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

[hazek]

I see nothing wrong with him being paid (tax free) to do solid work. The problem I have with the foundation is that they pretend to represent all of BTC. Their name is misleading.

Will they also be paying the lead developers of other clients? If not, then why not?

No, because it is not really the bitcoin foundation, it is the "mt gox - bitinstant foundation to pay Gavin tax free to do what they want"

if they just called it something like that, no problem.

Exactly, I think we agree. If they want it to be called "The Bitcoin Foundation", then no devlopers should be paid by them, especially not if said developer(s) will only focus on one client, one sollution and at the same time be under the influence of money-hungry companies who are even in the board of the foundation.
If they do want to have all of that, pick a name that fits it.

Lead dev and his dev team getting paid by the foundation to code is not a problem. The problem is the circumstances. If a lead dev and his team are merely independent contractors then there's nothing wrong with that, if however he is a founding member and on the board of directors for at least the next two years and getting paid to code then that's a conflict of interest and that is a problem.

Remove the conflict of interest and I wont have a problem if they, being run by whoever, pay him billions.

[Dabs]

If I remember, Linus Torvalds did not get paid initially by any linux foundation. He used to get paid as an employee of transmeta corporation, which may or may not have had any interest in linux.

He went through three entities before he got employed by the linux foundation, which was something that came out from an open source standards project. This foundation serves as a neutral spokesperson for linux, it just so happens to have it's chief architect under their employ.

uh... this is going to get complicated......

[mobile4ever]

casascius, gavin, falkvinge

all good?

Falvinge impresses me. Satoshi should be there. Gavin Andresen of course.

I like Theymos as well.


Anyone who generally supports the basic tenets of FOSS, personal responsibility, and decentralization and who has a good view of the future.


Here is an idea of what the future will probably look like:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=219YybX66MY

[Come-from-Beyond]

What you fail to see is that The Bitcoin Foundation intends to control Bitcoin development as the United States intends to control the Middle East.

I would remove "development"...

[benjamindees]

it is the "mt gox - bitinstant foundation to pay Gavin tax free to do what they want"

This is truth right here.

[CharlieContent]

Who would you like on a Bitcoin Council that represented the whole BTC community and it's spirit?

As we all know "The Bitcoin Foundation" is industry heavy and was created to pay tax free for the development of BTC. Now I think this foundation is fine however I think the name is a bit misleading as it clearly does not represent all of BTC and its ideals.

If there was a group of people that debated and made recommendations to pool operators, miners and industry who would you want to hear from, who would you trust?

Thanks.

Definitely not you! If there every is a Bitcoin Council you should be excluded, you and anyone else that was involved with Pirateat40. Excluded from both membership and representation.

[greyhawk]

That's very exclusionary of you. Are you trying to build an elite club of shadowy powermongers only accepting new blood that has been deemed worthy in their eyes, shutting out the common man?

[ChrisKoss]

I would nominate:
enmaku
JoelKatz
Graet
theymos
casascius
cytokine
DeathAndTaxes
sgornick
jgarzik
Mike Hearn

It's not clear what the first order of business for this council would be.  

Just throwing it out there: I'd pay 2.5 BTC/yr for a monthly-ish newsletter from the above people, critically discussing the BTC economy, and suggesting specific solutions to problems they identify.  Might be a good way to kickstart the council.

Some articles I'd love to see:

- How are the actions of X company misaligned with the interests of Bitcoin? (Bitcoin businesses or Foundation)

- Did the operator(s) of site X react properly to being (hacked/scammed/organizational conflict, etc)?

- Analysis of the Bitcoin credit contraction.  What kinds of securities had their value suddenly go "poof"?  Which businesses turned out to secretly be investing in HYIPs?  What did the systemic risk look like?  What should future Bitcoin investors take away from this?

- How far away are we from having to worry about Quantum computing?  What is the most vulnerable algorithm in Bitcoin to QC?  When should Bitcoin be quantum-proofed?

- How does the Bitcoin core dev team work?  Is there a 'culture' of this group? Funny anecdotes? What can the community do for the dev team? Does anything about the core dev structure need to be changed?

- How will pools change as ASICs come online?  Will the mining pool, as we know it, become extinct?  Will mining become more centralized?
 
I know all of this has been discussed on the forums extensively, but the signal to noise ratio is very low and the info is scattered among many threads. I would much rather read consistently high-quality content from Bitcoin community members I trust than have to skim the forums for info.  So much so, that I'd be willing to pay.

This idea is starting to look somewhat like BitcoinMagazine, but I'd like something that's directed at BTC users, not newbies, and discusses topics in more depth. I think having a trusted, rational and impartial voice from the heart of the Bitcoin world, which is free to criticize any large player acting in a way they disagree with, could be a powerful positive force for Bitcoin.  Trust and an audience will need to be built first though.

[Desolator]

I think it'd definitely need to be someone who consistently keeps their head on straight, has their BS-ometer set to the max, and can research information about anything to a reasonable level before making a decision about anything.  I think that narrows it down to...me, lol.

[LoupGaroux]

So, the anonymous transaction process wants to have competing governing advisory councils? How exactly is this going to benefit my anonymous use of a crypto-currency? By having more ways for a shadow government tie my transaction to identifiable information? By having a group of influence brokers set the table for future con games and create rules to benefit themselves and their cronies? By giving the semblance of legitimacy to the criminal fuckwits that have already been listed as potential board members?

Bad idea. Very bad idea. Very bad, kill this infant in the cradle, smother the parents who came up with the idea, eliminate any genetic trace of their lineage, scorch and salt the earth they walked on, bad idea.

Here for the tl;dr simple minded crowd:

Bitcoin is about anonymity. Having a means to transfer value without anybody else seeing, taxing, controlling or registering what you do and how you do it.

Foundations and Councils and Unions and all this other centralized governing horse shit is about the exact opposite of that. It's a freaking old ladies tea and crumpet club that wants to exert power and be leaders and make rules and make decisions. We don't need it, we don't want it, we don't welcome it.

There is no form where it is acceptable. It is the antithesis of what bitcoin is. If Gavin needs a salary, some enlightened business should offer him one. If there is a need for paid development, then put out a call for bounties to be paid from the anonymous community to the anonymous developers.

This is absurd and evil.

And it is that kind of thinking that would make me perfect for the council, because I wouldn't accept the nomination, and would not serve if selected.

[kjj]

Just throwing it out there: I'd pay 2.5 BTC/yr for a monthly-ish newsletter from the above people, critically discussing the BTC economy, and suggesting specific solutions to problems they identify.  Might be a good way to kickstart the council.

Some articles I'd love to see:

- How are the actions of X company misaligned with the interests of Bitcoin? (Bitcoin businesses or Foundation)

- Did the operator(s) of site X react properly to being (hacked/scammed/organizational conflict, etc)?

- Analysis of the Bitcoin credit contraction.  What kinds of securities had their value suddenly go "poof"?  Which businesses turned out to secretly be investing in HYIPs?  What did the systemic risk look like?  What should future Bitcoin investors take away from this?

- How far away are we from having to worry about Quantum computing?  What is the most vulnerable algorithm in Bitcoin to QC?  When should Bitcoin be quantum-proofed?

- How does the Bitcoin core dev team work?  Is there a 'culture' of this group? Funny anecdotes? What can the community do for the dev team? Does anything about the core dev structure need to be changed?

- How will pools change as ASICs come online?  Will the mining pool, as we know it, become extinct?  Will mining become more centralized?
 
I know all of this has been discussed on the forums extensively, but the signal to noise ratio is very low and the info is scattered among many threads. I would much rather read consistently high-quality content from Bitcoin community members I trust than have to skim the forums for info.  So much so, that I'd be willing to pay.

This idea is starting to look somewhat like BitcoinMagazine, but I'd like something that's directed at BTC users, not newbies, and discusses topics in more depth. I think having a trusted, rational and impartial voice from the heart of the Bitcoin world, which is free to criticize any large player acting in a way they disagree with, could be a powerful positive force for Bitcoin.  Trust and an audience will need to be built first though.

Forget the council thing, make this newsletter!

[El Cabron]

Just throwing it out there: I'd pay 2.5 BTC/yr for a monthly-ish newsletter from the above people, critically discussing the BTC economy, and suggesting specific solutions to problems they identify.  Might be a good way to kickstart the council.

Some articles I'd love to see:

- How are the actions of X company misaligned with the interests of Bitcoin? (Bitcoin businesses or Foundation)

- Did the operator(s) of site X react properly to being (hacked/scammed/organizational conflict, etc)?

- Analysis of the Bitcoin credit contraction.  What kinds of securities had their value suddenly go "poof"?  Which businesses turned out to secretly be investing in HYIPs?  What did the systemic risk look like?  What should future Bitcoin investors take away from this?

- How far away are we from having to worry about Quantum computing?  What is the most vulnerable algorithm in Bitcoin to QC?  When should Bitcoin be quantum-proofed?

- How does the Bitcoin core dev team work?  Is there a 'culture' of this group? Funny anecdotes? What can the community do for the dev team? Does anything about the core dev structure need to be changed?

- How will pools change as ASICs come online?  Will the mining pool, as we know it, become extinct?  Will mining become more centralized?
 
I know all of this has been discussed on the forums extensively, but the signal to noise ratio is very low and the info is scattered among many threads. I would much rather read consistently high-quality content from Bitcoin community members I trust than have to skim the forums for info.  So much so, that I'd be willing to pay.

This idea is starting to look somewhat like BitcoinMagazine, but I'd like something that's directed at BTC users, not newbies, and discusses topics in more depth. I think having a trusted, rational and impartial voice from the heart of the Bitcoin world, which is free to criticize any large player acting in a way they disagree with, could be a powerful positive force for Bitcoin.  Trust and an audience will need to be built first though.

Forget the council thing, make this newsletter!

that is a great idea, we really need something like a monthly bitcoin magazine.

[Rassah]

I nominate each and every one of us, acting in our own rational self interest, providing ideas whose merits are based only on the quality of those ideas, and on how much the people who came up with those ideas are willing to put in to make them a reality.
I still don't know why we need a specific single group, or even competing groups.

[c_k]

We don't need any more councils or what ever, the bitcoin foundation is fine as it is - just join and move for a vote on changes if you want any

[gweedo]

We don't need any more councils or what ever, the bitcoin foundation is fine as it is - just join and move for a vote on changes if you want any

And you don't question how two companies hold seats, unopposed by any other companies or competing companies? Or how there are no checks and balances?

[c_k]

Well in that case, what would a council even achieve?

If there was a group of people that debated and made recommendations to pool operators, miners and industry who would you want to hear from, who would you trust?

I honestly don't think anyone should speak for any one other than themselves. I certainly don't want someone speaking for me.

If someone wants to hold a vote on something, that can already be done on the forum or the mailing list.

Want your proposal to be documented once it has a consensus? Put it on the wiki, post a locked thread, summarise it on the mailing list - where ever people feel is appropriate.

You then want to communicate that to pool operators or miners? There should be a place those ideas that reached consensus can be referred to - the wiki seems the best place to me along with an announcement on the forums and the mailing list.

The mailing list (bitcoin, not bitcoin-dev) on sourceforge a bit dead? So what? It's still there to be used and could do with some life.

As for communicating with industry, well... I'm not sure an anonymous group of members that call themselves a council would get listened to...

[Hasimir]

Who would you like on a Bitcoin Council that represented the whole BTC community and it's spirit?

No one. Whoever you nominate no one could live up to the promise. The community is far too diverse for any single entity to cover it all.
What we need is a multitude of different organisations from different backgrounds with different views and interests.
Im happy we already have a couple:

CLAG: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=76216.0
Bitcoin Foundation: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=113400.0
Bitcoin Consultancy (?): http://bitcoinconsultancy.com/

but we need more of them!

This is the most intelligent thing I’ve heard yet. You probably need as many as there are member seats in the UN. Merica has The Bitcoin Foundation. Who’s next?

Alright, I'll bite ... I am officially announcing a new group: the Bitcoin Anarchists Securing Trust And Revolutionary Decentralisation Syndicate.

The Bitcoin Anarchists Securing Trust And Revolutionary Decentralisation Syndicate (BASTARDS) is open to all and sundry. 

[greyhawk]

In the same vein Team Ponzi hereby announces our official renaming to Statists Communicating Against Maleficient Bitcoin Operated Treachery (SCAMBOT).

[ralree]

Cascascius gets my vote

[WikileaksDude]

Cascascius gets my vote

yeah, he is a pretty solid guy. i hope he starts his own forum some day...

I second this.