Bitcoin Foundation - page 4. | Bitcointalksearch.org

Gavin Andresen

legendary

Activity: 1652

Merit: 2301

Chief Scientist

Quote from: cypherdoc on October 25, 2011, 04:36:20 PM

if an organization like this pays the developers what kind of trouble could we get into?

Depends on who "we" is and what corporate form the Foundation takes...

... but the one of the first orders of business will be more discussions with lawyers who know about those types of things.

repentance

hero member

Activity: 868

Merit: 1000

Quote from: Jointops420 on October 25, 2011, 05:02:47 PM

I think its needed at least for a limited time, lots of people have a need to see some sort of body that speaks for confidence otherwise they get spooked, at least it may give more confidence to potential new users.

Confidence in what though? For an organisation like the one proposed to have any credibility, it has to be independent from for-profit Bitcoin services. New users get spooked about price volatility and whether Bitcoin services are going to run off with their BTC/money - two things which the proposed organisation would have no influence over.

At best, a foundation could issue a set of desirable guidelines for Bitcoin services and list the businesses which claim to comply with those guidelines, but such a list would be meaningless and inspire false confidence unless the foundation had the capacity and the resources to verify those claims.

Jointops420

full member

Activity: 132

Merit: 100

I think its needed at least for a limited time, lots of people have a need to see some sort of body that speaks for confidence otherwise they get spooked, at least it may give more confidence to potential new users.

Shuai

full member

Activity: 189

Merit: 100

I think this is an excellent idea, in fact I've long thought this would inevitably happen. I don't think the organization should be for promotion of bitcoin or similar, but simply for legal interaction, holding the trademark, and reliable info.

Different people have different ideas about Bitcoin - I think promotion should be done privately (unofficialbtc.com being a good example).

On a related note I was also thinking of taking the first steps for the organization of a Bitcoin Commodity Fund, basically an entity that would attempt to manipulate the exchange rate in a transparent way, creating more stability and in return increasing adoption (a bit like those "why can't someone just throw 21 million $ at backing bitcoin dollar parity" posts we've seen a lot of)

cypherdoc

legendary

Activity: 1764

Merit: 1002

if an organization like this pays the developers what kind of trouble could we get into?

repentance

hero member

Activity: 868

Merit: 1000

When would you be looking at the foundation starting to pay salaries to the devs Gavin? That's something I'd view as happening well into the future, but I understand the idea that the shepherds of the official client should be paid for the time and effort they put into the protocol. I think implementing that could be a bit contentious though as decisions would need to be made about how many devs get paid, which specific devs get paid, and what they're expected to deliver in return for their salaries.

One thing which I think is extremely important is that the devs have no role in running the foundation if they're being paid a salary.

That's an issue which non-profits in general have to face as they still rely to a large extent on volunteers to do most of their work.

bbit

legendary

Activity: 1330

Merit: 1000

Bitcoin

Great idea I'm in! Grin

I would like to add there is a website called
http://www.unofficialbtc.com/ maybe they would like to be the "hub" for this just a thought.

slush

legendary

Activity: 1386

Merit: 1097

Quote from: evoorhees on October 25, 2011, 03:57:36 PM

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."

Very good idea, I'll support it.

slush

legendary

Activity: 1386

Merit: 1097

Quote from: worldly on October 25, 2011, 03:46:33 PM

Possibly a logo "official bitcoin network member" or something of that nature

I feel that it's really bad idea, giving too much power to few people (in this case decision who's "official member" and who not), which is against Bitcoin ideology as I understand it. Let's make foundation only as a small entity interfacing current centralized legal systems, but nothing more.

Actually I have one experience with such 'foundation'. Originally there are usually clear intentions, but this kind of organizations is attracting people who wants power. Although I trust Gavin and few other core developers, I don't want to see any central entity with more power than is absolutely necessary.

repentance

hero member

Activity: 868

Merit: 1000

Quote from: evoorhees on October 25, 2011, 03:48:28 PM

The main danger is if the community trusts such an organization too much. For example- if everyone assumed the client version put out by the organization was trustworthy, then there is serious danger. A group as you propose should probably exist, but the community should remain skeptical of it, and always constructively critical.

