Bitcoin Forum

Bitcoin is revolutionary because it is decentralized, with no single point of control or failure.

However, over the last six months or so it has become obvious to me that the rest of the world isn't set up to interact with a radically decentralized system like Bitcoin, and I think forming a not-for-profit organization will be a positive step towards Bitcoin's long-term success.

I'm posting this to see if there is a consensus on what a Bitcoin Foundation should be.

To get the conversation started, here are some functions I think a Bitcoin Foundation could perform:

• Interact with the legal system, where a centralized entity is needed: for example, to hold the Bitcoin trademark, own/control the bitcoin.org domain name, etc.
  
• Act as a central library for accurate information about Bitcoin, so journalists and policymakers have an 'official' place to learn about Bitcoin.
  
• Collect donations to fund infrastructure necessary for Bitcoin's growth (organize regular developers' conferences or get-togethers maybe? pay for development of cross-implementation testing tools? pay core developers' salaries? create a certification/testing program for Bitcoin implementations? create a central clearinghouse for information about legal issues surrounding Bitcoin across the world?)
  

Other not-for-profit organizations that could be emulated:

• The Anti-Phishing Working Group (the APWG's chairman, David Jevans http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Jevans, is willing to help make a Bitcoin Foundation happen).
  
• The Tor Project
  
• The Apache Software Foundation
  

Are there others that work well, or are there examples of what NOT to do? Assuming there is rough consensus that a Bitcoin Foundation is a good idea, I would like to get something imperfect up and running quickly, with the expectation that it will evolve over time.

Totally, do it. Do it.

I have a friend (Martin Dittus) who runs the non-profit London Hackspace (http://wiki.london.hackspace.org.uk/view/London_Hackspace) who expressed an interest in doing this when we were tossing around the idea some months back. Would be worth getting him on board if so to do the adminstration/relevant registration.

Also another friend of mine, jaromil (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jaromil), works in the Dutch public sector and runs the non-profit dyne (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dyne:bolic) foundation and would definitely be up for helping.

I think it's a good idea and will definitely donate if it's set up.

Do you currently get copyright assignment on patches?  If not, that'd be another good use for the foundation.

Definitely a good idea (and I would be interested in helping David get it going).

Great idea. We could call it Cryptofed or maybe Trilaterocoin.

I thought the whole idea was to evade the illuminati, not become one of them.

In

That's a great idea and exactly what's needed (especially the interaction with the legal system)!

If you keep it open, transparent and not-for-profit then I doubt there will be much opposition.

This would be great for Bitcoin, even necessary I'd say. Do it Gavin, we'll figure out along the way exactly what the foundation should and should not do.

Bitcoin is not the anti-thesis of being organized.

+1 , bitcoin badly need it !

also a good place to have all the active and motivated people talk, exchange and work together; more cooperation and less internal wars for bitcoin !

I've been involved with not for profits for the last 30 years and my first piece of advice is to keep it simple.  While there are lots of functions such a foundation could perform, both human and financial resources will be limited so you need to establish a clear vision of what you want the organisation to do and prioritise the order in which you take on various roles.  Trying to do everything at once and to be all things to all people will result in a total clusterfuck.

NFPs typically require some kind of governing body such as a board elected by the membership - the exact requirements will vary depending on where it's legally incorporated.  They're also generally required to have their accounts audited.

You will need to seek legal advice on whether the foundation would have any legal standing to seek trademark control without the express permission of Satoshi.  In countries which aren't "first to file", it may be difficult to obtain various types of IP protection both because Bitcoin is already in the public domain and also because those seeking IP protection would need to establish their "right" to the trademark.

 here are some functions I think a Bitcoin Foundation could perform:

• Interact with the legal system, where a centralized entity is needed: for example, to hold the Bitcoin trademark, own/control the bitcoin.org domain name, etc.
  
• Act as a central library for accurate information about Bitcoin, so journalists and policymakers have an 'official' place to learn about Bitcoin.
  
• Collect donations to fund infrastructure necessary for Bitcoin's growth (organize regular developers' conferences or get-togethers maybe? pay for development of cross-implementation testing tools? pay core developers' salaries? create a certification/testing program for Bitcoin implementations? create a central clearinghouse for information about legal issues surrounding Bitcoin across the world?)
  

[/quote]

I will donate towards these ends.

It's an excellent idea.

Here is a few ideas to compliment;

Marketing or image management might be something the foundation looks after too.
Possibly a logo "official bitcoin network member" or something of that nature,  to use this logo might cost xBTC/year and need to have the confidence of the circle of people running the show to use the logo on your site.
If the foundation can create value for commercial developers it may be able to make money to run itself properly, funds are going to be a challenge.

other thoughts
Would it be registered somewhere, if so where would that be?
I guess there would need to be a constitution of some kind, how would people be appointed to run this foundation?
Looking through the forum recently a vote might not be the best idea.

I would suggest a trusted influential member of the community, ie Gavin would have to take expressions of interest and appoint some people to start brainstorming.

Maybe a part of the Bitcoin Foundation should somewhat resemble the EFF.  (Electronic Frontier Foundation.)  We need some lawyers willing to protect bitcoin in every country.

Gavin - seems like a reasonable idea.

Bitcoin would still have all the advantages of being decentralized (no central server, no office to raid and shut down. etc), but gets the added advantages of a core organization to guide it. Perhaps the core organization will get destroyed by the evil powers, but I'm not sure that'd be incredibly damaging to Bitcoin as a protocol. The community would just grow a new command center when the old was destroyed.

The main danger is if the community trusts such an organization too much.  For example- if everyone assumed the client version put out by the organization was trustworthy, then there is serious danger. A group as you propose should probably exist, but the community should remain skeptical of it, and always constructively critical.

Mt Gox should back it or somehow be heavily involved.  If anything just to piss people off.  But it would be weird if Tux was not part of it somehow.

I like this idea and the projects you compare to how it would run.

After a few mins of more thinking...

Perhaps the idea of an "official" group is not wise.  Instead, the core dev team could create an organization, with special logo and name. This organization would be the de facto official group, but only so long as it held up its reputation. At all times, other groups can form and compete for "de facto officialness."

In essence then, this would just be a Non-profit, spontaneously organized by individuals. If multiple such organizations sprout up, then each community member can support whomever they wish.

Think of it like a market for competing representatives. No group official by law, but any group official by market sentiment. We would see one group come to dominate the sentiment, but Bitcoin would not be irrevocably tied to it.

No group should be granted an explicit monopoly... but an implicit market-derived monopoly would not bother me.

I like it.  I may only be able to help with a few BTC but who knows.

I'm going to follow this with interest.

How about a mailing list to start to keep us all up to date?

I agree that it's good idea, but this foundation should do only necessary stuff like "Interact with the legal system".


^ Exactly

As one of the resident anarchists, as long as the creation of a foundation does not change this feature of Bitcoin, I support its creation.

For example, I don't think the foundation should have direct control over the direction of Bitcoin client and network development, but it should coordinate with the various groups (exchanges, merchants, miners, etc) to ensure that any changes are not going to have negative impacts on existing infrastructure, or to ensure that time critical changes are implemented in a safe and effective manner.

+1

Perhaps it should be called "The Unofficial Bitcoin Foundation" ;)

This is the case whether or not the devs who work on the official client do so under the auspices of a legal entity, though.  

Your comment raises another issue - legal entities have legal liability.  It's much easier to sue an organisation which has taken "ownership" of the official client and is formally responsible for distributing a product or service.

I feel that it's really bad idea, giving too much power to few people (in this case decision who's "official member" and who not), which is against Bitcoin ideology as I understand it. Let's make foundation only as a small entity interfacing current centralized legal systems, but nothing more.

Actually I have one experience with such 'foundation'. Originally there are usually clear intentions, but this kind of organizations is attracting people who wants power. Although I trust Gavin and few other core developers, I don't want to see any central entity with more power than is absolutely necessary.

Very good idea, I'll support it.

Great idea I'm in!  ;D

I would like to add there is a website called
http://www.unofficialbtc.com/    maybe they would like to be the "hub" for this just a thought.

When would you be looking at the foundation starting to pay salaries to the devs Gavin?  That's something I'd view as happening well into the future, but I understand the idea that the shepherds of the official client should be paid for the time and effort they put into the protocol.  I think implementing that could be a bit contentious though as decisions would need to be made about how many devs get paid, which specific devs get paid, and what they're expected to deliver in return for their salaries.

One thing which I think is extremely important is that the devs have no role in running the foundation if they're being paid a salary.

That's an issue which non-profits in general have to face as they still rely to a large extent on volunteers to do most of their work.

if an organization like this pays the developers what kind of trouble could we get into?

I think this is an excellent idea, in fact I've long thought this would inevitably happen. I don't think the organization should be for promotion of bitcoin or similar, but simply for legal interaction, holding the trademark, and reliable info.

Different people have different ideas about Bitcoin - I think promotion should be done privately (unofficialbtc.com being a good example).

On a related note I was also thinking of taking the first steps for the organization of a Bitcoin Commodity Fund, basically an entity that would attempt to manipulate the exchange rate in a transparent way, creating more stability and in return increasing adoption (a bit like those "why can't someone just throw 21 million $ at backing bitcoin dollar parity" posts we've seen a lot of)

I think its needed at least for a limited time, lots of people have a need to see some sort of body that speaks for confidence otherwise they get spooked, at least it may give more confidence to potential new users.

Confidence in what though?  For an organisation like the one proposed to have any credibility, it has to be independent from for-profit Bitcoin services.  New users get spooked about price volatility and whether Bitcoin services are going to run off with their BTC/money - two things which the proposed organisation would have no influence over. 

At best, a foundation could issue a set of desirable guidelines for Bitcoin services and list the businesses which claim to comply with those guidelines, but such a list would be meaningless and inspire false confidence unless the foundation had the capacity and the resources to verify those claims.

Depends on who "we" is and what corporate form the Foundation takes...

... but the one of the first orders of business will be more discussions with lawyers who know about those types of things.  

No it's fine. The beauty of it is that even if it calls itself 'official' it doesn't have any special standing concerning bitcoin. If it maintains good reputation it will have influence with some, if not then not.

It's not going to be anything more than people working to provide guidance, education, whatever. If it turns out that it works better to have a focal point org then it will do well.

I have some office space in San Francisco (SOMA) that I would be willing to donate for an office / meeting place. If it grows in to something larger and is used like a co-working space for Bitcoin I could help out there as well.

We all feel the same about the decentralized benefits of Bitcoin. At the same time I've been throwing a lot of money at lawyers, I'd assume Mark is and probably a few others. The regulation around Bitcoin will have the biggest impact on the exchanges initially but everyone is concerned. There are plenty of other reasons to form this foundation as well

We would have to make very clear that this is not a decision making body for the Bitcoin community as a whole.

Jered

My vision for UBTC is a little different than the what's been discussed here so far, but there are some similarities. One of the highest priorities I have for any UBTC related venture is that it showcase the positive aspects of bitcoin, paving the way for other entrepreneurial and altruistic innovators. The planning for the upcoming March convention is going very well and I would be happy to help organize any other large scale bitcoin conferences, be they developer oriented or encompassing contributors with other talents.

Unofficial BTC is definitely aiming for profitability, however, and that alone should disqualify it from representing the Bitcoin community in any court. No, I agree that a not-for-profit foundation is the way to go and that it should focus on being the "Official" Bitcoin Legal Watchdog while leaving the rest of it to other organizations.

To be honest, I've been wondering whether the exchanges have considered joining together to fight these legal battles.  It's not an uncommon thing to do when there's a specific legal problem in an industry and it not only reduces the costs per organisation but it also helps develop a cohesive legal strategy.  genjix has also mentioned having spent thousands on legal issues with the banks, so putting together a joint legal fighting fund might be an idea worth considering if you can all agree on which battles need to be fought first, which jurisdictions should be your first priority, and who to use as people representatives.

+1 here too
( I hope you are right ! )

That was my first thought.

It seems to me that in order to avoid attack or attempts at control, the rules need to explicitly enforce that the foundation has no influence over developer decisions or which developers get paid for which features etc.
There would surely need to be some transparent external voting mechanism donators use, so that the foundation is more or less just a conduit/pool for the funds.
(simply managing the operational aspects of the voting and distribution)

If a not for profit is going to pay salaries to people or even pay them as contractors, it has to exert influence over their work, otherwise it's essentially giving people gifts to use as they please and the auditors will go apeshit. 

 Imho the foundation should gather all the good will people, developpers, businesses, users, associations, people helping on IRC or on stackexchange . . .
 For sure, pools, exchanges, wallet providers . . . everyone believing in bitcoin should gather and support the foundation.
 Bitcoin have powerful ennemies, lets unite and be stronger !

I fully support the creation of a Bitcoin Foundation.

Bitcoin is revolutionary for many reasons. Its most interesting feature is it removes the control of money from government, and gives it to the people. If Bitcoin becomes a success, there will be a big incentive for governments to take control of it. Then it would only be as good as fiat. To that end, the Bitcoin Foundation should promote a truly diverse mining pool, and avoid direct control.

Suggestions :
-   Produce an ASIC miner so people can continue to support Bitcoin by mining cheaply at home
-   The Bitcoin Foundation Committee should accept petitions to discuss / vote on governance issues. 1 BTC one vote, like one share one vote.
-   Coordinate donations to support Bitcoin development & PR.
    o   To avoid conflict of interest, maybe only publicise suggested payment amounts & addresses for the core developers
-   Add a regular payment feature to the Bitcoin client, to support these donations/subscriptions
-   Support legal cases, produce patents & trademarks
-   Promote technological financial innovation
-   Organise a Job List so Bitcoin Foundation volunteers can help with the work
-   Collect & distribute regular trusted statistics on the Bitcoin economy, similar to government economic data releases (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=35908.msg442674#msg442674)

Thanks for all your hard work!

You almost certainly couldn't do this legally under a not-for-profit structure, and I don't think it's desirable anyway.  It would mean that the biggest donor/s could effectively control the foundation in the same way that shareholders in a company do.

I don't like that idea at all.

Right now if the development group goes crazy, the links on bitcoin.org, IRC, etc. will be changed to point to some other developers and anyone sponsoring development will stop paying. If bitcoin.org is hijacked, the development group can issue a network alert about it and someone can set up a new site. Ownership of resources is decentralized among groups that are more or less independent.

If a foundation combines ownership of any resources that are currently owned by different organizations, then the Bitcoin ecosystem will be less robust.

Tor is not the greatest example, since Tor is inherently centralized. The network can't function without authoritative directory servers, and someone controlling most authoritative directory servers can break Tor's security.

I would support:
- Strengthening organizations that already exist while keeping them independent
- Breaking large organizations into independent smaller ones and creating new ones to handle new problems. (Create an independent unofficial development organization, and let someone else create a PR organization.)
- Improving communication between the organizations

theymos has some good points here.  There has been already one "attempt" at a Bitcoin Foundation and it is called the "Bitcoin Consultancy" headed by genjix.  In fact, what theymos says is completely true and genjix is, in fact, trying to create his own bitcoin library.  If there were a foundation there would have to be rules so one group does not have an advantage over the other.

The Idea of Bitcoin is like a bomb,
now or then, here or there, this or that
will sucess.

Centralizing is a bad idea, how to divide the power ?

Only the last item on this list seems good. Collecting (bitcoin!) donations to fund infrastructure is a good idea. The other two items don't please me. There should be no "official face" for bitcoin. If you want to create a support group like Bitcoin Consultancy for example, and make this group non-profit, that's fine. But don't call it "Official Bitcoin Foundation". People should understand that bitcoin has no "owner", no official face.

It would be particularly important that this group is not referenced by the main project's page, bitcoin.org. The same way bitcoin.org link to these forums was cut, no link from bitcoin.org to any bitcoin foundation should be made, at least not as if it was the only one. It should be made explicit that multiple foundations can/should exist.

Evoorhees (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=49841.msg593196#msg593196) and theymos (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=49841.msg593578#msg593578) managed to say what I wanted to say in a better way, thank you both.

I've been actively promoting this for many months on this forum. I'm glad that core developers are finally beginning to see the reasoning behind.

I think the Problem is: Right now Bitcoin is mainly this Forum, plus a few scattered irc channels.
I don't think the Forum will generate enough interest by the public to keep the bitcoin economy growing.

If something is done about that good, if not I too will one day abandon Bitcoin.

Why a foundation? Why risk getting your funds blocked like Wikileaks? Solution is here: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=49854.0

Smooth and simple and cannot be taken down that easily if at all.

I don't see the link between your questions. How bitcoin funds can be blocked by blocking/dissolving/outlawing a bitcoin-related foundation?

we founded http://bitcoin-austria.at/ some weeks ago.

this is a non-profit association (a registered legal entity) that has similar goals - but focused on europe/austria.

if there was some sort of umbrella organisation a cooperation would be a possiblity.

The idea of a Bitcoin Association is a very good one.  I would prefer more of an "Association" with members, than an official Foundation, but the verbage is always debatable. 

- Companies and people can pay a modest fee to be an annual member
- Members vote on the leadership and any pooled/collective bitcoin marketing.

Think like your local Chamber of Commerce.  You pay an annual fee and the Chamber's job is to promote the community as a whole.  The key is getting the best ideas to rise to the top and be executed, which can happen with a simple membership and voting structure.

We will absolutely support this.

WTF?  Do you even understand what is being proposed?

I do. You apparently don't. This is why I'll quote it for you:

I agree with all listed functions of such a not-for-profit foundation. Go guys, do it!

What in particular made you think that?

The bitcoin police are a form of bitcoin foundation but organised over irc mostly.

I put forward that it exists merely as a wiki to keep track of decisions and its members have an irc channel to organise things etc. Developers can get paid in bounties so they can be claimed by anyone not one particular dev.

There exists other such things like the p2p foundation.

I would support this and think it's good for Bitcoin's future.  To me, Bitcoin is a child and needs protection and support.  In time, Bitcoin will mature to adulthood and, provided it was raised properly, there should be nothing any one person or organisation can do to control it.

I would suggest that such an organisation should have a constitution which undergoes public scrutiny before being established.

This sounds good to me, especially as a source for press releases and public relations. The amount of misinformation and lazy reporting out there is hurting the reputation of Bitcoin.

I also agree with the point made about 'competing' representative entities.

Another vote for this idea.

The problem with this idea is that most bitcoiners hate any idea of centralization... Perhaps a group founded on the ideas of crowdsourcing?
Structured much like Anonymous, everyone would be allowed to contribute and then individual groups would split off and create press releases or whatever else is needed.
No official power structure, just those that do and those that don't.

Okay, but then who will be the bitcoin trademark holder and bitcoin.org domain owner?

Coinabul, I have sent you PM.

The bitcoin trademark holder?  Who holds the trademark for "internet"?  What about trademarks in different countries?

As for the bitcoin.org domain owner, what about the bitcoin.com domain?  What about bitcoin.net, bitcoin.gov, bitcoin.xxx, or bitcoin.bit? not to mention bitcoin.jp, bitcoin.de, bitcoin.us, bitcoin.co.uk, ... et cetera?  If we're only worried about "established" bitcoin sites then who gets to own bitcointalk.org, bitcoincharts.com, and bitcoinwatch.com?

If these are real problems then I have a few more:

• Who gets to be the Bitcoin CEO?
• Who owns the patents on the basic concepts behind Bitcoin?
• Who owns the copyright on the blockchain?

To me at least, the formation of an organisation to protect and promote Bitcoin (at least during the bootstrapping decades) very much seems to be an optional good rather than a necessary evil.

Me, pick me!

I WILL DONATE.

+1

Gavin is trying to save Bitcoin, and that is highly praiseworthy. If he wants to centralize 'power' then he should go for it. But those other efforts will take him off on spaghetti-tangents of endless debates. They are not the silver bullets that Bitcoin needs.

