem engaging in alleged money laundering and associated crimes.

  • Mark Karpeles misappropriating people's money to the tune of millions.

  • Brock Pierce being associated with alleged pedophilia. (Now newly elected to an industry seat)

This is not the direction this foundation needs to take. The foundation members need to emulate very high moral values and ethics in business and in personal dealings, especially as it involves money. So far, the track record of prominent Bitcoin Foundation members has been abysmal. I know that most foundation members are probably swell people and are not like this. However, the acts of a few, have overshadowed us all unfortunately.

 

I no longer want to be associated with these people.

 

It is my wish that as the Bitcoin Foundation lay in ashes, another organization can rise up from these ashes and take its proper place representing the great idea that is bitcoin.

 

I would also like to thank all the hard work and volunteers who have coded Bitcoin Core, various other projects, and came up with some very creative ideas to deal with various problems. You are awesome.

 

Goodbye and Best Wishes,

 

Patrick

  • Upvote 7

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Brad Wheeler    296

I just want to step in and mention that this is a young organization in a young field. Part of the problem with such a young ecosystem is that business practices and personal behaviors can absolutely overshadow promises for future growth. Maybe this is part of the reason that Satoshi chose a pseudonym (i.e. to make a break from the past).

 

At the same time, a member-driven organization must make a concerted effort to push for and address questions as they surface. It plays into the organization's reputation.

 

This organization has until now operated on a paid membership model with little to no vetting of members. What level of vetting/disclosure would be necessary to keep the membership informed come election time? Looking back to the election subforum, absolutely no one mentioned criminal allegations anywhere in the election Q&A threads -- though a Wikipedia entry provided a few sentences and a link to a 404'd Wired article from 2008. Whose responsibility is it to do the digging and ask the tough questions?

 

Ultimately it's the membership that chooses their leaders.

 

Looking back a few months ago - there was a high bar to remove Mark and Charlie due to their "Founding" status, and their resignations saved the Foundation from having to change the bylaws on the fly. The bylaws are a powerful document that gets too little attention and I'm hoping that folks realize that they have the power to change something they have stake in.

 

Patrick: The Foundation documents are available on Github. Have you had a look at the requirements for electing directors? Do you have any suggestions for vetting candidates? Or would you suggest that we need to have more active participation from the membership to investigate nominees? Is it possible for the <100 industry members to sufficiently vet their representatives? Maybe we need to grow the organization to get more eyes on the screens, hire detectives, or think through a mechanism for improving our structure.

 

In the end I think we want to have the best leadership possible and leave no lingering questions.

 

Also, it's always your right to resign or simply not pay your dues (i.e. annual members). However, engaged members can do so much to improve upon the existing structures. If you see that opportunity too, then please help out!

  • Upvote 5

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I am also resigning as a lifetime member. If the bitcoin foundation is to be taken seriously, they need to immediately remove Brock Pierce from the board and save face. Brad, there are plenty more allegations than what you brought up. There are active lawsuits on corporate fraud and child porn. This is NOT the type of associations you want to have for Bitcoin, especially not with the MSM trying to pull every stunt in the book.

 

http://web.archive.o...rs-spanish-jail

 

-> The men fled to Spain where they were arrested by Spanish police who found "enormous amounts of child porn" at their villa.

 

Also, Spain is the only country in Europe where the legal age of consent is 13. Do you want to take the risk that this was a coincidence?

 

If you still have doubts, maybe read this: http://privatewww.es...lecomplaint.pdf

 

Also, the bitcoin community thinks this: http://www.reddit.co...in_foundations/

 

I will even make a proposal. It seems I should have joined as a platinum member a while ago to prevent something like this from happening. If you commit to remove Brock Pierce from the board, I pledge to join as Platinum member and pay the $100k USD fee, within the next 24 hours. I also urge you to update the bylaws to prevent people from joining if they are involved in ongoing lawsuits (of the nasty kind), or have ever been convicted for anything nasty. Or if their image is potentially damaging for the foundation.

  • Upvote 6

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Pierre Rochard    170

I've always been quick to defend the Bitcoin Foundation, but this is too much. Effective immediately I would like to terminate my annual membership with the Bitcoin Foundation. Please remove my name from the Bitcoin Foundation website.

 

For everyone not leaving: best of luck and God speed.

 

 

My new home is http://nakamotoinstitute.org/ . We don't have a membership fee and we don't have elections. Anyone can "join the board" by forking the source code and hosting it on a new URL. It's a work in progress, so send us pull requests!

 

 

Edit: Like Michael below, I would appreciate if the Bitcoin Foundation could donate the 0.2 BTC that I paid for my membership to Sean's Outpost: 1M72Sfpbz1BPpXFHz9m3CdqATR44Jvaydd

  • Upvote 5

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Since my membership expires in less than two weeks, I will show my support by saying that I have no intention to renew my membership. This decision was cemented by the recent farce of an election for the Bitcoin Foundation Canada's new seat on the board of directors. Only two of the candidates have been members for more that a couple of months, and those who have been most active and supportive of the Bitcoin Foundation coming to Canada weren't elected.

