Funding Bitcoin Core Development

[inBitweTrust]

In light of the recent revelations from Olivier Janssens regarding the bankrupt foundation and need to decentralize and fund development :

https://bitcoinfoundation.org/forum/index.php?/topic/1284-the-truth-about-the-bitcoin-foundation/

https://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/31e6jh/the_truth_about_the_bitcoin_foundation/

A special trust fund is being created and I will donate several 100k to pre-pay Gavin’s, Wladimirs and some other core devs wage for the next year (if they choose to accept). The control of this trust fund will be handed over to the core devs, who can decide who can join it. Alternatively, we can give voting power to everyone who puts money in it (pro-rata). I will also organize crowdfunds and help make this fund public. At no point do I want to have any control whatsoever.

What does everyone think about these changes? Are the current developers being funded through the Bitcoin foundation in favor of it? Where and how do we start contributing towards this fund to support development?

I believe this is exciting and an opportunity to possibly build a decentralized and open Bitcoin Standards Body. Lets talk about solutions and do it right this time by making sure the incentive structure brings in fresh talent wanting to contribute and support older developers while at the same time not allowing corrupt investors using a foundation as a means to buy reputation.

Lets build something we feel proud to join and contribute towards!

[1714837211]

1714837211

[1714837211]

1714837211

[1714837211]

1714837211

[amaclin]

What does everyone think about these changes?

Of course I say only for myself.

Where and how do we start contributing towards this fund to support development?

Nowhere and nohow.

You are welcome to spend your own funds and affords for everything you want.
But.
This is only your own opinion and buisness.
No one else cares about your profits.

[Carlton Banks]

A significant proportion of the core dev team are employed by or run a Bitcoin based company now. Depending on the company, I suspect that following that model would be best for core devs that don't fall into that category ATM. That's the best medium-long term solution in my eyes.

Standards body? What for?

[inBitweTrust]

A significant proportion of the core dev team aer employed by or run a Bitcoin based company now. Depending on the company, I suspect that following that model would be best for core devs that don't fall into that category ATM. That's the best medium-long term solution in my eyes.

This may work as it appears to work fine for Linux development. You need an open source project to be sufficiently large enough for development to be balanced between competing interests. I don't know if we have reached that threshold yet and thus may need an intermediary opens standards groups to fund development in a decentralized matter.

For more transparency here are 2 years of tax returns:

2013
https://bitcoin4.bitcoinfoundation.org/static/2014/05/Bitcoin-2013-990-PDC.pdf

2012
https://bitcoinfoundation.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/07/2012-990EZ-IRS-Bitcoin-Foundation-.pdf

Standards body? What for?

To help fund development and coordinate communication and development between the various implementations. In no way am I suggesting a standards body to create a strict set of standards or reinforce one implementation. We really need for the Libbitcoin/unsystem implementation to mature and other full implementations to enter in our ecosystem.

[unamis76]

I guess there is no need for a Foundation or a Body. There should just be an address (or addresses) for tipping core devs. Many would contribute a bit (myself included) and people with vested interest or big holdings in Bitcoin would do it too, as it is to their best interest.

The rest is up to miners and nodes. Core devs release updates, and the users decide.

[inBitweTrust]

I guess there is no need for a Foundation or a Body. There should just be an address (or addresses) for tipping core devs. Many would contribute a bit (myself included) and people with vested interest or big holdings in Bitcoin would do it too, as it is to their best interest.

The rest is up to miners and nodes. Core devs release updates, and the users decide.

I don't know if I agree with this. In order to attract and keep talent you need to insure there is a least a minimum amount of job security and vested interest in maintaining an open source repository. I don't know if our ecosystem is large and diverse enough to have enough competing and a diversity of private companies funding core development at this stage.

What you are suggesting is essentially the model that the libbitcoin/unsystem implementation is following and while I fully support such endeavor, one has to be honest that it still needs a lot of work and development to mature and the lack in funding and organization is hurting this from being accomplished. Tips alone don't seem to be enough.

[Carlton Banks]

Standards body? What for?

To help fund development and coordinate communication and development between the various implementations.

When did that become a problem? There's a mailing list for core development where pretty much the whole bitcoin dev community thrashes the details out of all new proposals, and it's perfectly functional. The participants on that list are the de facto standards body, and it's working ok atm.

We really need for the Libbitcoin/unsystem implementation to mature and other full implementations to enter in our ecosystem.

libbitcoin/Dark Wallet gets used as often as it provides something useful. I haven't used it yet. (browser plugin is asking for trouble)

[unamis76]

I guess there is no need for a Foundation or a Body. There should just be an address (or addresses) for tipping core devs. Many would contribute a bit (myself included) and people with vested interest or big holdings in Bitcoin would do it too, as it is to their best interest.

The rest is up to miners and nodes. Core devs release updates, and the users decide.

