Most of the developers - myself included - have an income unrelated to Bitcoin. Though few would refuse a donation for our work, I myself never expected any payment for it. I work on what I like to, and if that benefits the community, so much the better.
Gavin however has worked on Bitcoin full-time since a long time, without any other income, and at least in my opinion he does a great job. Certainly it shouldn't be this foundation's only purpose, but I see no harm in making sure he can keep working on this project.
Topic: [ANN] Bitcoin Foundation - page 6. (Read 127621 times)
like getting Gavin paid or getting some basic Q/A resources in place.
As far as I understand there are many developers working on bitcoin (yourself included, if I'm not mistaken?) that would deserve to be paid, but you make it sound like only Gavin will? I think the money should be distributed amongst all the devs by the amount of work people do.
Getting Mr. Andresen paid should be an ancillary goal of the foundation. It seems rather petty to make it a current high priority. Doesn't the foundation have more lofty current goals than simply getting somebody paid? Seems like a slow and petty start for the foundation.
So, given this criticism, I would suggest the foundation make a public post on current projects and goals they may be working on, instead of focusing so intently on "getting somebody paid".
As an aside, am I to read this as, if Mr. Andresen doesn't get paid--then no work will be done by the foundation? This seems to be covertly implied. My suggestion: Get to work, then get paid. :-)
So, given this criticism, I would suggest the foundation make a public post on current projects and goals they may be working on, instead of focusing so intently on "getting somebody paid".
As an aside, am I to read this as, if Mr. Andresen doesn't get paid--then no work will be done by the foundation? This seems to be covertly implied. My suggestion: Get to work, then get paid. :-)
Will the foundation work on making the internal technologies of bitcoin easier to develop with, (colored coins, smart property etc?)
(warning: highly biased answer from smart property dev follows
)It would be nice... but I think this first round of Bitcoin Foundation funding should focus more closely on higher priority issues, like getting Gavin paid or getting some basic Q/A resources in place.
There are many urgent issues facing bitcoin-the-currency, as outlined earlier in this thread. After those are all solved, some attention to smart property and other advanced bitcoin uses (escrow, smart contracts) would be great.
Will the foundation work on making the internal technologies of bitcoin easier to develop with, (colored coins, smart property etc?)
That and the .net used to redirect to the .org site. All three were registered on 2010-12-06 by Mark of Mt Gox prior to him acquiring Mt Gox in 2011 from Jed after the infamous email dump then hack.
Very prescient person. Does anyone still believe that Mark will ever leave a director of TBF position?
The site has been down for a couple of days... what's up?
it is up http://isitup.org/bitcoinfoundation.org
Ah, somehow I had bookmarked bitcoinfoundation.com...
That and the .net used to redirect to the .org site. All three were registered on 2010-12-06 by Mark of Mt Gox prior to him acquiring Mt Gox in 2011 from Jed after the infamous email dump then hack.
~Bruno K~
The site has been down for a couple of days... what's up?
it is up http://isitup.org/bitcoinfoundation.org
Ah, somehow I had bookmarked bitcoinfoundation.com...
The site has been down for a couple of days... what's up?
it is up http://isitup.org/bitcoinfoundation.org
The site has been down for a couple of days... what's up?
I haven't read all 56 pages of posts here, but the website doesn't mention any projects in the works.
Looks like they have 50 BTC in donations so far:
http://blockexplorer.com/address/1BTCorgHwCg6u2YSAWKgS17qUad6kHmtQW
They've got my annual membership, too. I am eager to see what first steps they will take. Looks like they have 50 BTC in donations so far:
http://blockexplorer.com/address/1BTCorgHwCg6u2YSAWKgS17qUad6kHmtQW
did you e-mail Lindsay to offer your volunteer services?
I e-mailed her.
I haven't read all 56 pages of posts here, but the website doesn't mention any projects in the works.
Looks like they have 50 BTC in donations so far:
http://blockexplorer.com/address/1BTCorgHwCg6u2YSAWKgS17qUad6kHmtQW
They've got my annual membership, too. I am eager to see what first steps they will take. Looks like they have 50 BTC in donations so far:
http://blockexplorer.com/address/1BTCorgHwCg6u2YSAWKgS17qUad6kHmtQW
I haven't read all 56 pages of posts here, but the website doesn't mention any projects in the works.
Looks like they have 50 BTC in donations so far:
http://blockexplorer.com/address/1BTCorgHwCg6u2YSAWKgS17qUad6kHmtQW
Looks like they have 50 BTC in donations so far:
http://blockexplorer.com/address/1BTCorgHwCg6u2YSAWKgS17qUad6kHmtQW
This seems like a bad idea and I most likely will not join in.
I'm in. Bitcoin needs a voice and a way of funneling resources to the tasks that require them.
Without us having to worry about them being charged or accused with money laundering or supporting terrorist operations. *cough* GLBSE *cough*
This seems like a bad idea and I most likely will not join in.
I'm in. Bitcoin needs a voice and a way of funneling resources to the tasks that require them.
This seems like a bad idea and I most likely will not join in.
well as ur paying a fee then someone in the foundation should vet the 100 posts minimum requirement for relevance and scope of the conversations to validate if real person or bot creation.
after all giving out real life identification requires vetting too, although people can simply use a phone book or give the name of their neighbour, many other real life ways of faking info..
i am just saying having no verification makes it easy to double vote. but why personal info. i dont appear on the phone book in my country, (saves getting annoying sales calls) so how would they validate my real life info..
unless they have government database access(for accurate validation) i cant see benefits in requiring real life info as opposed to well established online identity.
after all giving out real life identification requires vetting too, although people can simply use a phone book or give the name of their neighbour, many other real life ways of faking info..
i am just saying having no verification makes it easy to double vote. but why personal info. i dont appear on the phone book in my country, (saves getting annoying sales calls) so how would they validate my real life info..
unless they have government database access(for accurate validation) i cant see benefits in requiring real life info as opposed to well established online identity.
with the hassle of making forum names, getting them established with X amount of posts(minimum 100). paying for membership. i dont think double voting would be a big thing to happen.
all the task you mentioned can be automated, it would probably take me a hour to write a app that does exactly that and I'm considered a slow hobby coder ...
... Ok, maybe a bit more then a hour depending on how sensible I want the automated posts to be.
about the use of real life identities for voting?
why?
i personally have nothing to hide, but i see no benefit in making anyones real life identities a public matter. or a data protection matter where our real life info can be at risk of being hacked
to reduce chances of double voting. each member should just given membership only after they have provided a non newbie forum username and a google identity.
with the hassle of making forum names, getting them established with X amount of posts(minimum 100). paying for membership. i dont think double voting would be a big thing to happen.
if it was free membership with no validation of identity (google + forum identity) then double voting would be easy to achieve.
but the whole storage of real life info, seems risky
why?
i personally have nothing to hide, but i see no benefit in making anyones real life identities a public matter. or a data protection matter where our real life info can be at risk of being hacked
to reduce chances of double voting. each member should just given membership only after they have provided a non newbie forum username and a google identity.
with the hassle of making forum names, getting them established with X amount of posts(minimum 100). paying for membership. i dont think double voting would be a big thing to happen.
if it was free membership with no validation of identity (google + forum identity) then double voting would be easy to achieve.
but the whole storage of real life info, seems risky
Paying salary to developer/s seems counter productive to the whole open source methodology.
If you read the thread, you will see many examples where it is clearly beneficial to open source: Linux Foundation, Apache Software Foundation, Tor Project, ...
I'd wager much of the open source software you use every day, even if unknowningly via remote, is covered by one or more open source foundations.
Jump to: