Should there be a Bitcoin committee that vets Bitcoin service providers?

[biggbox]

This idea came to my mind while I was on my way home.


Bitcoin has spawned new industries and services that benefit consumers. We have services that helps others to buy goods online and allow buyers to pay via BTCs, we also have legit cloud mining services and we also have exchanges that enable us to trade and give new leads for traders. Let's not forget the gambling sites.

But there is no single entity that validates the legitimacy of these service providers. Most of these service providers work anonymously and they hold the risk of running away with your monies, or they could be running vapor ware - i.e: provide bitcoin mining service but in fact it is a ponzi.

Should there be some kind of international consortium that vets through these bitcoin service providers, and possible, visit these provider offices, and the consortium will go through some kind of check list and ultimately give the "stamp of approval" that the bitcoin service provider is in fact legitimate?

Is this idea even feasible? Or am I drunk?

To start off, perhaps someone should verify the existence of cloud mining service operators.

Edit (Add on):

I was thinking along the lines of some formal international based organisation that provides guidelines for bitcoins. In the sports world, there is International Olympic Committee, FIFA (corrupted anyway..). In the computing and engineering world world, there's ISO committees, IEEEs to ensure standards and ethical guidelines to conform to and to oversee the growth of an industry.

[Carlton Banks]

Yep. You're communicating with the committee board right now: it's called public opinion. And as an ad hoc committee member, I personally reject the formal organisation of such a committee, and wouldn't accept them as any kind of authority (unless they earned it through whiter-than-white transparency and objectivity, which is unlikely).

Still, if you yourself believe you could be an unbiased arbiter of such an organisation, you should do it yourself. You appear to be suitably motivated.

[franky1]

MTGox had real customers
MTGox offered a real service.
MTGox had real offices
.. it would have passed the tests,.... right up until 2014.

even with a "stamp of approval" it doesnt mean that things cannot change overnight.

EG butterfly labs was making mining rigs, people were receiving them......
the community even had someone "investigate them" he put his stamp of approval on them and later went and worked for them..
then they promoted their next-gen gear.......and we all know how that turned out.

Goldman sachs had the biggest stamp of approval any company in the world could get.. right up until 2007

bitcoin-core had a big stamp of approval. right up until 2015. now there is debate in the community about what direction core is taking.

[Carlton Banks]

bitcoin-core had a big stamp of approval. right up until 2015. now there is debate in the community about what direction core is taking.

OK, so if you're so convinced they're "doing it wrong", support some coin that implements the non-ideas that you keep espousing. Why do you keep trying to screw up a project that you have zero relevance to?

[franky1]

bitcoin-core had a big stamp of approval. right up until 2015. now there is debate in the community about what direction core is taking.

OK, so if you're so convinced they're "doing it wrong", support some coin that implements the non-ideas that you keep espousing. Why do you keep trying to screw up a project that you have zero relevance to?

did i personally cause the MANY round table debates? no (wait your going to pretend there were no debates. if there was nothing wrong there would be no debate .. right?)
did i personally cause mike hearne to leave bitcoin community? no
did i write up the employment contract to move Gmaxwell over to concentrate on sidechains? no
did i cause Luke_jr to backtrack and no longer want to do certain things agreed at the round tables? no
did i manage the partnership deal with PwC? no
did i tell miners that if they dont accept segwit, that the entire mining algo would change and render their ASICs useless? no

i agree i dont have any relevance to bitcoin-core.. but me screwing it up?? now thats comedy gold!!

go back to your monero as that has more relevance to you and your little ilk of friends

[OROBTC]

...

I am unqualified to offer a solid opinion on technical matters, but in general "official" committees to vet things are to be avoided.  That creates ugly Party Lines.  The technology changes way too fast for Committees.

With Bitcoin, it is Caveat Emptor and to take great care in managing your BTC and transactions.

This forum and other places (reddit, etc.) are probably good enough.  As above poster wrote, public opinion is likely good enough.

[Kprawn]

I for one, will never serve on a committee that might be held accountable for the theft of millions of dollars, like what happened with Mt Gox. We have more informal ways to deal with these kinds of services. We

report them to sites like this --> http://www.badbitcoin.org/ or we throw them to the lions here --> https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?board=83.0 .... Who audits the reserve banks, when they print fiat money

from thin air? Nobody..  ..If suspected of fraud, report it on public forums and when found guilty.. report them to the relevant authorities in that country. 

[MingLee]

Personally, I think there isn't a point in having a sort of community that vets the various providers within the Bitcoin economy, and that's because there isn't really any way to enforce anything happens or that things will keep moving normally. It's like giving a sticker to a company that produces "x" or "y"; just because they meet the standards one day doesn't mean that it will stay that way.

[calkob]

My simple answer to that question is "no"  how could that even be possible to set up and regulate.

[yayayo]

Should there be some kind of international consortium that vets through these bitcoin service providers, and possible, visit these provider offices, and the consortium will go through some kind of check list and ultimately give the "stamp of approval" that the bitcoin service provider is in fact legitimate?

Certainly not, if it means that businesses will be hindered to operate without approval and certainly not if any costs are generated from the activity. I think it's a very silly idea, because who will be vetting for the legitimacy of the consortium? Some kind of meta-consortium?

Also I don't understand why this is a Bitcoin specific idea. You could demand the same for any business out there. It's just another form of shifting responsibility away from the individuals involved. I can't approve that at all. Instead of giving away freedom by demanding a nanny that protects people from even the slightest harm, people should learn (again) to think for themselves. What is the problem with each customer scrutinizing the services he/she is offered? If that is too much to ask, people should stay at home with shutters closed tight and not engage in any dealings at all.

ya.ya.yo!

[franky1]

i think the easier thing to teach people is to do their own due diligence..

my favourite rule
"if you do not know enough about someone your trading with, to be able to meet up with them to slap them with a wet fish should they do you wrong. then dont trade with them or take the risk knowing its a risk"

though there should be no real reason that a business needs to register in every state and every continent and reveal every accounting spreadsheet they have. just learning the basics about who you are transacting with to settle your fears of risk, should be a good thing to do.

EG just type in a businesses name into google followed by "complaint" or "scam" or "review" usually gets you better and more uptodate info than a rubber stamp agency

[gentlemand]

Have any of our self styled Bitcoin overlords proven to be any less scummy than others in cryptoland? It doesn't seem like that all that often to me so I'm not convinced a committee would be of much benefit.

[biggbox]

MTGox had real customers
MTGox offered a real service.
MTGox had real offices
.. it would have passed the tests,.... right up until 2014.

even with a "stamp of approval" it doesnt mean that things cannot change overnight.

EG butterfly labs was making mining rigs, people were receiving them......
the community even had someone "investigate them" he put his stamp of approval on them and later went and worked for them..
then they promoted their next-gen gear.......and we all know how that turned out.

Goldman sachs had the biggest stamp of approval any company in the world could get.. right up until 2007

bitcoin-core had a big stamp of approval. right up until 2015. now there is debate in the community about what direction core is taking.

Personally, I think there isn't a point in having a sort of community that vets the various providers within the Bitcoin economy, and that's because there isn't really any way to enforce anything happens or that things will keep moving normally. It's like giving a sticker to a company that produces "x" or "y"; just because they meet the standards one day doesn't mean that it will stay that way.

I was thinking along the lines of some formal international based organisation that provides guidelines for bitcoins. In the sports world, there is International Olympic Committee, FIFA (corrupted anyway..). In the computing and engineering world world, there's ISO committees, IEEEs to ensure standards and ethical guidelines to conform to and to oversee the growth of an industry.

Very likely not workable for the bitcoin world, just sharing my thoughts.

[Altynbekova]

Something like this would be very nice but I honestly do not think this will ever come off the ground(the idea itself).

[Carlton Banks]

I was thinking along the lines of some formal international based organisation that provides guidelines for bitcoins.

Ah, you're one of those "someone ought to do something about that" people. It's YOU. YOU are the someone you are looking for. If you accept what washes over you from some self-appointed "international experts", you will get everything you deserve. I'm definitely out.

[NyeFe]

I would actually find such an idea very attractive.

Firstly, we have to stop thinking about "us" - yes, us. The members here, and start to look at the greater picture, and start thinking about bitcoins wider audience. Not everyone (in the foreseeable future) that purchases products directly or indirectly with bitcoins would spend/contribute hours upon hours on this forum, or even keep-up with regular stories/news about the ecosystem.

This is my greatest reason for a committee, much like how McAfee provides verified websites, who will inform the public about proven, and possible legitimate sites with low risk.

[CryptoDatabase]

What you are talking about is regulation from a small source compared to regulation of the masses which is far more effective.

I think it is a bad idea, give any small group an amount of power and we all know where it heads.

Carlton has the right outlook here.

[Carlton Banks]

I think it is a bad idea, give any small group an amount of power and we all know where it heads.

And the OP wishes for as large a group as possible, i.e. international scope. He comically cites FIFA and the IEEE, despite the corruption those institutions displayed in the past. Totally bizarre, why would you lust after a model that's proven shaky at best?

[Lauda]

I would actually find such an idea very attractive.

I have no idea how you could find this attractive.

This is my greatest reason for a committee, much like how McAfee provides verified websites, who will inform the public about proven, and possible legitimate sites with low risk.

So assuming that someone does not like me in that committee, and that someone lobbied against me, my 'service' would still get verified?

And the OP wishes for as large a group as possible, i.e. international scope. He comically cites FIFA and the IEEE, despite the corruption those institutions displayed in the past. Totally bizarre, why would you lust after a model that's proven shaky at best?

My initial though after noticing the thread was that it would be local (e.g. limited to a forum such as this one). Such a idea would not be that bad since the forum is privately-owned, but determining what should and should not be allowed can get very difficult. On a global scale, this would definitely succumb to corruption. A decentralized system such as Bitcoin does not need centralized 'committees'.

[Carlton Banks]

i agree i dont have any relevance to bitcoin-core.. but me screwing it up?? now thats comedy gold!!

lol I said "trying" to screw it up. And you're trying too hard, as usual

go back to your monero as that has more relevance to you and your little ilk of friends

The only evidence of my interest in Monero is.... you repeating your baseless BS claims when you run out of the rest of your BS.



Franky, don't you realise that your constant inventions, contrivances and lies can be easily checked? You're not very good at this