Topic: Does a protocol need a Foundation ? (Read 1104 times)
well i guess an foundation is necessary for something like btc because, this isnt just a simple protocol, this protoclol involves huge sums of money and if something goes wrong with this protocol, this foundation will help in making it correct and this foundation also does a lot for promoting this cryptocurrency.
Fundamentally, the protocol doesn't need a foundation. But the existing use intertwined with the already established state can greatly benefit from solid advocacy. After all, lobbying and providing support is almost always a necessity for the furthering of something in such a muddy realm.
I might be mistaken, but I *think* that SMTP had an "Institute" instead of a "Foundation".
Specifically, I believe the protocol was organized and maintained by the:
"Information Sciences Institute, University of Southern California" back in 1982.
Then later I think there was a "group" that got involved. Wasn't it the "Network Working Group" that updated the protocol in 2008?
I certainly wouldn't be surprised to learn that there have been other standards organizations that have gotten involved in the publication and education.
Specifically, I believe the protocol was organized and maintained by the:
"Information Sciences Institute, University of Southern California" back in 1982.
Then later I think there was a "group" that got involved. Wasn't it the "Network Working Group" that updated the protocol in 2008?
I certainly wouldn't be surprised to learn that there have been other standards organizations that have gotten involved in the publication and education.
Premiere educational institutes are always welcome to do research & development on Bitcoin. I guess that is quite good for bitcoin in general. We, at India, are also trying to get catch up the eyes of some premiere educational institutes about Bitcoin. But does it all require a self declared foundation ? What else they are doing except for paying the core dev team ? Do they have any interest to spread BTC outside of their comfort zone of USA and a few other EU countries ?
I might be mistaken, but I *think* that SMTP had an "Institute" instead of a "Foundation".
Specifically, I believe the protocol was organized and maintained by the:
"Information Sciences Institute, University of Southern California" back in 1982.
Then later I think there was a "group" that got involved. Wasn't it the "Network Working Group" that updated the protocol in 2008?
I certainly wouldn't be surprised to learn that there have been other standards organizations that have gotten involved in the publication and education.
Specifically, I believe the protocol was organized and maintained by the:
"Information Sciences Institute, University of Southern California" back in 1982.
Then later I think there was a "group" that got involved. Wasn't it the "Network Working Group" that updated the protocol in 2008?
I certainly wouldn't be surprised to learn that there have been other standards organizations that have gotten involved in the publication and education.
A bitcoin foundation could be a great idea. A new and innovative technology can benefit from a reasonable, accepted foundation. It must be careful in its public view.
The Bitcoin Foundation at this stage does not fulfill this, but I think one in the future could attain this
Once upon a time SMTP was new too ...did it require a foundation to be what it is today ?
Once the more techno informed generation becomes the new politicians. I believe that bitcoin and all crypto currency's will become more popular.
A bitcoin foundation could be a great idea. A new and innovative technology can benefit from a reasonable, accepted foundation. It must be careful in its public view.
The Bitcoin Foundation at this stage does not fulfill this, but I think one in the future could attain this
As i understand, Bitcoin is a protocol, just like SMTP. Now anyone can build things upon this protocol, just like gmail and yahoomail are running on SMTP/POP3. As far as I know, SMTP does not have a foundation as such (please correct me if I am wrong). So why does Bitcoin need a foundation for the first place ?
If you're volunteering to fly out to various government meetings to explain how Bitcoin works to a room full of people who probably still won't get it anyway, you're more than welcome to. Until then, the foundation are performing that role at the moment. If no one advocates the plus points, the general public and the government will focus on the negative and start calling for bans or restrictions. It's a double-edged sword, really. If we don't have an active advocacy group to spread the word and educate people who can potentially place hurdles in our path, that can cause problems. On the other hand, if the advocacy group itself is brought into disrepute, this could potentially tarnish the wider reputation of Bitcoin itself.
Volunteering also takes place by corporate bodies using SMTP ...is not it ? Did it ever require a foundation ?
As i understand, Bitcoin is a protocol, just like SMTP. Now anyone can build things upon this protocol, just like gmail and yahoomail are running on SMTP/POP3. As far as I know, SMTP does not have a foundation as such (please correct me if I am wrong). So why does Bitcoin need a foundation for the first place ?
If you're volunteering to fly out to various government meetings to explain how Bitcoin works to a room full of people who probably still won't get it anyway, you're more than welcome to. Until then, the foundation are performing that role at the moment. If no one advocates the plus points, the general public and the government will focus on the negative and start calling for bans or restrictions. It's a double-edged sword, really. If we don't have an active advocacy group to spread the word and educate people who can potentially place hurdles in our path, that can cause problems. On the other hand, if the advocacy group itself is brought into disrepute, this could potentially tarnish the wider reputation of Bitcoin itself.
No but that doesn't stop people from making one and the serfs believeing they some how represent a protocol.
http://www.reuters.com/article/2014/05/16/us-bitcoin-foundation-resignations-idUSBREA4F02B20140516
If this thing continues, the foundation is inevitably about to collapse. But with its own fall, it'll also harm the public's perception over Bitcoin in general.
All bitcoiners should take it upon themselves to teach everyone they know about BTC.. at least debunk most of the BS about it. Some people no matter what happends won't ever believe in BTC.
Like MT Gox we need to teach people that things collapsing is a GOOD THING and bailing out corrupt institutions is a moronic idea. Who wants to bail out a company that is frauding you... I hate our bought and sold govs.
No but that doesn't stop people from making one and the serfs believeing they some how represent a protocol.
http://www.reuters.com/article/2014/05/16/us-bitcoin-foundation-resignations-idUSBREA4F02B20140516
If this thing continues, the foundation is inevitably about to collapse. But with its own fall, it'll also harm the public's perception over Bitcoin in general.
No but that doesn't stop people from making one and the serfs believeing they some how represent a protocol.
As i understand, Bitcoin is a protocol, just like SMTP. Now anyone can build things upon this protocol, just like gmail and yahoomail are running on SMTP/POP3. As far as I know, SMTP does not have a foundation as such (please correct me if I am wrong). So why does Bitcoin need a foundation for the first place ?
Jump to: