Topic: Community oversight of disaster recovery - Nominations (Read 1092 times)

Yep, this is the relevant thread:
https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/obligatory-im-not-dead-or-running-post-412061

About the OP's nominations, if asked I would say:

1) Gavin Andresen
2) DeathAndTaxes
3) Satoshi Nakamoto is ok to me too

Just my two cents...

Regulation, nope.. there are no binding 'resolutions' or anything that would come out of this. No one can force an exchange (or other bitcoin company) to accept having external oversight/reporting, nor prevent them from evicting said overseers at any time.

Centralization, I guess a little. Hard to avoid a bit of it in cases like this. We all want info, but clearly an exchange can't open its doors to hundreds of oompaloompas. The cells in our body are pretty bad at getting sugars and oxygen without cooperating to nominate some cells as blood, some as lungs, etc. No one's in charge, but there's still a consensus. I would say this is more like consensus than centralization, wouldn't you agree?

Nah, he went missing for a while but then stopped by to give the forum funds back, but then went AWOL again and he's currently holding a lot of money in escrow and about 100BTC for a raffle prize I think.

He's disappeared whilst holding a lot of forum funds apparently.

Do I smell regulation and centralization in this thread?
...

Smells bad.

Did something happen with John K? Six months ago or so, he helped me escrow a few high value deals and always had excellently written contracts, was a good arbitrator in disputes, etc

He was the intermediary that saved the community from getting scammed ~4000BTC by Yifu Guo on 1st generation avalon chips

Wat? Not sure if you're trolling or you just haven't been around for a while?

-reconsidering decision-

This was moved because it was Gox related I guess... I've changed it below to a general call for unbiased oversight of bitcoin disaster recovery in general.

Best thing an exchange could do at a moment such as this, short of rewinding time and not farking things up, would be to invite unbiased observers in to watch the recovery process and report to the community. Saying they're going to be "closely monitoring the situation" is not appropriate. They are at the center, and need to be taking action, not reacting. And if they're serious about protecting users (and ostensibly the bitcoin community), they should welcome oversight.

This would be similar to international (IAEA) observation of the nuclear power industry. If you're connected to that at all, you know what I mean. Stand in front of a security camera in the US, and someone from Vienna is on the phone within a couple minutes to get you to move.

I recommend below that we nominate 3 individuals, at least two of whom are not connected to the bitcoin foundation, to be paid by the bitcoin foundation to travel to the HQ of any exchange weathering a 'bitcoin disaster' to observe and report. If the exchange agrees, that alone will be a big sign of earnestness in their attempt to resolve the problem. If they disagree, that will be a strong sign of shady intent (as if we need any more!).

Nominate people below! If they accept, and if the Foundation accepts to cover their costs and time, perhaps the exchange will accept having them on-site to monitor the recovery efforts are being conducted in good faith.

I hereby nominate the following people, subject to their assent:
1.) Gregory Maxwell
2.) Rodolfo Novak
3.) Satoshi Nakamoto