Just imagine what chaos the Web will be if such organizations as ICANN and IANA don't exist? For instance, what even greater mess would be the transition from IPv4 to IPv6? ....
100% true.
thanks alot for this perfect comparison !!!
Topic: Bitcoin Foundation - page 2. (Read 18012 times)
100% true.
thanks alot for this perfect comparison !!!
Couldn't it be the Cryptocurrency or p2p currency foundation instead?
Words like currency and money must be avoided because they fall under heavy regulation. Bitcoin is just bitcoin! It is something very innovative that can not be categorized as per the existing legal framework. The bitcoin trademark holder? Who holds the trademark for "internet"? What about trademarks in different countries?
Most people will associate the Internet (aka World Wide Web) with ICANN and IANA. The World Wide Web has no trademark and logo because it is the only one on this Planet, while above mentioned organizations have. Yes, there are trademarks in different countries. IANA is responsible for determining an appropriate trustee for each ccTLD. Administration and control is then delegated to that trustee, which is responsible for the policies and operation of the domain.Quote
ICANN was formed in 1998. It is a not-for-profit public-benefit corporation with participants from all over the world dedicated to keeping the Internet secure, stable and interoperable. It promotes competition and develops policy on the Internet’s unique identifiers.
ICANN doesn’t control content on the Internet. It cannot stop spam and it doesn't deal with access to the Internet. But through its coordination role of the Internet's naming system, it does have an important impact on the expansion and evolution of the Internet.
ICANN doesn’t control content on the Internet. It cannot stop spam and it doesn't deal with access to the Internet. But through its coordination role of the Internet's naming system, it does have an important impact on the expansion and evolution of the Internet.
Quote
The Internet Assigned Numbers Authority (IANA) is responsible for the global coordination of the DNS Root, IP addressing, and other Internet protocol resources.
Just imagine what chaos the Web will be if such organizations as ICANN and IANA don't exist? For instance, what even greater mess would be the transition from IPv4 to IPv6? With its expansion and evolution the core of bitcoin protocol will also need to change overtime. There are some brilliant ideas tested in the alternative cryptocurrencies that must be implemented in bitcoin as well. I'm quite confident there will be even more in near future. I'd also like to ask the all those guys that started their own alternative blockchain, please give your helping hand to Gavin and unite around bitcoin. This is a 50 trillion market that will change fiat to bitcoin back and forth many times. There is bread and butter (and caviar) for all of you. If you don't like a certain person to represent you in this Foundation just vote for another one.
Now, bitcoin should be decentralized as much as possible, I'm all for that. But decentralization is not anarchy! We still need organization(s) to coordinate and support our decentralized efforts!!! All such organizations must be build and run in such a way that even forcefully dismantled to not negatively affect the functioning of bitcoin network.
I would be glad to be among the founding members of a not-for-profit, public-benefit, bitcoin-related foundation (say, Bitcoin Software Foundation). If you need organizational or financial contribution, just PM me.
Couldn't it be the Cryptocurrency or p2p currency foundation instead?
I read through the various thoughts on this and considered things a bit, and have kind of concluded that I don't think there is a big win here.
I would like to see a 'core team' structure of knowledgeable and active contributors, or I should say, the transparency into the activities and decision making processes of them. This would allow me to make the best decisions possible should the project splinter.
I think that it is a bit of a pipe dream to hope for Bitcoin to become anything other than a 'guerrilla' currency in a world which looks anything like ours today since as soon as it starts to pose any credible competition to mainstream systems, it will become labeled 'terrorism' or some such. In that event, any formalized advocacy group would be a big fat target, and any reliance which developed around such a group would be disturbed.
I would favor one-off fund raising for smaller targeted efforts like retaining an attorney to accomplish exactly 'x', 'y', and 'z'. I realize that this would not be as efficient in a 'typical' project, but I really don't find Bitcoin to be 'typical'. I think this particular project and it's participants will ultimately be better served by fairly loosely coupled.
I could be wrong...I often am.
I would like to see a 'core team' structure of knowledgeable and active contributors, or I should say, the transparency into the activities and decision making processes of them. This would allow me to make the best decisions possible should the project splinter.
I think that it is a bit of a pipe dream to hope for Bitcoin to become anything other than a 'guerrilla' currency in a world which looks anything like ours today since as soon as it starts to pose any credible competition to mainstream systems, it will become labeled 'terrorism' or some such. In that event, any formalized advocacy group would be a big fat target, and any reliance which developed around such a group would be disturbed.
I would favor one-off fund raising for smaller targeted efforts like retaining an attorney to accomplish exactly 'x', 'y', and 'z'. I realize that this would not be as efficient in a 'typical' project, but I really don't find Bitcoin to be 'typical'. I think this particular project and it's participants will ultimately be better served by fairly loosely coupled.
I could be wrong...I often am.
+1
Gavin is trying to save Bitcoin, and that is highly praiseworthy. If he wants to centralize 'power' then he should go for it. But those other efforts will take him off on spaghetti-tangents of endless debates. They are not the silver bullets that Bitcoin needs.
Why? Because in the end, it's all about the infrastructure and its peripherals; no ease, no security, no trust - no liquidity and no Bitcoin.
There is a real need for development, and most importantly TESTING, of all the core bitcoin code. for this Gavin is 100% right that there needs to be some pooled funding and infrastructure.
Ok fine, but what do the donors get for their donations to the pool? Well that's where the pooled marketing comes in. Just like your Chamber of Commerce promotes the city's member businesses as a whole, or an industry trade association promotes its members as a whole, the bitcoin association can promote its members' businesses.
Want to grow the whole bitcoin user base from 50,000 to 500,000 by running some ads? Or maybe setup a few more billboards? Well, become a member, donate to the pool, and your business will be included. It's not about power at all. It's about promoting our mutual best interests, which includes bitcoin adoption by a much larger group of people, and a solid infrastructure to support it.
Only the last item on this list seems good. Collecting (bitcoin!) donations to fund infrastructure is a good idea.
+1
Gavin is trying to save Bitcoin, and that is highly praiseworthy. If he wants to centralize 'power' then he should go for it. But those other efforts will take him off on spaghetti-tangents of endless debates. They are not the silver bullets that Bitcoin needs.
Why? Because in the end, it's all about the infrastructure and its peripherals; no ease, no security, no trust - no liquidity and no Bitcoin.
And, as in other economies, it's the wealthy who can make that infrastructure happen...fast and big.
Easily, the most debilitating force in Bitcoin is the legacy of the Wagner-to-the-moon effect which has permeated the minds of the early (large) Bitcoin holders. They have preferred to watch their stash dwindle to a fraction of its conversion value rather than putting it into productive use within the sphere of Bitcoin development and Bitcoin support for entrepreneurs.
Bitcoin VC/bounties is moribund...which DEinspires everyone else.
The Bitcoin wealthy have a tremendous responsibility but no obligation. Overwhelmingly, they focus on the obligation and void the responsibility. That is the mind of the opportunist, which is fine, but parading as idealists is really no fun to watch.
Corralling them into a serious fund is a tall order, but if anyone is in position to do so then it's Gavin.
-jack
I WILL DONATE.
- Who gets to be the Bitcoin CEO?
- Who owns the patents on the basic concepts behind Bitcoin?
- Who owns the copyright on the blockchain?
Me, pick me!
Okay, but then who will be the bitcoin trademark holder and bitcoin.org domain owner?
The bitcoin trademark holder? Who holds the trademark for "internet"? What about trademarks in different countries?
As for the bitcoin.org domain owner, what about the bitcoin.com domain? What about bitcoin.net, bitcoin.gov, bitcoin.xxx, or bitcoin.bit? not to mention bitcoin.jp, bitcoin.de, bitcoin.us, bitcoin.co.uk, ... et cetera? If we're only worried about "established" bitcoin sites then who gets to own bitcointalk.org, bitcoincharts.com, and bitcoinwatch.com?
If these are real problems then I have a few more:
- Who gets to be the Bitcoin CEO?
- Who owns the patents on the basic concepts behind Bitcoin?
- Who owns the copyright on the blockchain?
To me at least, the formation of an organisation to protect and promote Bitcoin (at least during the bootstrapping decades) very much seems to be an optional good rather than a necessary evil.
No official power structure, just those that do and those that don't.
Okay, but then who will be the bitcoin trademark holder and bitcoin.org domain owner?Coinabul, I have sent you PM.
The problem with this idea is that most bitcoiners hate any idea of centralization... Perhaps a group founded on the ideas of crowdsourcing?
Structured much like Anonymous, everyone would be allowed to contribute and then individual groups would split off and create press releases or whatever else is needed.
No official power structure, just those that do and those that don't.
