Topic: Who would you like on a Bitcoin Council that represented the BTC community? - page 2. (Read 6361 times)

I think it'd definitely need to be someone who consistently keeps their head on straight, has their BS-ometer set to the max, and can research information about anything to a reasonable level before making a decision about anything.  I think that narrows it down to...me, lol.

I would nominate:
enmaku
JoelKatz
Graet
theymos
casascius
cytokine
DeathAndTaxes
sgornick
jgarzik
Mike Hearn

It's not clear what the first order of business for this council would be.  

Just throwing it out there: I'd pay 2.5 BTC/yr for a monthly-ish newsletter from the above people, critically discussing the BTC economy, and suggesting specific solutions to problems they identify.  Might be a good way to kickstart the council.

Some articles I'd love to see:

- How are the actions of X company misaligned with the interests of Bitcoin? (Bitcoin businesses or Foundation)

- Did the operator(s) of site X react properly to being (hacked/scammed/organizational conflict, etc)?

- Analysis of the Bitcoin credit contraction.  What kinds of securities had their value suddenly go "poof"?  Which businesses turned out to secretly be investing in HYIPs?  What did the systemic risk look like?  What should future Bitcoin investors take away from this?

- How far away are we from having to worry about Quantum computing?  What is the most vulnerable algorithm in Bitcoin to QC?  When should Bitcoin be quantum-proofed?

- How does the Bitcoin core dev team work?  Is there a 'culture' of this group? Funny anecdotes? What can the community do for the dev team? Does anything about the core dev structure need to be changed?

- How will pools change as ASICs come online?  Will the mining pool, as we know it, become extinct?  Will mining become more centralized?
 
I know all of this has been discussed on the forums extensively, but the signal to noise ratio is very low and the info is scattered among many threads. I would much rather read consistently high-quality content from Bitcoin community members I trust than have to skim the forums for info.  So much so, that I'd be willing to pay.

This idea is starting to look somewhat like BitcoinMagazine, but I'd like something that's directed at BTC users, not newbies, and discusses topics in more depth. I think having a trusted, rational and impartial voice from the heart of the Bitcoin world, which is free to criticize any large player acting in a way they disagree with, could be a powerful positive force for Bitcoin.  Trust and an audience will need to be built first though.

That's very exclusionary of you. Are you trying to build an elite club of shadowy powermongers only accepting new blood that has been deemed worthy in their eyes, shutting out the common man?

Definitely not you! If there every is a Bitcoin Council you should be excluded, you and anyone else that was involved with Pirateat40. Excluded from both membership and representation.

This is truth right here.

I would remove "development"...

Falvinge impresses me. Satoshi should be there. Gavin Andresen of course.

I like Theymos as well.


Anyone who generally supports the basic tenets of FOSS, personal responsibility, and decentralization and who has a good view of the future.


Here is an idea of what the future will probably look like:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=219YybX66MY

If I remember, Linus Torvalds did not get paid initially by any linux foundation. He used to get paid as an employee of transmeta corporation, which may or may not have had any interest in linux.

He went through three entities before he got employed by the linux foundation, which was something that came out from an open source standards project. This foundation serves as a neutral spokesperson for linux, it just so happens to have it's chief architect under their employ.

uh... this is going to get complicated......

Lead dev and his dev team getting paid by the foundation to code is not a problem. The problem is the circumstances. If a lead dev and his team are merely independent contractors then there's nothing wrong with that, if however he is a founding member and on the board of directors for at least the next two years and getting paid to code then that's a conflict of interest and that is a problem.

Remove the conflict of interest and I wont have a problem if they, being run by whoever, pay him billions.

I'd prefer "farce" over "fail"

Someone on the forum mentioned great idea what "TBF" stands for - "The Big Fail". I think we should call it this way, it suits better than "The Bitcoin Foundation".

Exactly, I think we agree. If they want it to be called "The Bitcoin Foundation", then no devlopers should be paid by them, especially not if said developer(s) will only focus on one client, one sollution and at the same time be under the influence of money-hungry companies who are even in the board of the foundation.
If they do want to have all of that, pick a name that fits it.

Will they also be paying the lead developers of other clients? If not, then why not?

Of course they haven't. They are waiting for enough members to sign up, so they can start doing what they consider is VITAL to bitcoin: Paying Gavin. Because you have to realise, so far Gavin has been doing ALL of this super hard work for NOTHING! _{Please forget about the few thousand of coins he's sitting on since being an early adoptor. The fact that this translates to a million dollars means nothing.} So far, you thought Gavin was doing this because of his ideals? Or because he felt bitcoin was such an awesome project? Because he liked coding? WRONG. He did it for money. Your money actually, so become a member quickly!

Exactly, in a community THIS vocal the chances of TBF doing something the community deems harmful to Bitcoin is practically nil. The shitstorm would be epic.

Look at what an outcry even this one first announcement of their existence has produced. And they haven't even done anything yet.

If this is going to represent "the while Bitcoin community and it's spirit" the following persons need to be in there:

- pirateat40
- Bruce Wagner
- Zhou Tong
- Tom Williams (Oops, I had Bruce Wagner in the list already)
- The Bitcoinica Trio

I can be "da regulatr" to all this mess
and will appoint one "coordinatr" to help me

The more I think of it, the less I want any of this at all. I'm not interested in a council, union, org, or foundation.

It will come, someday.
But I doubt it will be part of bitcoin.

"P2P" representation exists naturally for any shared goals.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leaderless_resistance

You guys think very inside the box.