Why? Because in the end, it's all about the infrastructure and its peripherals; no ease, no security, no trust - no liquidity and no Bitcoin.

And, as in other economies, it's the wealthy who can make that infrastructure happen...fast and big.

Easily, the most debilitating force in Bitcoin is the legacy of the Wagner-to-the-moon effect which has permeated the minds of the early (large) Bitcoin holders. They have preferred to watch their stash dwindle to a fraction of its conversion value rather than putting it into productive use within the sphere of Bitcoin development and Bitcoin support for entrepreneurs.

Bitcoin VC/bounties is moribund...which DEinspires everyone else.

The Bitcoin wealthy have a tremendous responsibility but no obligation. Overwhelmingly, they focus on the obligation and void the responsibility. That is the mind of the opportunist, which is fine, but parading as idealists is really no fun to watch.

Corralling them into a serious fund is a tall order, but if anyone is in position to do so then it's Gavin.

-jack

There is a real need for development, and most importantly TESTING, of all the core bitcoin code.  for this Gavin is 100% right that there needs to be some pooled funding and infrastructure.  

Ok fine, but what do the donors get for their donations to the pool?  Well that's where the pooled marketing comes in.  Just like your Chamber of Commerce promotes the city's member businesses as a whole, or an industry trade association promotes its members as a whole, the bitcoin association can promote its members' businesses.  

Want to grow the whole bitcoin user base from 50,000 to 500,000 by running some ads?  Or maybe setup a few more billboards?  Well, become a member, donate to the pool, and your business will be included.  It's not about power at all.  It's about promoting our mutual best interests, which includes bitcoin adoption by a much larger group of people, and a solid infrastructure to support it. 

I read through the various thoughts on this and considered things a bit, and have kind of concluded that I don't think there is a big win here.

I would like to see a 'core team' structure of knowledgeable and active contributors, or I should say, the transparency into the activities and decision making processes of them.  This would allow me to make the best decisions possible should the project splinter.

I think that it is a bit of a pipe dream to hope for Bitcoin to become anything other than a 'guerrilla' currency in a world which looks anything like ours today since as soon as it starts to pose any credible competition to mainstream systems, it will become labeled 'terrorism' or some such.  In that event, any formalized advocacy group would be a big fat target, and any reliance which developed around such a group would be disturbed.

I would favor one-off fund raising for smaller targeted efforts like retaining an attorney to accomplish exactly 'x', 'y', and 'z'.  I realize that this would not be as efficient in a 'typical' project, but I really don't find Bitcoin to be 'typical'.  I think this particular project and it's participants will ultimately be better served by fairly loosely coupled.

I could be wrong...I often am.

Couldn't it be the Cryptocurrency or p2p currency foundation instead? 

Most people will associate the Internet (aka World Wide Web) with ICANN and IANA. The World Wide Web has no trademark and logo because it is the only one on this Planet, while above mentioned organizations have. Yes, there are trademarks in different countries. IANA is responsible for determining an appropriate trustee for each ccTLD. Administration and control is then delegated to that trustee, which is responsible for the policies and operation of the domain.



Just imagine what chaos the Web will be if such organizations as ICANN and IANA don't exist? For instance, what even greater mess would be the transition from IPv4 to IPv6? With its expansion and evolution the core of bitcoin protocol will also need to change overtime. There are some brilliant ideas tested in the alternative cryptocurrencies that must be implemented in bitcoin as well. I'm quite confident there will be even more in near future. I'd also like to ask the all those guys that started their own alternative blockchain, please give your helping hand to Gavin and unite around bitcoin. This is a 50 trillion market that will change fiat to bitcoin back and forth many times. There is bread and butter (and caviar) for all of you. If you don't like a certain person to represent you in this Foundation just vote for another one.

Now, bitcoin should be decentralized as much as possible, I'm all for that. But decentralization is not anarchy! We still need organization(s) to coordinate and support our decentralized efforts!!! All such organizations must be build and run in such a way that even forcefully dismantled to not negatively affect the functioning of bitcoin network.

I would be glad to be among the founding members of a not-for-profit, public-benefit, bitcoin-related foundation (say, Bitcoin Software Foundation). If you need organizational or financial contribution, just PM me.