Structured much like Anonymous, everyone would be allowed to contribute and then individual groups would split off and create press releases or whatever else is needed.
No official power structure, just those that do and those that don't.
Perhaps the idea of an "official" group is not wise. Instead, the core dev team could create an organization, with special logo and name. This organization would be the de facto official group, but only so long as it held up its reputation. At all times, other groups can form and compete for "de facto officialness."
In essence then, this would just be a Non-profit, spontaneously organized by individuals. If multiple such organizations sprout up, then each community member can support whomever they wish.
Think of it like a market for competing representatives. No group official by law, but any group official by market sentiment. We would see one group come to dominate the sentiment, but Bitcoin would not be irrevocably tied to it.
No group should be granted an explicit monopoly... but an implicit market-derived monopoly would not bother me.
In essence then, this would just be a Non-profit, spontaneously organized by individuals. If multiple such organizations sprout up, then each community member can support whomever they wish.
Think of it like a market for competing representatives. No group official by law, but any group official by market sentiment. We would see one group come to dominate the sentiment, but Bitcoin would not be irrevocably tied to it.
No group should be granted an explicit monopoly... but an implicit market-derived monopoly would not bother me.
Another vote for this idea.
This sounds good to me, especially as a source for press releases and public relations. The amount of misinformation and lazy reporting out there is hurting the reputation of Bitcoin.
I also agree with the point made about 'competing' representative entities.
I also agree with the point made about 'competing' representative entities.
I would support this and think it's good for Bitcoin's future. To me, Bitcoin is a child and needs protection and support. In time, Bitcoin will mature to adulthood and, provided it was raised properly, there should be nothing any one person or organisation can do to control it.
I would suggest that such an organisation should have a constitution which undergoes public scrutiny before being established.
I would suggest that such an organisation should have a constitution which undergoes public scrutiny before being established.
The bitcoin police are a form of bitcoin foundation but organised over irc mostly.
I put forward that it exists merely as a wiki to keep track of decisions and its members have an irc channel to organise things etc. Developers can get paid in bounties so they can be claimed by anyone not one particular dev.
There exists other such things like the p2p foundation.
I put forward that it exists merely as a wiki to keep track of decisions and its members have an irc channel to organise things etc. Developers can get paid in bounties so they can be claimed by anyone not one particular dev.
There exists other such things like the p2p foundation.
However, over the last six months or so it has become obvious to me that the rest of the world isn't set up to interact with a radically decentralized system like Bitcoin...
What in particular made you think that?
WTF? Do you even understand what is being proposed?
I do. You apparently don't. This is why I'll quote it for you:To get the conversation started, here are some functions I think a Bitcoin Foundation could perform:
I agree with all listed functions of such a not-for-profit foundation. Go guys, do it! - Interact with the legal system, where a centralized entity is needed: for example, to hold the Bitcoin trademark, own/control the bitcoin.org domain name, etc.
- Act as a central library for accurate information about Bitcoin, so journalists and policymakers have an 'official' place to learn about Bitcoin.
- Collect donations to fund infrastructure necessary for Bitcoin's growth (organize regular developers' conferences or get-togethers maybe? pay for development of cross-implementation testing tools? pay core developers' salaries? create a certification/testing program for Bitcoin implementations? create a central clearinghouse for information about legal issues surrounding Bitcoin across the world?)
Why a foundation? Why risk getting your funds blocked like Wikileaks?
I don't see the link between your questions. How bitcoin funds can be blocked by blocking/dissolving/outlawing a bitcoin-related foundation?WTF? Do you even understand what is being proposed?
The idea of a Bitcoin Association is a very good one. I would prefer more of an "Association" with members, than an official Foundation, but the verbage is always debatable.
- Companies and people can pay a modest fee to be an annual member
- Members vote on the leadership and any pooled/collective bitcoin marketing.
Think like your local Chamber of Commerce. You pay an annual fee and the Chamber's job is to promote the community as a whole. The key is getting the best ideas to rise to the top and be executed, which can happen with a simple membership and voting structure.
We will absolutely support this.
- Companies and people can pay a modest fee to be an annual member
- Members vote on the leadership and any pooled/collective bitcoin marketing.
Think like your local Chamber of Commerce. You pay an annual fee and the Chamber's job is to promote the community as a whole. The key is getting the best ideas to rise to the top and be executed, which can happen with a simple membership and voting structure.
We will absolutely support this.
Jump to: