Bitcoin Forum

About strong move, security and responsibility from the point of view of speculant.

You all know what happened right after price bump in Jun 2011. Mtgox got hacked (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=18709.0).

Because unknown service coded on knees was not valued in hackers while bitcoin didnt have significant value. But since bump, MtGox security gained value in hackers' eyes. They realized that there are millions of dollars located there and nobody there doesn't mind about security. And we got what we got.

The same stuff with pirateat40, bitcoinica and others. Anonymouse nature of bitcoin destroys any responsibility in service owners mind.

There is no central authority in Bitcoin which will force services to complete identification and force to meet security standards like PCI-DSS like it is done in payment card industry by banks and VISA.

And what does Bitcoin Foundation do about that? Nothing. They just scream about bitcoin price gaining value 100500% in press release.

They dont realize that if Bitcoin will get $100 in value - 80% of bitcoin services will be hacked and scam people for money due lack of security and resposibility.

All major drops were due to or accelerated with some big service fuckup.

Bitcoin will not get enought liquidity on market until Bitcoin Foundation will not bring to community central advisory authority for bitcoin centralized services.

It must force services to meet security and responsibility standards.

It should put site seal for approved services which hints common users that service is verified and keeps security standards.

It should widthdraw site seal from services which ignore users complains or security standards and identification procedures. This will hint common users to be careful with this service.

I think I dont need to explain, that wide usage of Bitcoins needs price stability - coz everyone fear volatility.

And price stabilty only may be reached with enough liquidity on market.

But enough liquidity on market can't be reached without people trust in centralized services. They just scaried to do this. They fear scam.

So we need a service which will verify, identify and watch for keeping security stadards by existsting verified Bitcoin centralized services.

Please provide us with one. Thanks.

I would suggest become a member and get elected/vote to bf-board.

My apologies if English is a second language, but you might be wise to solicit help (possibly for a bounty) - both with English and with constructing a coherent argument (a language-independent skill).  You may have a good point, but many won't see it due to the noise, sorry.

Appologizes accepted. English is my second language.

I don't try to be a member of premium club, I am just private person with my own interesets.

Bitcoin needs to be widely used, no?

Widely used means it has low volatility - ppl dont fear to save bitcoins on monthly basis.

Low volatility reached by high liquidity.

High liquidity reached by trust ppl in services.

And ppl trust reached by responsibilty of such services (which is absent).

And resposibility reached by centralized autority.

Genius is simple.

If my proposal will be supported by community, this will be community proposal.

If Bitcoin Foundation ignores community proposals - i wish to ignore that organization.

if you are not satisfied with mtgox, use another exchange. this will bring liquidity there :)

This is just example of slovenliness. The main thing isnt related to gox.

THIS IS NOT COMPLAINT ABOUT GOX Just forget it.

I'm talking about Bitcoin future.

I am familiar with Payment Card Industry Security Standard (PCI DSS), how banks forcing merchants follow this standrard before they provide APIs.

I offer to do same organization with Bitcoin.

Which will verify services like gox, force them to keep security stadards and provide identity of responsible persons.

This will bring a trust to Bitcoin legal economy.

Liquidity comes with trust.

Stability comes with liquidity.

And wide usage of Bitcoins comes with stability.

I hope i will not have to reapeat this again :)

problem0 numero 1 (i can add some later if i get payed  :P)

this can generate the same problem that "pay in 90 days" did for fiat world business, since the law say pays in maximum 90 days few business do pay earlier if you ask why the reply is "because the law say so", IF BF set the minimum standard in security practices and Bitcoin business gain the seal of approval there is not much incentive to do better, so this can become a source of stagnation, if shit happens BF can take some blame because it got a low/bad standards.

Seal of approval is a marketing tool for the Joe, this will have the same effect like "seen on tv" stamp on ads, "advanced" Bitcoin users can look more and ask about each Bitcoin business security practices , research for details etc, Joe wont, he will be happy with the seal of approval, when shit happens Joe will blame and point his anger to BF.

One problem I see with your proposal is that some of the BF board members are also operators of high profile Bitcoin services, and there would be real or perceived conflicts of interest in them endorsing Bitcoin services in general.  If you put them in charge of writing and enforcing standards, the accusation will be levelled that the standards will be set at a level which they can easily reach but which newer, smaller services cannot.

These businesses are tiny by real world standards and the costs of compliance with the kinds of standards you're talking about are not trivial.  Very, very few existing Bitcoin services would have the capacity to meet such costs at this point in time - you're just going to create the very kind of monopolies which Bitcoin seeks to avoid or people are going to ignore official endorsement rendering it pretty much useless.

Yes, it's desirable that Bitcoin services hold themselves to high standards in terms of security.  No, it is not realistic to expect that they can spend more than their individual businesses are worth on the kind of security used by conventional financial institutions.  

Payment card industry standards aren't even especially relevant to many of the Bitcoin services you've mentioned.  The major risk comes from them acting as deposit-taking institutions, even though that is not their core business in most cases.  It's not at all the same as the card issuer>acquirer>transaction processor cycle.