This is the case whether or not the devs who work on the official client do so under the auspices of a legal entity, though.

Your comment raises another issue - legal entities have legal liability. It's much easier to sue an organisation which has taken "ownership" of the official client and is formally responsible for distributing a product or service.

Steve

hero member

Activity: 868

Merit: 1008

Quote from: evoorhees on October 25, 2011, 03:57:36 PM

After a few mins of more thinking...

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.

Perhaps it should be called "The Unofficial Bitcoin Foundation" Wink

FreeMoney

legendary

Activity: 1246

Merit: 1016

Strength in numbers

Quote from: evoorhees on October 25, 2011, 03:57:36 PM

After a few mins of more thinking...

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.

+1

BitterTea

sr. member

Activity: 294

Merit: 252

Quote from: Gavin Andresen on October 25, 2011, 03:13:25 PM

Bitcoin is revolutionary because it is decentralized, with no single point of control or failure.

As one of the resident anarchists, as long as the creation of a foundation does not change this feature of Bitcoin, I support its creation.

For example, I don't think the foundation should have direct control over the direction of Bitcoin client and network development, but it should coordinate with the various groups (exchanges, merchants, miners, etc) to ensure that any changes are not going to have negative impacts on existing infrastructure, or to ensure that time critical changes are implemented in a safe and effective manner.

slush

legendary

Activity: 1386

Merit: 1097

I agree that it's good idea, but this foundation should do only necessary stuff like "Interact with the legal system".

Quote from: repentance on October 25, 2011, 03:42:52 PM

my first piece of advice is to keep it simple. ... Trying to do everything at once and to be all things to all people will result in a total clusterfuck.

^ Exactly

plogank

full member

Activity: 126

Merit: 101

I like it. I may only be able to help with a few BTC but who knows.

I'm going to follow this with interest.

How about a mailing list to start to keep us all up to date?

evoorhees

legendary

Activity: 1008

Merit: 1023

Democracy is the original 51% attack

After a few mins of more thinking...

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.

BitcoinPorn

hero member

Activity: 630

Merit: 500

Posts: 69

Mt Gox should back it or somehow be heavily involved. If anything just to piss people off. But it would be weird if Tux was not part of it somehow.

I like this idea and the projects you compare to how it would run.

evoorhees

legendary

Activity: 1008

Merit: 1023

Democracy is the original 51% attack

Gavin - seems like a reasonable idea.

Bitcoin would still have all the advantages of being decentralized (no central server, no office to raid and shut down. etc), but gets the added advantages of a core organization to guide it. Perhaps the core organization will get destroyed by the evil powers, but I'm not sure that'd be incredibly damaging to Bitcoin as a protocol. The community would just grow a new command center when the old was destroyed.

The main danger is if the community trusts such an organization too much. For example- if everyone assumed the client version put out by the organization was trustworthy, then there is serious danger. A group as you propose should probably exist, but the community should remain skeptical of it, and always constructively critical.

jimbobway

legendary

Activity: 1304

Merit: 1015

Maybe a part of the Bitcoin Foundation should somewhat resemble the EFF. (Electronic Frontier Foundation.) We need some lawyers willing to protect bitcoin in every country.

worldly

full member

Activity: 137

Merit: 100

It's an excellent idea.

Here is a few ideas to compliment;

Marketing or image management might be something the foundation looks after too.
Possibly a logo "official bitcoin network member" or something of that nature, to use this logo might cost xBTC/year and need to have the confidence of the circle of people running the show to use the logo on your site.
If the foundation can create value for commercial developers it may be able to make money to run itself properly, funds are going to be a challenge.

other thoughts
Would it be registered somewhere, if so where would that be?
I guess there would need to be a constitution of some kind, how would people be appointed to run this foundation?
Looking through the forum recently a vote might not be the best idea.

I would suggest a trusted influential member of the community, ie Gavin would have to take expressions of interest and appoint some people to start brainstorming.

Topic: Bitcoin Foundation - page 4. (Read 17998 times)