Topic: $100,000 Bounty for Software that Replaces the Bitcoin Foundation (Read 3589 times)

You can have working amicable agreements among parties of equivalent power...

The government will keep the peace as long as none of its interests is at stake (main interest: stay in power). Negotiating with government for allowing fiat-bitcoin trading is like a slave negotiating with his owner for a more humane work schedule.

You will gain nothing from lobbying for bitcoin.

Bitcoin is superior money. It will push governmental fiat aside. Governments will not like this, because it is an important source of power. Conflict can only be avoided by destroying bitcoin through allowing full "regulation". Then bitcoin will be exactly like fiat.

I guess I thought that the "bounty" here was sort of sarcastic.  Does the OP really want a software program to replace the function of the bitcoin foundation or was that just a "clever" way to present the complaints about the foundation?  I thought the latter.

The idea is excellent. Especially the ability to hire lobbyists. The wolves are all ready there in the form of mastercard lobbyists so this will have to happen quickly.

Honestly, if you can get bitpools to work like the video states, I imagine it'd be replacement enough. We can do decentralized crowd-funding of public relations, IMHO. We don't need a foundation to represent us directly.

- 1

for bitcoin to interact with FIAT (buy and sell) you cant just pretend that you owning bitcoin means that you should avoid the owners of fiat (government)

if you want to amicably interact with fiat. then you have to amicably interact with government.

i agree that bitcoin is out PRIVATE property and out of the juristiction of governments. but by avoiding government you are avoiding the possibility of using fiat..

so lobbying is needed just to keep the peace and keep it all amicable.

lobbying not only keeps the peace to allow fiat-bitcoin trading. but also keps the peace in regards to making sure that governments do not step over their jurisdiction and try controlling what is not theirs

This.  +1

the only issue I see with that, is it makes it harder for corporations in the space to fund things.
It's easier to just to sell them an annual subscription to be a gold member of the BF.

otherwise, they have to be solicited, then vote on whether to fund each project... and
additionally, they dont get the return of value of having that gold member badge.

Based on my experience I think it is highly unlikely that this initiative will lead to any tangible benefits. Software is not some magical item to solve all problems (assuming there are problems that really need to be solved). You can have good software without anyone using it.

I also think we don't need a replacement for The Bitcoin Foundation, because TBF was not needed in the first place. TBF should be disbanded and replaced by independent developers that can self-organize to collect funds for important development goals. For collecting funds they can just post their donation address - problem solved the bitcoin way.

Believing that problems arising out of governmental interference can be solved via negotiation are short-sighted and naive. We don't need lobbying for Bitcoin, we need strong bitcoin technology that is 100% apolitical and offers cash-like privacy, easy access, high fungibility and is resilient to governmental control ("regulation").

Imho the funds would be better spend by funding a Core developer.

its more to ensure that projects get completed.
EG instead of gavin being paid all year, where we may only see 1 update which includes:
-block files detected as a virus from 1991 (false negative)
-bitcoin-core makes it less user friendly to sign messages or re-use/view old addresses

instead gavin could post that he want to be paid 3BTC per month for 3 months (9btc) to incorporate feature XYZ features

another way is for lobbyists to not b paid all year to sit on their hands, but instad the lobbyist can post that he wants to be paid 2btc to cover costs of travel and hotel, and 1BTC for consulting of ZXY idea's at a government hearing or a conference.

nothing stops any entity from posting multiple bounties to ensure continal income. but it makes the whole ethos of bitcoin funding more targeted and goal orientated instead of guaranteed income without having to set goals, agenda's, targets.

Agree.  the whole thing sounds foolish.

The foundation also pays for Gavin Andresen's full time commitment to Bitcoin,
so it doesn't make sense from that point of view either.

The software they want is a way to organize people to pay for those lobbyists in a decentralized way that people can vote on how their money is spent.

How can you have a software program that is an organization that executes change in the real world?

Bitcoin foundation has lobbyists that physically walk places and speak things with actual mouths.

Write letters, etc.

Seems to me AI would be needed for this.  And robots.

Interesting, very interesting.

I believe there is a way that each party can produce their keys without central knowledge of all 3. That type of stuff is beyond my knowledge, that is why I have not yet tackled the multisig stuff.

thinking of the customer opinion. having the foundation as the money store and/or the multisig provider are technically the same thing. as the site can easily store all 3 keys as it was the service that produced them. im seeking a non foundation controlled monitisation of idea's solution where the only control the people behind the foundation have to do is site maintenance. no fund management, no vote controlling. as that should be decentralized and community controlled.

My end goal is to have it very decentralized, but as a baby steps type of thing I am centralizing some parts until I can decentralize it.

The proposal process will require verification by my company, from just verifying simple things for simple proposals to full identification and background.

Each proposal will include the proposer and any information they provide, after time they will be rated much like on ebay.

My long term decentralization strategy will include multi-signature where I will have third party escrow services (currently BitPools will escrow) hold one of a 2:3, have the proposer hold another of the 2:3 and have the pool voters designate a user or users to hold the other part of the 2:3.

Going further it will not just be a single escrow, but both proposer and voters choose an escrow service...if there is a dispute then both escrow services review the problem. If they cannot come to a solution then a random (higher) escrow escrow service will break the tie. This is sort of how private businesses hire arbitration services to handle disputes all the time.

To Olivier Janssens,


 THANK YOU VERY MUCH!


 There is FAR TOO MUCH work to be done for any one Foundation or Committee. That is absolutely obvious. I don't care what anyone says otherwise. This centralization at the Bitcoin Foundation is too much work for any one group of people, especially part timers.


  I believe The Bitcoin Foundation should evolve into what some want to focus on a great deal.
 An organization for Businesses involved with Bitcoin.

 Please seriously consider renaming The Bitcoin Foundation to much better fit on what it's focus mostly is:
Please strongly consider renaming it to something such as:


"The Bitcoin Business Community Foundation".
=============================


 The original name is far too overburdening and overbearing.
 Like it's "Bitcoin Central" and all that comes with that.
 That's a lot to live up to, maybe impossible for any one group!
 At least so far it's been quite the spectacle, and more.

 Besides, bitcointalk.org (here) is Bitcoin Central, lol...


I believe together with Olivier Janssens idea of a successful inclusion of software would make the vast majority of all of us much more content, if not any happier at times, so this matter could be much closer to conclusion.

drumroll teaser:


1) Bitcointalk.org

2) "The Bitcoin Business Community Foundation" (or whatever)


3) Bitcoin Core Developers Foundation & Community @ BitcoinCore.org


4) TheBitcoinSociety.org or Bitcoin.org (automated democratization of Bitcoin Foundation)


 IF that software can automate the democratization of Bitcoin successfully then why not? After all it's merely mob rule right? lol. But seriously, it's a great, timely idea, and many other groups and organizations, even governments, may eventually very well adopt such an approach if someone can design and build a worthy product. What better than to have a Bitcoiner come up with the first successful working model?


Next:

 The Bitcoin Core Developers really should have their very own and completely Independently control over their Core Community, including bitcoin.org and bitcoincore.org, funded by all the Bitcoin Community, and whatever other means we can devise up. I don't know exactly how the Bitcoin Core Developers communities is presently structured, but I firmly believe they should be rulers of their own work with last say in everything concerning any and all bitcoin-Qt Core work, just as I stated, completely Independent, answer to no one, but simply always  willing listeners to the Bitcoin Community, and it's needs and desires with Bitcoin-Qt Core.

 Set the Core Developers Free, IF not already so. Let them FOCUS on their expertise: Development. Let no one rule over them but their own leadership. And let the greater bitcoin community win their minds to the greater bitcoin communities desires for Bitcoin-Qt Core's future innovations. But always make it the Developers that have the last call and say so. No one else should be allowed to make final determinations on any Bitcoin-Qt Core software innovation decisions. Their the Software Experts, no one else. They should always have the last say. Fully autonomous/independent/of everything else related to Bitcoin. Hopefully their that way already. I just don't know the answer, sadly. Shameful, I know...


 Only then do we have a four point set of organizations that are much better aligned and focused.
=============================================================


1) Bitcointalk.org - Bitcoin Grand Central Station.


2) "The Bitcoin Business Community Foundation" (or whatever Business name they come up with)


3) Bitcoin Core Developers Foundation & Community @ BitcoinCore.org (a new website, already exists, just checked for it)


4) TheBitcoinSociety.org or Bitcoin.org (adopt or merely reside at bitcoin.org, if possible, if not, then it's own webpage and name)
note: TheBitcoinSociety.org already exists too, I didn't know about this until just now. I have no idea who that is

*With Core Bitcoin-Qt downloads directly from both Bitcoincore.org and Bitcoin.org for redundancy and safety purposes.
* And nice, easy Digital Signatures on all new Bitcoin-Qt downloads for ease of verifying them to regular users. Plus SHA256 sigs too, yea yea, I know...bla bla...PLEASE do this. Thanks.

Thank You BitcoinCoreDevelopers, your seriously the stone cold nuts! (the best poker hand that is possible).

 
 So I toss this up in  the air and I will let everyone else that cares to mull it over and whatever else they can come up with add to this or tear it up and come up with better ideas.

 It's late, this took only a bit of time, maybe it isn't okay at all, nor acceptable, but toss it in the air I have done, I believe it's for the very best. At least it's the best solutions I have come up with yet, with a lot of help from our friends, especially Olivier Janssens.


 Hopefully Olivier Janssens approach will greatly help evolve the Bitcoin Foundation into a Bitcoin Business Foundation possibly, and fully automate the new "TheBitcoinSociety.org" or whatever name is finally adopted. This was the 1st name I cooked up quickly just now.

http://thebitcoinsociety.org/ - who is this???

I am very tired and cross eyed, good night...



 A true, automated Social Democracy for Bitcoin?
Beautiful, Perfect, Wonderful. Make it so.
Already I am dreaming of this.

Again Olivier Janssens,

 THANK YOU VERY MUCH!



Bitcoin is Freedom.

I'm super excited about this!

You want to oust Brock Pierce with ... bots?

love the concept. i have in the design stage something similar that is an attempt to be a decentralised foundation.

the conundrum i am having is.

i have thought of solutions to a few processes in my design to automate displaying idea's/proposals, where comments, suggestions and brainstorming can be done and so that the website owner is simply a guy that only makes sure the website is online and everything else is self controlled by the community. and funds are transferred by people sending from their own personal bitcoin-core / other clients instead of needing depositing onto the site. but still stuck on how to ensure the nominee's/end recipients are not just scammers with a cunning proposal.

would requesting that all nominee's/proposal makers to fully dox themselves as part of their proposal be the answer/enough?