I don't know if I agree with this. In order to attract and keep talent you need to insure there is a least a minimum amount of job security and vested interest in maintaining an open source repository. I don't know if our ecosystem is large and diverse enough to have enough competing and a diversity of private companies funding core development at this stage.

What you are suggesting is essentially the model that the libbitcoin/unsystem implementation is following and while I fully support such endeavor, one has to be honest that it still needs a lot of work and development to mature and the lack in funding and organization is hurting this from being accomplished. Tips alone don't seem to be enough.

That is correct. It might be insufficient, and it's definitely not very professional. But after what's been happening with the Foundation, I don't think there is really a better choice...

I just think that the private keys to the funds should be completely in charge of the devs, and they should either look for funding by themselves (or with the help of someone who helps them getting funds) or simply say to the community that developing Bitcoin Core for free doesn't feed their kids. Not entirely sure how we can accomplish this effectively in ways other that those I referred.

The thing is, what if the new foundation, or the Body makes the same mistakes? What if they start off good, but throughout time people with malicious intents join their ranks? Summing it all, how do we know we're not going the same way we came from? I know that there isn't reward without a bit of risk, but I don't really think we can afford more risks...

Sorry for the small rant. Just my opinion

[amaclin]

We really need for the Libbitcoin/unsystem implementation to mature and other full implementations to enter in our ecosystem.

What do you mean saying "we" and "our"?
Do you mean everyone? Or everyone in bitcoin community? Or may be something else?
What if some guy (say me) does not need this?

[inBitweTrust]

When did that become a problem? There's a mailing list for core development where pretty much the whole bitcoin dev community thrashes the details out of all new proposals, and it's perfectly functional. The participants on that list are the de facto standards body, and it's working ok atm.

Fair enough, And the mailing list with a few improvements could be a good part of how to communicate between different developers. There is some room for improvement here though.

libbitcoin/Dark Wallet gets used as often as it provides something useful. I haven't used it yet. (browser plugin is asking for trouble)

You are conflating a wallet and a implementation here. I'm referring to the need for our ecosystem to have multiple independent stacks or libraries that can be used by different companies , servers or wallets to interact with the blockchain.

Right now there are many bitcoin implementations to choose from besides bitcoin core such as btcd, bitcoinj,Bits of Proof , picocoin, caesure, bitcore, ect.... but libbitcoin seems to be the most developed alternative full implementation thus far and it still needs a ton of work.

I agree with Gavin here where we need at least 3 mature full implementations:

https://youtu.be/Y6hZhdZuct0?t=680

Additionally, What I like about Libbitcoin is that it is supported by developers who are privacy conscientious anarchists. It is great to have the development teams in each separate depository have separate motivations to insure competing interest and different sets of tools.

The thing is, what if the new foundation, or the Body makes the same mistakes? What if they start off good, but throughout time people with malicious intents join their ranks? Summing it all, how do we know we're not going the same way we came from? I know that there isn't reward without a bit of risk, but I don't really think we can afford more risks...

I share your concerns and agree this is a likely outcome if we replace the Bitcoin Foundation with another hierarchical foundation with a ED (president) . What Olivier and I want to explore is methods of creating a decentralized group that promotes/fundraises bitcoin development where control was diffuse amongst the members and donators and there wasn't an incentive structure to influence the development negatively or use to purchase an unwarranted reputation. It may not be possible but we are starting the conversation as the clock is ticking on the remaining salaries of some high paid(and worthwhile) development and while I have no fears that their talent won't be compensated, I do have some fears that they may be co-opted by some private startups to take bitcoin in directions that aren't beneficial to many of the community.

[Carlton Banks]

Olivier and I

Will you tell us who are you in relation to Olivier Janssens?

[inBitweTrust]

Will you tell us who are you in relation to Olivier Janssens?

I'm nobody of great importance, and don't know him personally... the statement was meant to merely suggest that both of us are curious about exploring other decentralized fundraising or standards organizations to support development. There are obviously many other that agree and many who disagree with us as well or just indifferent.

P.S... I originally supported Cody Wilson's bid to dismantle the Foundation in sacrificial Jubilee so am not completely opposed to seeing this happen of natural consequence , but also would like to explore alternative solutions which other anarchists are open to as well:

https://disband.it/253/so-we-all-agree/

When I first read Gavin’s comment, I mistook him as wanting to say that the Foundation should become the Bitcoin ISOC. After all, the IETC has no formal structure and no fundraising component. It relies for its funding on donations and, since the late nineties, this Internet lobbying group called the ISOC. An uneasy trumpet to be sure. But then I thought, “No, that’s what the Foundation was.”

[unamis76]

Just checked in to post this I just saw on reddit... https://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/31jlej/im_now_funding_all_the_devs_in_the_world_who_are/

[BitUsher]

Perhaps Development could be raised with fundraising solutions like lighthouse :

https://www.vinumeris.com/projects/core

Democratization of fundraising with campaigns is potentially problematic as well because it could lead us down a path where we focus on feature upgrades or cosmetic improvements rather than security considerations, optimizations, and other boring patches.