 

I will be removing any and all association with the Bitcoin Foundation from my online identities ASAP.

  • Upvote 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I would like to terminate my membership immediately. Please remove my name from the website.

 

Like Pierre said, everyone is welcome to assist us with the Satoshi Nakamoto Institute. Our focus is on ideas and development, rather than politics.

 

I would appreciate if the Bitcoin Foundation could donate the 0.2 BTC that I paid for my membership to Sean's Outpost: 1M72Sfpbz1BPpXFHz9m3CdqATR44Jvaydd

  • Upvote 5

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Firstly I would like to assert that "laws" such as they are, are largely illegitimate forms of asserting governance and as of late have become less legitimate.

 

Second I would like to say that I have largely removed myself from this forum. I will only be here on occasion and it will be unusual for me to post here.

 

Third, I will not remove my membership, but I have increased my contributions on github including but not limited to Bitcoin Foundation's Education Committee github repository, and I suggest others do the same. You can see it presented in the form of a website here. I am happy to continue to contribute there as I have been. Your participation in github repository whether of the Bitcoin Foundation or of other repositories not associated with the Foundation at all, does not require any Foundation membership and thus leaves you substantial flexibility in terms of the style and nature of how you will contribute and either come up with your own repositories or alternately assume collaborator status on others.

 

edit added May 13, 2014: Although I will continue to periodically contribute as shown above, I will not renew my Bitcoin Foundation membership, which expires Jan. 7, 2015. In no small part this is due to some observations I have made regarding recent evolution of the Board, undue influence from the Industry section, an inability of many associated with the Board to understand even what Bitcoin is, and observation of a lack of compassion on the part of an increasing number of persons who are close to the Board, which in turn has in some ways significantly impaired the Board's abilities to continue as an organization. The attempt at concentration of power as can be seen from observing particularly the Industry membership holders (in which special category of membership and "voting" are implemented by virtue of someone who pays more) is, and should be seen by anyone in any Bitcoin space, to be something which is completely contrary to the concepts of decentralization and equality that are present in the Bitcoin system itself. Please also refer to this post regarding my observations about what "voting" does and does not represent with respect to Bitcoin.

 

Cheers

 

-cg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Luke-Jr    87
My new home is http://nakamotoinstitute.org/ . We don't have a membership fee and we don't have elections. Anyone can "join the board" by forking the source code and hosting it on a new URL. It's a work in progress, so send us pull requests!
I don't get it. What is this? Looks like just an anarchist propagada website? I don't see any similarity/comparison with the Foundation.
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Pierre Rochard    170

I don't get it. What is this? Looks like just an anarchist propagada website? I don't see any similarity/comparison with the Foundation.

 

 

That's essentially correct, it is a crypto-anarchist propaganda website. Aside from being about Bitcoin, there is no similarity/comparison with the Foundation. We're not competing with the Foundation, though it would be nice if someone would.

 

Here is our "mission statement":

 

 

"The Satoshi Nakamoto Institute is eager to share with the world the best ideas past, present, and future in cryptography, distributed networks, economic freedom, and freedom of information. We are dedicated to curating the best primary source literature that challenge the status quo through technological innovation."

  • Upvote 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Luke-Jr    87

That's essentially correct, it is a crypto-anarchist propaganda website. Aside from being about Bitcoin, ...

Is it primarily about Bitcoin (a politically neutral technology), or about crypto-anarchism (a political movement)?
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Pierre Rochard    170

Is it primarily about Bitcoin (a politically neutral technology), or about crypto-anarchism (a political movement)?

 

That's for the reader to decide! My personal view is that it's primarily about the intersection between technology (Bitcoin), politics (crypto-anarchy), and economics (praxeology).

 

The site is à la carte, read what you like, ignore what you don't like, challenge yourself with new ideas, it's up to you!

  • Upvote 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What is the problem with Brock Pierce? I do not yet understand.

 

There is a strong connection to SaveGox: http://www.savegox.com/?p=142

 

I do not know if we should trust this initiative. Like many other victims I'm deeply unsettled because of the events around Gox.

But I think in principle it's a good sign when there is a successor of Gox (within the Foundation too).

If Gox go into bankruptcy, this is the bitcoin-economic end for many of us. I'm therefore pleased, basically, if something is done here.

 

Maybe we need to scale back our moral claims. We're only humans. But we should be honest with each other in the future.

May Brock say something about it. I do not know him yet.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Luke-Jr    87

BitcoinMediaProject.com interviewed Mr. Pierce on the day election results were made public. We asked him about the controversy and here is his response:

Text?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Please remove my name as a lifetime foundation supporter. I'm sorry, but in light of the recent allegations with the new foundation appointments, I cannot in good conscience be involved with such an organization.

 

I continue to be a supporter of Bitcoin by mining and running a full node, but can no longer support the foundation in it's current incarnation.

 

I wish you all the best,

 

-Christian Antkow

Dallas, TX

[email protected]

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I will NOT be resigning my (annual) membership and I congratulate the two new Board Members. They appear to have the energy and commitment to move Bitcoin forward. I also think it's really bad form to base decisions on rather thin allegations, I thought this was supposed to be a tolerant community. I wish the Bitcoin Foundation a long life.

  • Upvote 5

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Was Brock Pierce actually convicted or is this an old allegation that has no merit? Nobody raised this issue when he was running, but now that the elections are over - somebody decides to dig up an old suit? Now that somebody's dug it up - it's obviously an issue.

 

Doesn't Vessene's have four lawsuits against him? One of them a bankruptcy claim where he paid out substantial sums behind the judge's back? And this guy's been TREASURER of TBF for how long? That wasn't an issue for anyone resigning here (?) - but a 15 year old charge that's been dug up of somebody newly elected is somehow more important than substantial impropriety allegations with money of the treasurer? I'm talking about ongoing suits involving capital - not buried ones. C'mon...

 

The board should really be reflecting on member action here and the results of putting somebody in place w/ such a limited voting pool - this goes back to David Allen's proposition to restructure industry/individual voting privelages. If individual members had a greater interest in the election that just took place, an interest removed by limiting their voting right, it's possible that these allegations against Brock would've been brought up much earlier as more people would've felt they had incentive to ask questions in those threads...

  • Upvote 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Derek Watson    28

Well I'm not going to resign. Resigning doesn't help the core developers, it doesn't help the association and it's not going to change anything.

 

The solution is to have a test of 'good character' for all employees and members of the Principle Executive Committee (PEC). Areas taken into consideration include:

  • Crimes of Violence
  • Sex related Offences
  • Serious Drug Offences
  • Crimes involving Dishonesty
  • Serious Traffic Offences

In determining whether a person’s record of conviction is relevant to their capacity to work or volunteer, consideration is given to:

  • Nature and frequency of offence
  • Relevance of offence to the position or volunteer location
  • Age at which the offence was committed
  • How recent the offence was
  • Degree of rehabilitation
  • Whether the offence is a crime in the relevant jurisdiction (for example a woman may be convicted of driving a car)

If a declaration is made, an applicant will typically be contacted by the Conduct and Investigations Unit and asked to provide a written statement outlining the circumstances and background surrounding each charge/conviction. Further assessment will then be made prior to the clearance process being finalised. The CIU could be an ad-hoc committee and could be drawn from the members but must be independent of the PEC.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well I'm not going to resign. Resigning doesn't help the core developers, it doesn't help the association and it's not going to change anything.

 

The solution is to have a test of 'good character' for all employees and members of the Principle Executive Committee (PEC). Areas taken into consideration include:

  • Crimes of Violence
  • Sex related Offences
  • Serious Drug Offences
  • Crimes involving Dishonesty
  • Serious Traffic Offences

 

considering convicted criminals are barred from serving on the board, how is this test of character supposed to happen? ask the reddit-mob? throw the candidates into a lake and see if they float?

 

I am not particularly happy with the results either. But we already have a democracy here. Restricting and eroding it everytime it doesn't meet your desired results is the worst way to react. A more democratic approach like opening voting to all members would have , in all likelyhood, averted the current mess too.

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm at a loss here. What news is driving this thread? Brock Pierce's election? Are we supposed to resign because he was "associated with" "alleged" pedophilia 15+ years ago, never brought to trial, as far as I can tell never directly accused of anything in or out of court?

 

Guilt by association is a *fallacy*, folks. I've never met Pierce and if there are real grounds for Karpeles-/Shrem-like improprieties then that's a problem, but are there? He's known senior Hollywood people for 20+ years - of course he's been around some dirtbags! But he also has a decade plus of experience with virtual currencies, and his broad connections should be a genuine asset for the board.

 

I completely reject the argument that the "controversy" will be a "distraction" and therefore he should go - even if he's innocent. The allegations are ancient: the controversy is being stirred up by *this thread*. If all it takes to disqualify a candidate is hearsay, will that really reduce the level of politics in these elections?

 

Of course each member should make his own decision and most of us have our criticisms of the foundation, but I see no reason here to end my lifetime membership. I join Sandy and others in wishing the two new members well in the important work ahead.

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't just give up when things get rough, and that's not even the case here. This is about an old alligation not a conviction. But even if a claim turned out to have merit I would not be leaving, the offender would.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.

×