Who would you like on a Bitcoin Council that represented the BTC community?

[kjj]

This is sick.

Now we, the users, can choose between red and blue?

I can predict the next movement: What about a council of ancient and wise users to judge and arbitrate conflicts in the bitcoin world?

 

It's not going to work. We just need to keep Bitcoin and its ecosystem the more decentralized and pseudonymous we can.

Well I agree, we do not want to be blue. However you might look at it a different way. Gavin and the like are setting themselves as the king, we should at least organize a Senate...

I would rather not have to do this but our options are not many.

LOL.

Yes, please make a senate.  When you find out that your senate can't make anyone do anything that they don't want to do, and neither can the foundation, will all of you stop bitching about the foundation?

[El Cabron]

This is sick.

Now we, the users, can choose between red and blue?

I can predict the next movement: What about a council of ancient and wise users to judge and arbitrate conflicts in the bitcoin world?

 

It's not going to work. We just need to keep Bitcoin and its ecosystem the more decentralized and pseudonymous we can.

Well I agree, we do not want to be blue. However you might look at it a different way. Gavin and the like are setting themselves as the king, we should at least organize a Senate...

I would rather not have to do this but our options are not many.

LOL.

Yes, please make a senate.  When you find out that your senate can't make anyone do anything that they don't want to do, and neither can the foundation, will all of you stop bitching about the foundation?

Well if all the miners sign up

[hazek]

I don't understand why people are so fixated on the governments model of providing a service? Why do you want speak for people who didn't give you their consent to speak for them?


Why can't you just start a for profit service on a voluntary basis. If Bitcoin needs a face, have clients pay for it. If Bitcoin needs vetting businesses, have clients pay for it. If the dev team needs funding, have clients pay for it. And there's no need for a board of directors, or elections, or bylaws or anything like that. You can simply run a business that provides a desirable service for a certain price.


Maybe I get it. Maybe it's harder to get people to pay for something than simply asserting yourself to speak in their name whether they want it or not. Well guess what, harder doesn't make it bad or impossible and easier certainly doesn't make it safe and desirable.

[SaltySpitoon]

I nominate Atlas! We need someone who doesn't play by the rules, and is always on the edge to help make those tough decisions.

[Mushroomized]

I nominate Atlas! We need someone who doesn't play by the rules, and is always on the edge to help make those tough decisions.

What about MNW, he doesn't play by anyone's rules, even his own!

[stochastic]

This is sick.

Now we, the users, can choose between red and blue?

I can predict the next movement: What about a council of ancient and wise users to judge and arbitrate conflicts in the bitcoin world?

 

It's not going to work. We just need to keep Bitcoin and its ecosystem the more decentralized and pseudonymous we can.

Well I agree, we do not want to be blue. However you might look at it a different way. Gavin and the like are setting themselves as the king, we should at least organize a Senate...

I would rather not have to do this but our options are not many.

LOL.

Yes, please make a senate.  When you find out that your senate can't make anyone do anything that they don't want to do, and neither can the foundation, will all of you stop bitching about the foundation?

Well if all the miners sign up

There should be unions where miners, base users, speculators, exchanges, and developers all set up their own foundations.

[Mushroomized]

Do you mean someone from the community (not from business) in the bitcoin foundation, or a whole new organization?

[jimbobway]

I nominate no one.  I want an anonymous bitcoin council to be created using multisignature transactions.  It will be sort of like kickstarter, but for the advancement of bitcoin.

Basically a site needs to be set up on Tor where people can look at proposals.  Then, people can vote with their money.  If enough money is there for a project idea then the transaction is executed and the funds delivered to the project.  Note that no one needs to be involved with the distribution of money because it's based on multisignature transactions.  That's the whole point of bitcoin.

[Raize]

Might I recommend we follow Heinlein's Moon is a Harsh Mistress? Here's a quote:

I note one proposal to make this Congress a two-house body. Excellent — the more impediments to legislation the better. But, instead of following tradition, I suggest one house of legislators, another whose single duty is to repeal laws. Let the legislators pass laws only with a two-thirds majority... while the repealers are able to cancel any law through a mere one-third minority. Preposterous? Think about it. If a bill is so poor that it cannot command two-thirds of your consents, is it not likely that it would make a poor law? And if a law is disliked by as many as one-third is it not likely that you would be better off without it?

IMHO, it's hard to take any sort of "authority" seriously if they do not adopt this model. If the Bitcoin Foundation isn't going to adopt this model, then the Bitcoin Council, should. Two voting bodies, with nary a representative between.

[mufa23]

Hold on! What part of "decentralized" do you guys not understand?! You guys are retarded. You cannot run Bitcoin. You cannot control it.

[Come-from-Beyond]

Hold on! What part of "decentralized" do you guys not understand?!

It's centralized now, so we need to create more "centres" to get something as close to decentralization as possible.

[Astro]

I nominate The Real Plato!

[kwoody]

A Bitcoin Union makes more sense. Unions are founded in an attempt to keep corporate entities in check.
The Foundation appointed themselves, they were not nominated by the majority, even though they suggest some kind of political structure to their Foundation.
Instead, we got an announcement about an announcement, which is almost laughable.
Is there room for impeachment in the bylaws? If not, there should be. Anything short of total transparency on behalf of the Foundation would be grounds for it, IMHO.
Keeping the majority "out of the loop" breeds distrust. Distrust breeds fear. Fear, when instilled in the majority of a community, breeds a moral-driven will against tyranny. If Bitcoin should ever succeed, trust is essential. I for one doubt that the Foundation can be trusted.

Oh, and who would I appoint to this Union...? Anyone whom the majority of the community believes should be there.
The Bitcoin Foundation "tax" of 2.5 Bitcoins for annual membership seems unreasonable, because they do not reasonably represent the majority.

[stochastic]

I nominate no one.  I want an anonymous bitcoin council to be created using multisignature transactions.  It will be sort of like kickstarter, but for the advancement of bitcoin.

Basically a site needs to be set up on Tor where people can look at proposals.  Then, people can vote with their money.  If enough money is there for a project idea then the transaction is executed and the funds delivered to the project.  Note that no one needs to be involved with the distribution of money because it's based on multisignature transactions.  That's the whole point of bitcoin.

This is not a bad idea but the only way to make it totally anonymous is to randomly select the members of a committee  Maybe have a random lottery to select the anonymous people like the Greeks use to do (minus the anonymous part).

What would the power be of such a committee?

ADDITIONAL ON POWER:
Maybe the committee could be members of each industry union (consumers, speculators, exchanges, miners, and so forth) and the committee is randomly selected from those members.  The committee could then use dues paid by the trade unions to direct public policy on bitcoin with the rest of the world and solve disputes between unions of the committee.

[jimbobway]

I nominate no one.  I want an anonymous bitcoin council to be created using multisignature transactions.  It will be sort of like kickstarter, but for the advancement of bitcoin.

Basically a site needs to be set up on Tor where people can look at proposals.  Then, people can vote with their money.  If enough money is there for a project idea then the transaction is executed and the funds delivered to the project.  Note that no one needs to be involved with the distribution of money because it's based on multisignature transactions.  That's the whole point of bitcoin.

This is not a bad idea but the only way to make it totally anonymous is to randomly select the members of a committee  Maybe have a random lottery to select the anonymous people like the Greeks use to do (minus the anonymous part).

What would the power be of such a committee?

ADDITIONAL ON POWER:
Maybe the committee could be members of each industry union (consumers, speculators, exchanges, miners, and so forth) and the committee is randomly selected from those members.  The committee could then use dues paid by the trade unions to direct public policy on bitcoin with the rest of the world and solve disputes between unions of the committee.

Anything involving a committee is centralization.  We want a decentralized bitcoin foundation, a P2P Bitcoin Foundation.  Write some P2P software that has rules built in that is capable of allocating money to top voted projects.  Use smart contracts to enforce rules.

Basically this is a P2P Government, and the possibilities are endless.

[CJGoodings]

I nominate Eleuthria (btcguild) & Nachtwind (virtualminer.eu). Also i believe there should be some sort of legal representation within the council just incase things get hairy.

[tvbcof]

I nominate Eleuthria (btcguild) & Nachtwind (virtualminer.eu). Also i believe there should be some sort of legal representation within the council just incase things get hairy.

Katz is a no-brainer for legal.

I would further suggest:

Ver: = treasury (track record of due diligence wrt putting funds to work.)
BFL_Sonny: = Pubs (editorial experience with LFC.)
Wagner: = director of recreation.

I officially withdraw my suggestion of Gornick in this org.

[adamstgBit]

If any one wants an invite to the Bitcoin Business Alliance  ( BBA ) PM me.

Its free and theirs only one requirement really, you contribute to the improvement of  bitcoin.

[kjj]

If any one wants an invite to the Bitcoin Business Alliance  ( BBA ) PM me.

Its free and theirs only one requirement really, you contribute to the improvement of  bitcoin.

In light of the pandemonium unleashed by the Bitcoin Foundation announcement, aren't you worried that 1) your name makes it sound like you speak for all bitcoin businesses when you clearly do not, and 2) you are excluding individual bitcoin users?

(This is only partly a troll.)

[adamstgBit]

If any one wants an invite to the Bitcoin Business Alliance  ( BBA ) PM me.

Its free and theirs only one requirement really, you contribute to the improvement of  bitcoin.

In light of the pandemonium unleashed by the Bitcoin Foundation announcement, aren't you worried that 1) your name makes it sound like you speak for all bitcoin businesses when you clearly do not, and 2) you are excluding individual bitcoin users?

(This is only partly a troll.)

i don't speak for all bitcoin businesses  

I'm just saying some of us chat work together at the BBA  

seriously tho we are trying to attack the problem of scamming and fraud in bitcoin...