Graham has many valid points, and he knows what he's talking about. Objectives need to be specified as members will have a greater urge to join if their goals match Cryptic's goals. That being said, S4VV4S, if you ever want additional help on the web design, I could help; I'm a novice web designer who's rusty, but I could pick it back up and help if you wanted some assistance. Aside from that, I don't know what I could really contribute, as I mentioned in a previous post.

You, as a club member whose identity I can rely on, can tell me, (as another club member), that you control the S4VV4S bcttalk a/c. I would have little reason to doubt that as a fact and even less reason to promulgate it.


I'll stick around, sure but I reckon that the group will struggle for coherence while the objectives are so vague (“some sort of brotherhood or fellowship or some masonic group about bitcoins or cryptocurrencies”) and there's a consequent lack of clarity of vision. The end result is that people are uncertain about precisely what they're signing up to.

The notion of primacy=rank and an exclusive set of “founders” is fatally flawed as it will effectively ossify the incumbents in place. Any properly egalitarian group would start from a single status (member), have an initial vote to determine the club officers and be able to rely on a well-defined process for progressing through the ranks for those who join later and have the inclination to do so. A group needs to be at least capable of fluidity in order to be able to accommodate the inevitable changes in the collective requirements of the membership.

We used to be members of Bristol Corinthian Yacht Club, they've been around since the 1930s and, in common with many small, organic, semi-formal groups, they have a set of documented procedures for easing the flow of people in and out of positions of responsibility.

I'd be quite surprised if there isn't a richesse of sources of templates for setting up and administering online groups, which basically already embody a set of best practices for the task.

The main issue for me is the lack of clarity of objectives and a certain lack of purpose; it seems to have developed more along the lines of “Hey, we could start a club” as opposed to “Hmm, we really need to set up an objective group that can foster users' interests by making supported, canonical pronouncements on best practices in a variety of operational aspects of cryptocurrency” (as an overly verbose example off the top of my head).

I recommend starting with the construction of a manifesto that describes plainly and clearly the aims of the group and what people can expect from membership. We constructed one for us and our clients and found it to be a challenging but ultimately satisfying exercise: http://www.higginsandmacfarlane.net/manifesto

Cheers

Graham

Yes, there is a significant part of the Bitcoin community that is against FB. Reason is that they are above-average intelligent and value privacy.

You will never see me joining the Zuckerberg empire.

ya.ya.yo!

The pseudonymous account that we engaged with last month could have been sold and be under the ownership of an entirely different person today. This awareness does moderate the degree of my interaction with other bcttalk subscribers.

The rules should state that pseudonyms are unacceptable and that applications for membership will only be considered if a verifiable real world name, address and contact details are provided.

Not that I expect anyone to care but I wouldn't even consider being a member otherwise. We're business professionals so we publish our full contact details and VAT registration number, not just because EU consumer regs specify it but primarily because we respect the intelligence of our clients, current and prospective.

http://minkiz.co
http://www.higginsandmacfarlane.net
http://www.higginsandmacfarlane.com


Cheers

Graham

Looking forward to see what this brings

Drop the pseudonyms.


Cheers

Graham

I think that the idea is that the miners should be mining before you issue the challenge.

The challenge is to show how much the total network hashing power should reduce by when you stop hashing and agree to be idle. Then you observe if block production reduces and only pay the bonus to the idlers if this reduction happens. This agreement is enforced by a combination of nlocktime and multisig.

I don't know if this will work with just one pool doing it (i.e. only a small percentage of mining power) because all of the other miner's on the network will benefit and not just the miner paying the bonus and the slow down in block production will not be noticeable enough.

I think it's really interesting from a theoretical point of view but wouldn't work in practise unless nearly all miners were involved (probably wouldn't work then either - I can think of loads of reasons why)

Here's the video of a talk on it:  http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QN2TPeQ9mnA

If you compare the increase in mining hardware to an arms race then this is the equivalent of a cold war. All of the miners are in a huge stand off, all of them ready to switch on their huge asic hash farms the minute someone breaks the agreement resulting in apocalyptic energy consumption. In bitcoin mining the apocalyptic war has already started so it's probably more likely to end up in mutual destruction than a negotiated peace.

It's a great idea though.

Sounds practical
I'll put it up on the temporary rules until we have enough members to dispute on them

That's really nice of you!
Let's hope we get this up and running
with a few. Once Cryptic gets some funds, we'll be sure to repay you
(or in about 3 weeks when I get my salary and buy some bitcoin)


I'm not really one for tattoos, but if you want one, and a few other members wanna join in,
you're free to go and get one!

Sounds like a plan guys,
so if any of you were to become early contributors, what would you contribute
to the group?

First of course, we would need a treasurer.
We already have 2 founders. Also some other officers and
people to hold meetups and initiate projects.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
RULES ON FUNDING

Later on we'll need funds, which will be held by the treasurer(s),
requested by officers to be dispersed and approved by the founders.
     Treasurers will need to verify messages with their PGP signature every time they even think about handling the funds, and treasurers will be chosen by the community

The rest of the members of the group will be a committee in keeping
the officers in check by making votes if the funds should be dispersed.
     Unless the community wants a smaller group of representatives

the founders will have 2/3 voting power with each founder having 1/3 and
the rest of committee will have 1/3 in total.
         If the founders both agree on something and the whole committee disagree, the officers will take part in the vote and have 1/2 voting power in total

Funds will be used for keeping the forum alive or any asset owned by the
group (shares, miners, websites, buildings, companies, etc.)

Regards,
SirLolicon

And shares now worth $643k...yeah, you missed out on the shares of Nike she received lol.

Sounds good! First rule

"Thou shall not scam your fellow members"

Announcement:

Looking for a name for the fraternity/group
PM or post here and we'll have a vote for the name

Hi,
I want to make some btc on daily basis by making a simple website,which lacks in bitcoin.Website must be simple and low cost.
I really need some earning opportunities in bit coin community.