Quote from: eb3full on October 03, 2012, 10:50:15 AM

Not only is Gavin unlikely to humor this, it's a very disingenuous comparison. Bitcoin is at risk of a single malicious party which must afford to scale their attack against everybody else in the network, at direct opposition to the market incentive to act as an honest party. Not only is there not a market incentive to act as an honest voter in the foundation, the entry rates (2.5btc) are static and do not change based on the demand of new participants.

You simply cannot have a "1 person 1 vote" system that allows anonymous donation. Since they actually want their foundation to have credibility, they've made the right decision.

This is a completely valid comparison. People will lobby the foundation because of their private economic interest. Incentives to buy votes scale with the value of bitcoin just like incentives to invest in mining equipment. In both situations, the interests of lobbyists/miners will not fully coincide with those of bitcoin owners.

I'm not against a foundation; just like I'm not against a mining monopoly. Both are improvements over the status quo. An organization dominated by special interests is better than no organization at all. A robust democratic institution instead of one based on vote buying would be far preferable. (i.e. one coin of ownership = one vote, not one coin donated to vote buying = one vote)