[ANN] Bitcoin Foundation

[ShadowOfHarbringer]

Sometimes, reading this forum makes me believe the stupidity that there are actually two sides to choose from, and that I should be working for the CIA, FBI, and the BTF.
This forum is a honeypot, and should remain a honeypot, for paranoid narcissists, instant experts, know-it-all pundits, wannabe criminals, and delusional losers.

You think you are so smart, yet you can't read with understanding, can you ?

Did i say ANYWHERE that it is a honeypot ? No, what I said is "it works like a honeypot, in case if they wanted to delegalize Bitcoin". Huge difference.

Also, this forum does not work as a honeypot. One can use PROXY or TOR to access it.

[1715178961]

1715178961

[1715178961]

1715178961

[1715178961]

1715178961

[1715178961]

1715178961

[EhVedadoOAnonimato]

Prevention of double voting can be accomplished using name ID only.

It is perfectly legal in some States, including every member of the United States (per US Constitution), to have multiple legal names, and in some cases multiple IDs for each of those. Using an address to overcome this, however, may not be the best solution, since many people have multiple homes.

Photos associated with each member checked by facial recognition software for multiple entry is the best and most anonymous way of solving the double voting problem. This way all a member has to give up is his photo, no name, no address, no nothing, and they can't sing up twice.

Please stop all of you.
You're inventing a problem, and then coming up with horrendous "solutions" to such invented problem.
Why does it have to be one vote per individual, for a start? What's the problem in having voting powers proportional to the amount you donate to the organization? That's actually much fairer.
And no, it would not allow the organization to be "corrupted"... and even if it happened, this is just one organization among many, isn't it? It has no power over Bitcoin. There should be no problem if somebody simply buys it up. Those which don't like the "buyer" get off and create another.

[becoin]

The Bitcoin Foundation is modeled on the Linux Foundation.

Firstly, congrats for implementing my idea!

And secondly,

Our Goals for 2013
.
.
.
Create an opt-in certification process for Bitcoin businesses

should be removed from your goals at all! Certification is a bad idea and doesn't correspond to bitcoin spirit.

One question though. How do people become members, get voting rights, and still preserve their anonymity?

[Luke-Jr]

Our Goals for 2013
...
Create an opt-in certification process for Bitcoin businesses

should be removed from your goals at all! Certification is a bad idea and doesn't correspond to bitcoin spirit.

Many of the problems with Bitcoin today are due to poor security practices and misunderstandings about Bitcoin. Certification allows people to see a "Bitcoin Foundation Security Certified" logo and rest assured that the site has a reasonable chance of not losing all their bitcoins.

[becoin]

and rest assured that the site has a reasonable chance of not losing all their bitcoins.

... and rest assured that the bank has a reasonable chance of not losing all your money, because it is FDIC insured? Sounds familiar?!

The Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC) is an independent agency created by the U.S. Congress to maintain stability and public confidence in the nation's ...

[Technomage]

The certificate program is a very good idea. Thinking otherwise is just stupid. Of course there are bad certificates but certificates in general are a good idea. We need ways to identify if a Bitcoin company is secure, that is so very important when handling large amounts of money. It's also important to have competing certificates, it would not be good if only the foundation hands out certificates.

It's a free market out there though, anyone can start gaining a reputation and start issuing certificates. The foundation has a strong board and a good start so they have the reputation part covered (well, at least for now the reputation is still neutral/good), just need proper procedures and rules for the certificates.

[boonies4u]

and rest assured that the site has a reasonable chance of not losing all their bitcoins.

... and rest assured that the bank has a reasonable chance of not losing all your money, because it is FDIC insured? Sounds familiar?!

The Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC) is an independent agency created by the U.S. Congress to maintain stability and public confidence in the nation's ...

The FDIC provides Desposit Insurance for certain accounts up to a certain amount. http://www.fdic.gov/deposit/deposits/dis/index.html

It does not prevent a housing bubble, or prevent the banks from "investing" your money.

[Come-from-Beyond]

Also, this forum does not work as a honeypot. One can use PROXY or TOR to access it.

All known proxies and tor exit nodes r banned on this forum.

[hazek]

The certificate program is a very good idea. Thinking otherwise is just stupid. Of course there are bad certificates but certificates in general are a good idea. We need ways to identify if a Bitcoin company is secure, that is so very important when handling large amounts of money. It's also important to have competing certificates, it would not be good if only the foundation hands out certificates.

It's a free market out there though, anyone can start gaining a reputation and start issuing certificates. The foundation has a strong board and a good start so they have the reputation part covered (well, at least for now the reputation is still neutral/good), just need proper procedures and rules for the certificates.

Ok, let me be stupid for a second since it seems anyone straying from what the status quo says anymore is just dismissed with an ad hominem and not reason or logic or fact.

What exactly are the repercussions for a Bitcoin Foundation if they certify the wrong business, do they cover any loses? Do they go out of business? Are they obligated to do anything that would make it very painful for them to get it wrong? If there are no such repercussions then this is a moral hazard exactly the same as the FDIC's bottomless purse (printing press) insuring banks - it transfers the vigilance from the consumer to an organization where the organization wont have any problems if they get it wrong.


