Topic: Project Genesis - a project to redecentralise Bitcoin (Read 344 times)

i still don't get why we even need a "company" that is involved with development of a decentralized system. whether it is blockstream or your proposal of so called non-profit one.

as for your example (unlimited) it didn't fail because it was a different group working on an implementation, it failed because it was a different group trying to change bitcoin and also take over the project in their own way. so they failed. and when they did they created the centralized BCH instead.

not necessarily, although i get what you are trying to say but what i saw from the scaling debate was that most of it wasn't about scaling bitcoin, instead it was about different groups trying to fight over who gets to become the bigger force and have their implementation run by users and kick bitcoin core and those working on it out of the market. when looking at their arguments 90% of them weren't discussing the scaling proposals, they were instead only talking about how core devs are corrupted!!! i call that a takeover not "an idea that didn't make the cut".

~
I still think we need to tread carefully with this supposed "takeover" narrative.  It's all just some different ideas that didn't make the cut.  The moment you call it a takeover, you are implying there is someone to take over from. 

i still don't get why we even need a "company" that is involved with development of a decentralized system. whether it is blockstream or your proposal of so called non-profit one.

as for your example (unlimited) it didn't fail because it was a different group working on an implementation, it failed because it was a different group trying to change bitcoin and also take over the project in their own way.  

Look right now the situation is 1 for profit private company controlling the protocol by controlling the reference implementation. My proposal is to move that to a non profit and transparent one that funds other projects. There will be no foundation client. Yes there are many projects but few get used. Unlimited almost had majority but got fucked by closed door deals.

By the way that whole personal attack rather than talk about the idea is the usual move by the fanbois and core. You have 2 options private for profit or transparent non profit. It's really not that hard. Looking for the perf solution and not changing until you find it will kill a project rather than constant improvement.

you can not talk about decentralization while proposing a centralized foundation that is probably going to ask for funds (an ICO maybe? or maybe not). even if i misunderstood your goals it still seems like a centralized company to me. and you are trying to use a sensitive subject (core devs, block size,...) to push your agenda.

and the important thing is, despite what you think bitcoin core is not the only implementation of bitcoin out there. there are multiple full nodes out there, which may not be popular but there are many who are making some real effort about what you just theorized here.

i can understand this part and i agree with it. but show us what YOU have done in this area. as i said there already are other implementations, so lets see YOUR code on github now...

There should not be a reference implementation as it moves vulnerabilities from being client vulnerabilities to network vulnerabilities.
More client diversity and implementations

as if they somehow owe it to you to build your vision for you.

Yeah there does have to be more. The foundation did so much for the space and helped growth through funding independently.

Right now I'm thinking it would have roles that get elected into and voted on budget proposals. Think like a democratic vote with people representing parts of the foundation and put in by members. Ultimately I'd like to have it be as open as possible. Maybe have anyone able to have membership to vote then like sub branches and committees within. Right now it's more about getting the community interest in a project like this.

what you need is a bounty board
where people who want something can list what they want and announce a bounty they will pay
and a kickstarter board
where people willing to do projects can list what they can do and have a kickstarter.

I don't think there is a problem, let alone mining. Bitcoin mining is a free market...and that's what Bitcoin is all about, really.

You believe their is a problem and you're now getting clear in your belief that the solution lies in development. I presume you believe that because you can't change the mining ecosystem...so instead you'll blame Satoshi and say "there's a flaw, we should fix it." That's fine, let's just be honest with who your gripe is with. Why should anyone help fund teams without getting something in return? Are you proposing a purely charitable response?

And more importantly, how would you use that help to properly decentralize the network? You have yet to explain your solution.

Could you tell me how mining is the problem when almost all of the network run 1 client. The development is the problem and by helping fund teams without being paid by a private company we can properly decentralise the network. The miners arent the problem.

you dont need a treasury or a central budget
that was the failing of the first foundation.

what you need is a bounty board
where people who want something can list what they want and announce a bounty they will pay
and a kickstarter board
where people willing to do projects can list what they can do and have a kickstarter.

bounties just need to show proof of being capable of funding it (sign a utxo of funds they have) or even escrow funds

kick starters just need to show proof of talent by being able to prove who they are and show a portfolio of projects they already completed and payments only made at set progress points

....
having a central treasury directorship is not decentralised
nor is having a central dev team that end up deciding all decisions

but having just a resource to get independant people to connect and communicate and find eachother to innovate is what a foundations should be.
not in one team or one repo or one mailing list/irc
but where teams can form and make different repos, different implementations. that offer different features for the same network

where there is a simple agreement. dont call each different team an altcoin that has to use another network. but just a diverse separation of teams on the same bitcoin network with no leader/dictator/director

Thanks for asking me for my thoughts.

I'm still trying to figure out what you're selling. The title of your thread talks about "redecentralizing" bitcoin but your project overview and "aims" section mentions nothing about improving decentralization.

So what are you trying to deliver?

If Bitcoin is becoming centralized (through scaled mining operations) how can you propose a solution that doesn't influence or change mining operations?

Just getting thoughts on this for now.

As soon as funding becomes a factor, the question has to be asked how you plan to avoid the corruption that occurred with the first "Bitcoin Foundation"?  The issue with centralised organisations is that someone generally ends up in charge of the purse strings and there's not an easy way to hold that person to account in terms of responsibility and ethics.

Project Genesis
This project will be to bring back the innovation and progress and decentralise the most centralized part of the network that Bitcoin currently has. It is not the miners. It is not the exchanges it is the development and client. There should not be a reference implementation as it moves vulnerabilities from being client vulnerabilities to network vulnerabilities. We aim to create an environment that values security and transparency and promote openness and progress as the core purposes. Problems like block limit have been pushed by companies to further their own projects and closed door meetings decide the network protocol. The developers were unable to have segwit included alone and were losing market to Bitcoin unlimited. After closed door meetings they negotiated for segwit 2x. This too was gone back on after they got what they wanted causing fees to hit huge amounts. Censorship resistance is the most important part of the network and high fees censor the people that have the most need for the revolution that this technology provides. We rely on projects that may not deliver that have only been pushed back and forks pulling away rather than trying to bring people under the united purpose we all share of an open financial system. We will not fork. We will not negotiate behind closed doors. We will make Bitcoin into what it was made to be. Bitcoin: A Peer-to-Peer Electronic Cash System

Aims
Formal spec for the Bitcoin protocol and consensus
More client diversity and implementations
Open and transparent foundation for development and adoption
Node architecture for archival full light and spv
Open standards and interoperability
More flexible and powerful scripting capabilities
Full review of the current implementation and the current optimal network state
Flexible and dynamic block limit and research into both on and off chain solutions

Just getting thoughts on this for now.

The foundation will also help to fund projects in the space through a non profit. Hopefully providing devs a way to grow the protocol and support themselves.