That's exactly what i thought.
It's the owners of those businesses you want to be forced/verified/whatever that are also board-members of the Foundation,
so what you ask for is, that they control and verify themselves.

Doesn't really make much sense to me.

Security standard may be just copy-pasted from PCI-DSS (https://www.pcisecuritystandards.org/security_standards/) with minor changing points about CVV2 storage changed to wallet storage. I think this standard could be easily adopted to Bitcoin.

Another question is responsibility. Someone have to take that. Otherwise there is no legal way for Bitcoin in the World. And I propose this to be taken by BF child organization. Lets call it  Bitcoin Superviser (BS) here.

BS takes resposibility for site seals it will give to bitcoin services. It should have a resposible contact from merchant/service whos will be asked for fuckups.

Without resposibility Bitcoin has no legal future, no trust, no liquidity, no stability.

I ask all for resposibility.

Well, I see I have to explain people what is resposibility.

Responsibility is an acknowledgement that all aftermaths of your doings were caused exactly by your doings.

Person who takes resposibility inspires trust in people.

If BS will give seals to anyone without resposibility - it will discredit itself as fundamental organization.

If BS will give seals to services WITH resposibility, with asking them to keep standards and forcing them to keep them, asking them for faults - it will be the center of trust.

I dont ask for centralization! I only ask to do this only with centralized services of Bitcoin - to be them subordinated to BS. This could bring trust, liquidity, stability and wide usage of Bitcoin in the world.

There is absolutely nothing preventing existing Bitcoin services from forming a professional organisation which requires its members to adhere to specific standards on a whole range of issues.

It should never be the role of Bitcoin Foundation to endorse individual services, although it should probably play a role in facilitating discussion about central issues affecting Bitcoin including desirable security standards and perhaps publish discussion papers on those issues from time to time.

Apart from anything else, it's almost impossible to play a standards oversight role without charging a fee to evaluate organisations for endorsement - you need qualified people to evaluate those applications and to assess whether organisations are actually complying with standards as they claim.  BF really isn't the appropriate body to do that given the composition of its board.

Likewise, the endorsement becomes absolutely meaningless the minute that an organisation which has been endorsed fails - and that will happen because the majority of new business ventures do fail.  An endorsement isn't going to help people get their money back - it may well lull people into a false sense of security, though.

You'll get responsibility when there are real world consequences for losing other people's funds - something a "tick of approval" can't address.

You ask to do this to centralized services only, but aren't they all centralized?
Tell me about one service that isn't.  :)

silk road

Well, i thought its a BF mission

https://bitcoinfoundation.org/about/

ok i officially give lucif a seal of approval

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=dlattach;attach=9305;type=avatar

now what??

shal we remind you of bitcoinica, bitcoinsavings and trust. they could all meet the security standards and pay a fee to get a seal.. but still end up where they ended up

That seal must be linked to BS page with my organization details and approval status. With discussions and feedbacks from customers.

As a service you dont have to get that seal - but you will get less trust without one.

I would like to announce my new service called rent-a-customer to ensure all your feedback on CentBitCon looks nice and positive.

you are conflating 2 separate things here.  gold serves as a useful analogy.  there is a huge amount of liquidity surrounding the trading of gold on the exchanges precisely b/c it has proven itself in the past as a useful store of value.  there is, otoh, almost a zero economy surrounding gold however.

Bitcoin is just a form of money.  the regulations you speak of concern businesses engaging in Bitcoin services.  there may or may not be a need for a certifying organization.  but it won't affect Bitcoin itself if it becomes a stable store of value like most of us here think it will. 

Not necessarily. Whenever I see a business proudly displaying a BBB logo, I wonder what they're trying to hide behind it.

Protecting the core client, the infrastructure and the protocol should have nothing whatsoever to do with endorsement of commercial enterprises.

It sounds like you want to implement something along the lines of the Better Business Bureau or the Heart Foundation - the methods of endorsement used by both are deeply flawed.

If a standards oversight organisation is formed - and I do believe that will ultimately happen - then it should only assess services against an objective set of standards.  Customer feedback plays no role in such a process and would ultimately undermine the whole purpose of establishing standards in the first place.


The seal will not prevent businesses failing.  What you've proposed would not evaluate the kind of information needed to assess the likelihood of a business going broke because its owners are incompetent, it's under-capitalised, it's expanding too quickly, or the hundreds of other reasons new businesses fail.  In fact, if BF starts endorsing Bitcoin businesses and people lose money because they relied on that endorsement BF may well expose itself to legal liability.

"The" Bitcoin Foundation doesn't seem to be doing shit other than collecting funds for their own agenda(s), and if they are, they aren't being open and transparent about their activities, either way it's fail. Maybe it's time for another round of ddos for the foundation? I'm sure they had fun with that after they went online for the first few weeks. Do not give funds to the foundation unless they tell you exactly how your funds will be used, and this will never happen. Abolish it; the quicker the better.

