@Erik Voor Hees and Jon Matonis, if you're still following this gigantic thread, I'd appreciate if you could answer me these questions:

• What's your opinion on the ban of anonymous memberships of this organization?
• Don't you see that the name "Bitcoin Foundation", besides being a lie in itself (this organization is not the foundation of Bitcoin), will inevitably mislead people - including journalists - into believing this organization has some sort authority over Bitcoin? Don't you believe the name was intentionally chosen to produce such effect? Doesn't that bother you a tiny bit?

Sorry if you've addressed those questions already, but I couldn't read the entire thread line by line. Just be kind to point me to the post answering them if that's the case.


I do understand the difference very well. I don't claim they're a coercive order.

What I don't like in this organization is mainly the fact that they've chosen a name that is a lie in itself and will inevitably provoke misunderstandings.
There's also the fact that they lack some basic principles, which wouldn't bother me if they weren't being so presumptuous as to call themselves "Bitcoin Foundation". Not allowing anonymous memberships is a big mistake. That alone is a reason for me never joining it. There are also some other displays of lack of principles, which may not be relevant from a practical point of view, but are not a good start anyway. For example, declaring Satoshi as a founder without his express consent shows they don't fully understand voluntary associations.  

I'm addressing you two (Erik and Matonis) precisely because I'd expect you to understand the importance of these principles better - especially the anonymous participation thing. I'd also expect you not to want to mislead people into believing this organization has some sort of power over Bitcoin.