But I agree! It is a problem that a service provider could attempt to solve through an actual free market approach. Don't know what that is? Let me help: insurance. Instead of a Bitcoin Foundation we simply need a for profit Bitcoin Insurance, a business that will for a fee sell insurance. If the business is too risky and can't get their seal, then this is a sign to stay away. If they get the seal of a purchased insurance then this is a sign someone is willing to risk their own money as a sign of confidence and legitimacy. But again coming up with such a business, getting the needed investors and coming up with a model that isn't going to screw you isn't as easy as just asserting yourself as being a watchdog that faces no risk by getting it wrong. Unfortunately easy != good.

[EhVedadoOAnonimato]

All known proxies and tor exit nodes r banned on this forum.

What are you talking about? I'm using Tor right now.

[phatsphere]

All known proxies and tor exit nodes r banned on this forum.

banned how? i'm currently using a well known "anonymization" proxy, has never been a problem.
or do you mean "writing about it" and then my posting is banned? that would be terrible.

[Technomage]

hazek, a certificate is in my mind different from insurance. A certificate doesn't necessarily mean there is any "backed guarantee", it's simply a notification that this company passed certain audits by this organization. I don't even think there should be any hard repercussions for the one handling out the certificate if the company gets into trouble. There should be none, whatsoever.

What would happen is that the certificate would become meaningless through the free market - it would have no respect. The auditor, in this case the foundation, would lose all credibility and that is punishment enough.

Don't mix this with insurance, it has (in my opinion) absolutely nothing to do with that. Insurance is something stronger than just a certificate. In many cases at least.

[Raoul Duke]

Also, this forum does not work as a honeypot. One can use PROXY or TOR to access it.

All known proxies and tor exit nodes r banned on this forum.

Only for new registrations. After you register you can use Tor all you like.

[boonies4u]

Also, this forum does not work as a honeypot. One can use PROXY or TOR to access it.

All known proxies and tor exit nodes r banned on this forum.

Only for new registrations. After you register you can use Tor all you like.

Right, after you are pinpointed then you are free to be anonymous. lol

Just register using public wifi.

[Come-from-Beyond]

I didn't know that I can use proxy after successfull registration. Thx for the info. Let's move back to the topic.

[becoin]

The certificate program is a very good idea. Thinking otherwise is just stupid.

Bitcoin block chain can be used in many different ways in just 2-3 years that are hard to imagine right now. Why limit bitcoin protocol to medium of exchange or measure of value? Certification is enemy of innovation!

[Luke-Jr]

The certificate program is a very good idea. Thinking otherwise is just stupid.

Bitcoin block chain can be used in many different ways in just 2-3 years that are hard to imagine right now. Why limit bitcoin protocol to medium of exchange or measure of value? Certification is enemy of innovation!

Who said certification would restrict innovation? There's no current known legitimate reason for non-monetary data in the blockchain, but I'm sure if someone came up with one and followed the proper standardization procedures it wouldn't be a problem for certification.

[hazek]

hazek, a certificate is in my mind different from insurance. A certificate doesn't necessarily mean there is any "backed guarantee", it's simply a notification that this company passed certain audits by this organization. I don't even think there should be any hard repercussions for the one handling out the certificate if the company gets into trouble. There should be none, whatsoever.

What would happen is that the certificate would become meaningless through the free market - it would have no respect. The auditor, in this case the foundation, would lose all credibility and that is punishment enough.

Don't mix this with insurance, it has (in my opinion) absolutely nothing to do with that. Insurance is something stronger than just a certificate. In many cases at least.

Banks too "passed certain audits by" FDIC and rating agencies which didn't stop them from causing the mortgage crisis with their dishonest practices. A certificate without someone answering for it is a moral hazard (you do understand this term, right?) and is worse for the consumer in the long run than if there is no vetting by an organization.

In other words it's a non solution at best but more likely a huge problem down the road. Why anyone would want that, besides having the power to influence which business gets more short term "legitimacy" I have no idea.

If you are serious about solving the problem of bad business practices, private insurance is the only known free market approach that guarantees the right results.


p.s.: one more thing, according to your theory FDIC and rating agencies should now be discredited because their "seals of approval" were given to bad businesses and yet that isn't the case? Why is that?

[ShadowOfHarbringer]

Also, this forum does not work as a honeypot. One can use PROXY or TOR to access it.

All known proxies and tor exit nodes r banned on this forum.

And what exactly is the reason for that ?

[boonies4u]

The certificate program is a very good idea. Thinking otherwise is just stupid.

Bitcoin block chain can be used in many different ways in just 2-3 years that are hard to imagine right now. Why limit bitcoin protocol to medium of exchange or measure of value? Certification is enemy of innovation!

Who said certification would restrict innovation? There's no current known legitimate reason for non-monetary data in the blockchain, but I'm sure if someone came up with one and followed the proper standardization procedures it wouldn't be a problem for certification.

I don't think consumers would be as concerned whether or not a non-monetary of the blockchain had certification, as they don't have to worry about someone "losing their coins". So the company offering such a service would not be pressured to receive a certification.

You can currently write messages in the blockchain btw.