I suppose they should be collecting funds for "your" (or anyone else's) agenda instead?  Seems to me like they're doing plenty, 6 posts on their blog including a "status report" in the last 30 days.

The Foundation can't "force" anybody to do anything.  The only thing that a site seal certifies is the ability of a website operator to add an image of a seal to his web page.

the one big thing they ARE doing is getting Gavin paid deservedly for all his hard work and time. 

Why is that BS?  He forgot he is a slave and works for free?  What do you do for a living, do you work for free?  A fair bit ironic to see this just to the right of:


If he was getting a pay day and contributing nothing, I suppose I could understand, but when "core development status report" is only 8 days old and clearly indicates he is delivering software and preparing to deliver more, I think we as a community are getting a damn good deal and I think we as a community should rather keep him building bitcoin software.

gavin andersen is not the financial regulator. he is the guy that helped develop the currency infrustructure kind of like the mint.

the US mint, is not the SEC

the UK mint is not the FSA

lol!

Wow, strong. You gunna force it to force people I suppose?

Then why don't we start paying all developers, he choose to work for free, I choose to be compensated for my work. Satoshi didn't hold a gun to his head and say "hey you have to do this" he was choose and he accepted. Calling him a slave is crazy talk. I just feel like that foundation is, paying his way and the core developers, honestly I rather see the money go to something more worth while. Why don't they have a booth at CEAS, he is the best one to really talk about bitcoins. Also has anyone noticed you say one thing about the foundation and everyone from that elitist group attacks, this is why it will fail, it is a dictatorship so far. Again 2 business companies and a developer I see trouble ahead.

Then lose the tunnel vision.  There are way more than 2 companies and many developers.  In fact, there will likely be multiple foundations that support the bitcoin economy/infrastructure/software development/legal issues/etc. in time.  Of course it's scary when you are in a tunnel.  Almost everything is darkness.

Sorry for not reading through all thread, but what you purpose is exactly what is now devaluing current ‘money’ and making bitcoin valuable by being different.

There is an issue in a very core of present ‘trust in authority’-based value storage/exchange system and until it is correctly addressed, this [alternative] concept has little, but quite certain value.

One can simply argue that the current worth of bitcoin is solely based on p2p, free will, free market value exchange model (it may be as hypothetical as you/others like you choose it to be) and while your proposal, correctly implemented, would certainly attract some comfortably big-pocketed users and even move the currency forward, it is nothing but a copy of existing model with different players (different only so far).

However, it is likely to discourage current majority from using it and will simply kill the fundamental idea of an individual(s) being solely responsible for their own worth. (Which i like).

Rather than propagate protected by the state/central authority/Jesus the god concept why not to leave it as it is and rely on a free will and free market model which is always at least morally clean and is in itself beautiful. Sure, we all are imperfect, but do most of us need ‘protection’ from ourselves? Time will tell :)

Saying that, i would like to see an attempt (and it is as sure as rain to follow) of BF/other entity to try and regulate bitcoin – this and majority’s reply to this (not price fluctuations/miners/future technology, etc) is what will make or break this concept.

They should change the name to Biterati Foundation (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Digerati).

lmao,

You obviously do not understand why Bitcoin is popular in the first place. People use Bitcoin for the anonymity of it, I doubt anyone who understands Bitcoin would truly want to destroy that.

Insurance (insurance company) - that's the problem of anonymity and security (confidence in the new companies) IMHO  :-\ :-\

We don't need a "Bitcoin Foundation seal" - there are many companies where you can get something like that ... http://www.truste.com/products-and-services/consumer_privacy/Seal_Comparisons

And here are 2 examples of services with security seals: Mt.Gox, CampBX


gweedo, what makes you so aggressive when it comes to the Bitcoin Foundation? When you take a look inside (2.5 BTC per year for an elitist group is quite cheap), you'll see it's just a group of 242  humans (right now) - and most of them are really friendly. Nobody forced me to pay 25 BTC and I don't regret it.

MtGox and BitInstant are nowhere near that big.  The majority of Bitcoin Foundation members do not work for these two companies.  That's just silly paranoia.  Math fail.

^^


4% maybe...


Would you invite others and allow them to find out about it, if you wanted to be corrupt? I wouldn't announce it publicly.

Am I allowed to post this...?

http://dedecentralizationofbitcoin.wordpress.com/2012/10/05/de-decentralization-of-bitcoin/

There are a ton of things which could lead to the downfall of Bitcoin in the next two years and Bitcoin Foundation has no control over most of them because the free market will operate in its own best short-term interests.  If anything, it is the role of BF to ensure that the protocol and the network continue to exist in some basic form when the market brings undesirable outcomes upon itself.  

First and foremost, the protocol and the network have to survive until all 21 million coins have been mined - that's a formidable challenge on its own.

I do believe that the term of the initial board should be shortened.  They're effectively a steering committee and as such should be looking to replace themselves with a board elected by the membership at large sooner rather than later.  Of course they should be able to nominate for election to the board by the general membership.