Bitcoin constitution?

[beatljuice]

I was reading the EBA Opinion on ‘virtual currencies’ (http://www.eba.europa.eu/documents/10180/657547/EBA-Op-2014-08+Opinion+on+Virtual+Currencies.pdf) and it made me think of something that might be a good or bad idea. But I thought it might at least make for a cool discussion even if it's not workable. Please shoot these ideas down and/or improve on them.

What if we had guiding principles in place for the Bitcoin protocol? Preferably codded into the protocol - making it necessary to hard-fork for a change in this "constitution."

Here are some possible principles that might be included:

• No one can be restricted from transmitting any amount they want
• The code will always be open
• No entity smaller than 51% of total users/minors/nodes can govern Bitcoin (Obviously this one will require huge debate about what it means.)
• Contributions to the core network will be rewarded (Could we create a pool of transaction fees that rewards Coders? Minors? Noders?)
• Some sort of sanctity/equality of transactions? We don't want to stifle free market, but we also don't want to have transactions not go through which also might affect the free market.
• No special treatment for any entity (government, exchange, user, etc.)

You get the idea. Discus!

[kuzetsa]

Some of those ideas aren't bad, but I don't understand why this is in the "legal" sub-forum.

• The 51% thing isn't something I want to discuss, and definitely makes think of the awkward feeling I have about the way just a few large mining pools are currently centralizing a lot of control over how and what can be included in the blockchain.
  .
• A few of your points can be summed up in a single word: fungibility ~ ^{[link on wikipedia]}
  .
  Special restriction, privileges, or treatment of any transaction (or of any entity) can only diminish bitcoin's value:
  Bitcoin has fungibility, and should continue to have as much fungibility as possible.

[beatljuice]

Some of those ideas aren't bad, but I don't understand why this is in the "legal" sub-forum.

<shrug> I wasn't sure where to put it, and a constitution is considered a legal document.

• The 51% thing isn't something I want to discuss, and definitely makes think of the awkward feeling I have about the way just a few large mining pools are currently centralizing a lot of control over how and what can be included in the blockchain.
  .
• A few of your points can be summed up in a single word: fungibility ~ ^{[link on wikipedia]}
  .
  Special restriction, privileges, or treatment of any transaction (or of any entity) can only diminish bitcoin's value:
  Bitcoin has fungibility, and should continue to have as much fungibility as possible.

I question how good the minors being able to choose which blocks to mine and/or transactions to include is. On the surface, as a libertarian, I love the idea, but doesn't this affect fungibility to an extent? A few pennies don't mean much to us westerners, but can mean quite a bit to someone in Uganda.

You might argue for something like a "no transaction goes more than 50 blocks without being confirmed no matter how much the minor's fee was," rule - but that starts to sound like the whole net-neutrality debate where the people willing to pay get the fast bandwidth.

[LostDutchman]

Just how much control over Bitcoin to you people want to give away?

[beatljuice]

Just how much control over Bitcoin to you people want to give away?

Want to explain what you're asking?

I thought all my suggestions were helping keep Bitcoin free from control, and was hoping to hear other ideas, but I need a little more to chew on than a vague question.

[LostDutchman]

Just how much control over Bitcoin to you people want to give away?

Want to explain what you're asking?

I thought all my suggestions were helping keep Bitcoin free from control, and was hoping to hear other ideas, but I need a little more to chew on than a vague question.

My point is that even creating such a document or service establishes a precedent that you don't want in place.