Words like currency and money must be avoided because they fall under heavy regulation. Bitcoin is just bitcoin! It is something very innovative that can not be categorized as per the existing legal framework.

100% true.

thanks alot for this perfect comparison !!!

My point was simply that, for some terms, a trademark is not appropriate.  Where a specific trademark office (I don't know the term) would draw the line is not so important (I very much doubt they all agree).


I feel this takes things too far in the direction of centralisation.  If we had an unquestioned "King of the internet" then changes like IPv4 to IPv6 would be much easier.  But changes like global internet filtering would also be easier.  There are undoubted pros and cons to great central power.  Those who advocate less central power must accept both the good and the bad that comes with this.

Yes, Bitcoin will want/need changes with time, but as time goes by this will (and rightly should) become harder and harder to do!  A guy at the top that can simply apply changes to the protocol at whim is exactly what I would like to see Bitcoin evolve away from.  Changing the transaction limit for example really should require much planning and organisation of the most powerful Bitcoin-related businesses and the consequential changes to the existing clients and mining software would have to be accepted by very many people (almost a forced global referendum).  If a similar change to make Bitcoin inflationary were proposed then it should fail to make it through this process.  I would rather see Bitcoin wither and die due to lack of organisation than to succeed and succumb to central authority.

I agree that a "Bitcoin Foundation" would be very useful at this stage to "coordinate and support our decentralized efforts" and I'm very grateful to the continued efforts of people like Gavin in helping and guiding Bitcoin at this very early stage.  However, I feel that if such an organisation does its job well then Bitcoin will have no need for such support in the future.

I agree that such organisations should be built and run such that their sudden removal will not hurt the network.  But more than this, such organisations, suddenly working hard to deform or destroy Bitcoin, should fail.

Provided I agree with the constitution of a proposed "Bitcoin Foundation" and the key members remain people I trust then I offer my support.

Good comments.

In my post I typed the word power thus: 'power', because I know it's not power that Gavin seeks. He simply wants a stronger Bitcoin, and that is laudable. Probably "centralized promotion/information" is more accurate. However, it will still need to proclaim some measure of authority...which is fine. Go for it.

My main point was that it's not core. At the core is trust.

In fact, in the final analysis, trust is beyond the core thing, it's the only thing.

It is trust that has been blown out and until that is restored, vis-a-vis infrastructure, it's lipstick on a pig. But who is going to make that happen in a serious way? It MUST come from the guys who have benefited the most from Bitcoin and who also have the most to gain from greater Bitcoin success.

As far as I can see, nobody is taking these guys to task.

It is irrational to think that guys with no stake in the game are going to keep falling on their sword, day after day, just because Bitcoin is a great idea (which it definitely is) and they are idealistic. Idealists have to eat too.

Talk is cheap. The guys who have the Bitcoins need to pony up and get behind Gavin with a serious effing fund.

Ive been on em,taking em to task....but I would disagree this is about being rich....its about hoarding or not putting money to work.
They dont have to commit funds right away ala 'give to some org who really is Bruce Wagner'.
What Im looking for is like Tradehill....a step to trust the new org..and a commitment that says 'if the org allows my money to actually be put to work for long-term health, then Im there'.

So what we need is not discussion...but who is willing to be on the board of directors(since they are the ones who determine what the org actually does) or who is willing to volunteer and what can they provide?

Such as Im an accountant, and I know for sure we dont need lawyers to set this up. For my industry, I think the one most qualified should be on the board, and if Im that person, then Im willing. I also am willing to go for a background check(and pay for it), which I think should be part of the process.

Excellent!

Though it's a tall order to get these holders on board. Bruce did a 'three-prong' on many of their brains, and they have already moved into their imaginary mansions.

I would like to suggest this as a mission for the bitcoin foundation:

bitcoin is by far the most powerful distributed computing network in the world. we should claim this record. it would bring publicity and convince a lot of people that bitcoin is much more than a game.

