[ANN] Bitcoin Foundation

[Come-from-Beyond]

I think voting should be like a joint stock company. One vote per bitcoin you own

Good idea. In this case u need only to prove amount u own. No need to reveal real identity.

[1714760642]

1714760642

[Gabi]

Bitcoin+giving personal info+USA=incoming fail

just look at what happened to kim dotcom 

[theymos]

Requiring a 50 BTC deposit (or whatever) would be another way to prevent Sybil attacks. Perhaps this could be an alternative to giving out your identity.

Another possibility would be to have one of several third-parties verify your identity and give you an anonymous "voting token" using blind signing.

[The_Duke]

I think voting should be like a joint stock company. One vote per bitcoin you own,

Wow, since the announcement of TBF that is the worst suggestion I heard. (nofi)
So first the few "bitcoin rich" set up their own club, but then you would base the voting power on how rich someone is?  

[BitBlitz]

I think voting should be like a joint stock company. One vote per bitcoin you own,

Really??!? Before he disappeared, we didn't get all of Pirate's votes...

[flower1024]

+111111111111

Gavin
Keep moving forward. You are doing a fantastic job. Don't get sidetracked by a few  critics. Most people here support you and even if not , they can create their own foundation or club.

i do support the bitcoin foundation
i just (and only) have the fear that mtgox uses this power to convince all bitcoin businness to copy his definition of tainted coins.

Why are you afraid of it? Did you steal anyone's wallet?

no,

i am afraid that i get "tainted" coins from another party (eg satoshidice, another exchange...)

[Insu Dra]

I think voting should be like a joint stock company. One vote per bitcoin you own

Good idea. In this case u need only to prove amount u own. No need to reveal real identity.

Seriously ?

The voting systems used today are hacked, they are being used to hide and/or remove liability from the people making the decisions. Bringing liability back is a must if you want to live in a free world. I don't think any one has come up with a system that's 100% reliably ...

The only valet way to vote is by opting in or out (buy or don't buy, use or don't use), any other large scale voting system is open to fraud and manipulation.

To me "Votes" are only valid if all the people voting can be present in real life, all other "Votes" are just a way to see who thinks a idea is bad or good (to lesser degree how meany). For me anny other "Vote" is just a poll, it should be treated as such and have no binding obligations at all.

It is up to the person behind the vote/poll to pick the results he trusts and the solution he thinks is best. After that people need to have a choice and a way to opt in or out.

(I do believe in democracy even tho it doesn't sound that way, democracy just means people have the right to get a say in how things are done, in today's world people seem to have lost that right, I blame the voting system we use.)

[Come-from-Beyond]

I think voting should be like a joint stock company. One vote per bitcoin you own

Good idea. In this case u need only to prove amount u own. No need to reveal real identity.

Seriously ?

Anything that lets to stay anonymous looks like a good idea.

[cunicula]

I think voting should be like a joint stock company. One vote per bitcoin you own

Good idea. In this case u need only to prove amount u own. No need to reveal real identity.

Well, thanks for the support. The majority of critics do not seem to want any hierarchical organization at all, so it is like herding cats.

[Come-from-Beyond]

The majority of critics do not seem to want any hierarchical organization at all, so it is like herding cats.

We need an organization but non-hierarchical one. An organization of peers. P2P network.

[BitBlitz]

We need an organization but non-hierarchical one. An organization of peers. P2P network.

  Like in the forums, where we all agree on everything?

[Gavin Andresen]

Requiring a 50 BTC deposit (or whatever) would be another way to prevent Sybil attacks. Perhaps this could be an alternative to giving out your identity.

Another possibility would be to have one of several third-parties verify your identity and give you an anonymous "voting token" using blind signing.

50 BTC (or whatever) deposit, tied up for a minimum of a year (don't want somebody putting down 1,000 BTC deposits the day before a vote, voting 20 times, then canceling their 20 sockpuppet memberships and getting their deposit back immediately) is an interesting idea.

Call me paranoid, but I don't see many third parties who I would trust to not get hacked and to properly identify anonymous people. I don't see that third parties would have a strong incentive to do a good job at that. And delegating that piece of really core functionality feels like the wrong way to go to me.

For the record: I think it would be great to come up with an easier way for people to remain anonymous but still be Foundation members. I say "easier" because I'd guess with enough effort you could use a (physical) mail forwarding service and an anonymous email service to sign up with a fake identity. I suppose the mail forwarding service is like an identity-checking service.

