In the last few days I have spent a little time thinking about this problem in a little depth. I believe the real problem with the bitcoin foundation is that it is a centralized organization living in a decentralized world. What I would propose is a parallel block-chain in which members opt-in to solve arbitrary proof of work problems in order to compete to add data into the foundation. For example, if the foundation wanted to produce a press release, they would compete to add a sentence at a time to the document which is preserved within the blockchain. Forks would be handled through a system of simple rules such as longest chain with the lowest average block size to promote conciseness.

So how would you deal with consensus on the current project? The answer is quite simply, spontaneous order. Each block will contain a header and within the header there exists a project code which will allow people to add to whatever project they want upon solving the next proof of work. After some arbitrary length of time blocks that contain project codes, that have not been used recently, would be invalid. We could use a block explorer to aggregate and view the individual projects.

Wouldn’t that mean that it is possible to attack the network and produce contradictory reports or garble added to in-progress reports? No, that is impossible. By definition, the members of the foundation are the people actively hashing to compete to add to the foundation. The foundation is the opinions, ideas, and data contained within the blockchain. By definition, the attackers are members of the foundation expressing their their opinions weighted by their respective hashing power.

How could you possibly produce coherent policy direction in such a system? Statistics. Take for example policy A. You can say that of 100 projects developed on this policy, 71% were in favour. and 29% were against.

Doesn't that leave the system open to the abuse inherent in statistical manipulation? No. This kind of meta level aggregation of the blockchain would be subject to a peer-review process of some kind.

How does this compare with the existing Bitcoin foundation? Well, I should state before we begin that I literally know almost nothing about the Bitcoin foundation. However, I would imagine that to produce a policy in an outdated and hierarchical organization like the Bitcoin foundation it starts with a committee. That committee produces a report suggesting an point of view or course of action and that document is sent to the executive board. The executive board takes that report and immediately calls Mark Kerpeles, who is too busy feeding his cat to answer his phone. In a panic the board makes and publishes an arbitrary opinion that then carries the weight of every member of the foundation. By contrast in the decentralized system, the policy report is nothing more than a statistical analysis of the aggregate of the the expressions contained within the blockchain.

So is there like a president or someone in charge of the foundation? Fuck no. Unless you are actively hashing in an attempt introduce data into the blockchain then you aren't even a member.

Wow, that is a fantastic idea? What would you call it? I would call it the Bizarro Bitcoin foundation and people participating in it would identify themselves with goatees.