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=29722.0

I like the idea. David Jevens is the kind of person one wants on board by the way. One suggestion is to encourage the creation of sister organisations in different jurisdictions that are loosely, in that they share similar objectives, but are not legally related. This is similar to the relationship between the Free Software Foundation (FSF) and its sister organisations Free Software Foundation Europe (FSFE), Free Software Foundation Latin America (FSFLA), FSF France, Free Software Foundation of India etc. The idea is to avoid a single point of failure at the Foundation / Association / Organisation level.

My 2 bits

I think a Bitcoin foundation would be awesome, and is necessary for Bitcoin to scale.

I also think the decentralization aspect of Bitcoin is important for the protocol, but not the community / legal side of things.

Software Freedom Conservancy (http://sfconservancy.org/overview/) seems like a perfect fit for what we're trying to accomplish.  It's a non-profit designed to interact with the legal system, accept tax-deductible donations, hold copyrights, etc on behalf on open source projects.  They take care of most of the legal headaches so we can focus on software.

A few projects under the SFC umbrella are:

• Boost
• BusyBox
• Darcs
• Git
• jQuery
• Mercurial
• PyPy

It should be easy to start this way and grow into a separate Bitcoin Foundation later, if that's ever needed.

Apparently a forum member has certain contacts to a person or foundation that might be willing to fund a "Bitcoin Foundation".
Please check out this thread:

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=68162.0

I'm a neighbor of someone who has an up & running NPO charitable foundation, see my OP in the topic above for more details on it, I'm friends with a couple of people who are also friends with this person so can pretty well guarantee that any proposal would reach & be considered by this person rather than just being dealt with by the foundation's board, I have another friend who at my instigation contacted this foundation & has obtained multi year funding for projects that she set up (I'm actually on the board of the NP association that this friend set up to apply for funding, but mostly just to help make up the numbers), as this foundation is a NPO it will only donate to NPOs though the person behind it is much more flexible if they decide that they personally wish to support something though I feel the best way to approach would be formally with a grant application made to the foundation, but along with recommendations from 2 of this persons friends, I have permission from 1 so far & am planning to ask the 2nd once I have completed quite a big favor that someone who works for him asked me to organize for this guy - I think he will be sympathetic

God Speed!

I said:

I like decentralized approaches, because failures are less catastrophic and because I think smaller, focused organizations are more effective than big, try-to-be-everything-to-everybody organizations.

So I'm happy that the Cryptocurrency Legal Advocacy Group (http://www.theclag.org/) is working on legal issues, starting with figuring out what the issues are.

And I'm happy that LoveBitcoins (http://lovebitcoins.org/) have been starting PR/Marketing efforts for Bitcoin.

Today I created the Bitcoin Testing Project to tackle some infrastructure needs that I think are being ignored (rigorous quality assurance / testing):
   https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=80019.0

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=92684.0

Possibly related. Both the bitcoin foundation and clag can be somewhat funded in future through entirely free market means :)

gavin have you ever read Tim Wu's book The Master Switch? check that out and please steer us away from this kind of situation.

http://www.czechpoint101.com/newsletter/wp-content/uploads/2010/09/Market_Sentiment_Cycles.jpghttp://bitcoincharts.com/charts/chart.png?width=940&m=mtgoxUSD&SubmitButton=Draw&r=360&i=&c=1&s=2011-05-01&e=2012-01-01&Prev=&Next=&t=S&b=&a1=&m1=15&a2=&m2=30&x=0&i1=&i2=&i3=&i4=&v=0&cv=0&ps=0&l=1&p=0&

The time of your post and the bottom of BTC/USD are only a few days off, you're a good market indicator Gavin !
Now tell us, what's your sentiment right now ? Could be useful to time the top of the current rally :D

The idea of a bitcoin foundation is a great one. However, it's mission has to be carefully adjusted otherwise we have corruption at our hands in no time.

E.g. I don't think the foundation should do source code development. Just let the core developer create their "own" business. Could even be for-profit! The certification is less of an issue.

I'd love to revisit this idea, any thoughts? Developments?

here is https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=113400.0 (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=113400.0)

+1 to this!

+1 true as ever

@ Gavin & Friends ;):  Pls always stay aware of your power.