The boring maintenance of the code and testing is critical.

[inBitweTrust]

http://www.coindesk.com/bitcoin-foundation-funds-board-divided/

Core development cut off

Regardless of Murck’s proposal, core developers supported financially in full or in part by the foundation, including Gavin Andresen, Wladimir van der Laan, Cory Fields and Sergio Lerner, may be already seeking funding elsewhere for their work.

Speaking to CoinDesk, Andresen indicated that he is no longer on the foundation’s payroll as of 1st April, but that he remains a part of the organisation as an advisor and volunteer.

Core developer Jeff Garzik provided his support for this viewpoint in statements, suggesting that bitcoin development should be funded in a decentralised manner by private companies.

“People – not just Olivier – want to create some anointed organization for anointed individuals when it doesn't really work that way,” the developer, who works full time at BitPay, added. “Decentralized, open-source development means many people at many organizations.”

Perhaps I am misinterpreting Olivier's intentions as I didn't read any of his comments in this light. I don't think those two proposals are mutually exclusive. There is no coercion occuring and developers are free to work with private companies, volunteer on the codebase or leave, or take donations from one of many sources. We are just speaking about another funding source, right?

[inBitweTrust]

One proposal being discussed.


https://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/31kecf/draft_proposal_for_independent_core_dev_funding/


    US Legal and Accounting advice will be taken to confirm that the below is the best option and viable:

-> Creation of a special trust fund, where the trust administrator has the following responsibilities:

NOTE: The Trust's goal is to get the donation to the core dev it was donated to, it has no other function. The reason to set up this entity in the first place, is that some core developers do not want to deal with becoming a consultant, IRS issues of receiving random donations, marketing etc. This trust should simplify donating to a core dev of choice, nothing more and nothing less.

    Any core dev can join the trust fund TODO: Define what qualifies as a “core dev”, because someone doing code review can also qualify as such.
    Anyone donating to the trust fund, can/must specify which core dev the money will go to. (prevents many issues)
    All financials will be public, and ideally released on a real-time basis (if you see that core dev X already got his yearly salary covered, you can chose to donate to another core dev).
    Trust administrator will accept alternative donation methods such as crowd funds, Lighthouse, bountysource, etc. Community should be able to donate in any way they desire.
    Trust will take care of all necessary accounting and IRS work. The core devs will get their monthly pay check as in any normal company, and should not worry about anything
    Trust will maintain a web page with financials and how to donate.

The rationale behind this whole thing is based on the following:

    Core devs don’t want to bother with any accounting or having to become a consultant. They will be paid from a real company/trust and get their monthly paycheck.
    The community can decide to fund the core devs directly though the trust, which means the community can self organize crowd funds and promote them as they see fit. The core devs won’t have to bother with marketing.
    The above creates a non-political entity, since you can decide which core dev to give to and the trust only bothers with handing over the money.

TL;DR: Allow the community to directly fund an individual core dev of choice. Find the best suitable non-political entity to do so.

Please discuss This is just a draft. Legal advice on the best solution will be gained asap (I will cover the expense).

Olivier

Extra: I think a donator should be able to specify if his donation is anonymous or with name included. This will allow companies to gain reputation by donating, and be listed on the public donation page.

[RocketSingh]

    US Legal and Accounting advice will be taken to confirm that the below is the best option and viable:

If you really want The Bitcoin Foundation to stay and lead the way, the first thing you need to do is take its registration out of US. Probably registering it in a crypto friendly nation like Cyprus, Panama, Mauritius or in a tax free country will be a better option. A list of Tax free countries are given below...

Vanuatu
Brunei
Oman
United Arab Emirates
Maldives
Qatar
Kuwait
Bermuda
Bahamas
Cayman Islands

Ref: http://www.quora.com/Which-countries-have-no-income-tax

[jcrubino]

The Standards committee might do well to be a seperate entity and focus on generic Blockchain standards.

Bitcoin, the p2p payment blockchain stands to do well by opening up some parts of its organization to blockchains in general as no one blockchain can do everything well.

[billotronic]

this is a real cetch 22...

on one hand, you want dev's to be able to work 24/7 exclusively on the code thus paid by donations etc

the flip side to that is if your dev's are essential moonlighting their work on the code, one would have to wonder if they might take their underlying business interests a head of the better interest of the code.

the only 'good' answer to this would be for us as a community to fund development, but in itself opens a whole other can of worms

and talk of standards an regulations and we might as well close up shop now. if any were looking for such things we would of just stayed in the harsh reality of the fiat world.

[Phoenix1969]

1. Kudos to Oliver for doing his job the moment he was elected, and letting the Members & public know about the immanent insolvency and the secrecy behind it.
2. Core Dev's will need to form their own organization, free from fund-sucking leeches.
3. The "Foundation" didn't need Cody Wilson elected to be dismantled, they did it quite well on their own!