RE: one vote per bitcoin: there seems to be some notion that Foundation member will be voting on things like "should a change to the core protocol be rolled out to support XYZ."

Umm, no. Foundation members will be voting for (and lobbying) board members who will decide things like "should the bylaws be changed to allow anonymous memberships" or "how much Foundation budget should be dedicated to X and how much to Y." The number of bitcoins you own has nothing to do with those kinds of organizational decisions.

Technical changes will happen as they have for the last couple of years-- get rough consensus in the developer community then convince miners and merchants and users to upgrade.

[jgarzik]

RE: one vote per bitcoin: there seems to be some notion that Foundation member will be voting on things like "should a change to the core protocol be rolled out to support XYZ."

Umm, no.  [...]

Technical changes will happen as they have for the last couple of years-- get rough consensus in the developer community then convince miners and merchants and users to upgrade.

+1    Quoted for emphasis.

There should not be any major revamp in how development decisions are made.

[Atlas]

Requiring a 50 BTC deposit (or whatever) would be another way to prevent Sybil attacks. Perhaps this could be an alternative to giving out your identity.

Another possibility would be to have one of several third-parties verify your identity and give you an anonymous "voting token" using blind signing.

Technical changes will happen as they have for the last couple of years-- get rough consensus in the developer community then convince miners and merchants and users to upgrade.

Didn't you want to "standardize"? A change of plans, eh?

[ShadowOfHarbringer]

RE: one vote per bitcoin: there seems to be some notion that Foundation member will be voting on things like "should a change to the core protocol be rolled out to support XYZ."

Umm, no.  [...]

Technical changes will happen as they have for the last couple of years-- get rough consensus in the developer community then convince miners and merchants and users to upgrade.

+1    Quoted for emphasis.

There should not be any major revamp in how development decisions are made.

+1kk

For the record: I think it would be great to come up with an easier way for people to remain anonymous but still be Foundation members.

I am glad we agree on this.
Maybe there simply should be multiple ways of confirming one's identity ?

Also, the methods requiring more "work" from foundation (such as meeting new member in public place & exchanging PGP keys) can be more expensive, to cover the lost time.

[niko]

Don't care about supporting an organization whose name is a lie in itself and will likely mislead people - with the high probability of this being intentional.

Damn that national science foundation, and their monopoly on science.

Yes! Did you notice how centralized the science has become? NSF this, NSF that.

[The_Duke]

Call me paranoid, but I don't see many third parties who I would trust to not get hacked and to properly identify anonymous people. I don't see that third parties would have a strong incentive to do a good job at that. And delegating that piece of really core functionality feels like the wrong way to go to me.

Why do you think TBF is better at not getting hacked than other "third parties"? Perhaps Mark can comment on this, since he can speak from experience?

RE: one vote per bitcoin: there seems to be some notion that Foundation member will be voting on things like "should a change to the core protocol be rolled out to support XYZ."

Umm, no. Foundation members will be voting for (and lobbying) board members who will decide things like "should the bylaws be changed to allow anonymous memberships" or "how much Foundation budget should be dedicated to X and how much to Y." The number of bitcoins you own has nothing to do with those kinds of organizational decisions.

Why is this not "set in stone" in the current bylaws, since you seem determined on it?

Technical changes will happen as they have for the last couple of years-- get rough consensus in the developer community then convince miners and merchants and users to upgrade.

What if an alternative client comes with an important upgrade before you do. Will you be advising miners and merchants and users to upgrade to that?

[kwoody]

bitcoinfoundation.org was down yet again today, shows you just how much opposition there is to the foundation. Also makes any investors question the overall stability of the Foundation. Naive investors must be thinking to themselves "hah, the super-nerds can't even protect themselves and their website from lesser-nerds".

[marcus_of_augustus]

bitcoinfoundation.org was down yet again today, shows you just how much opposition there is to the foundation. Also makes any investors question the overall stability of the Foundation. Naive investors must be thinking to themselves "hah, the super-nerds can't even protect themselves and their website from lesser-nerds".

who's lesser? ... you lost us there.

[BitBlitz]

bitcoinfoundation.org was down yet again today, shows you just how much opposition there is to the foundation. Also makes any investors question the overall stability of the Foundation. Naive investors must be thinking to themselves "hah, the super-nerds can't even protect themselves and their website from lesser-nerds".

Since when does a bot-herder DDoSing a site mean there is "much opposition"?