A bitcoin user group that is open and expresses the will of the community

[Inedible]

Just familiar with 501(c)(3) non-profit laws in the US.

I'd love to hear alternatives, especially if they offer better protections for non-profits, better privacy laws etc.

Perhaps New Zealand? Australia? Sweden? Germany?

The problem with alternatives is you then have to spend a lot of time and effort looking up details in those jurisdictions.

At least in the US you're familiar with those laws and better understand the nuances.

For a non-profit organisation local laws should have far less of an impact.

It's not like you'll be issuing shares or protecting IP.

[aantonop]

This could be a problem as far as financing the setup of the group is concerned? You'd need thousands of users to join in order to have the funds to incorporate in a foreign country?

I don't think funding is the problem. If it is well structured, then "thousands" is entirely possible. Anyway, I'm sure there will be donations separate from the members fees. I've never had trouble raising money. That is not a big problem for this community.

Accountability... now that's a problem. Getting people to spend on a worthy cause and a representative transparent organization? Not so much.

I'll donate the first $1000 the moment we hit 100 members, that's a pledge.

[Inedible]

Switzerland? Openly declared neutral country, with strict bank secrecy laws. Obviously, we won't store funds as fiat. But the org itself. Or, check out the pirate bay. Where is it? Sweden?

The Pirate Bay were also prosecuted and convicted. Not sure if you knew that.

[Inedible]

I don't think funding is the problem. If it is well structured, then "thousands" is entirely possible. Anyway, I'm sure there will be donations separate from the members fees. I've never had trouble raising money. That is not a big problem for this community.

Accountability... now that's a problem. Getting people to spend on a worthy cause and a representative transparent organization? Not so much.

I'll donate the first $1000 the moment we hit 100 members, that's a pledge.

Thousands of users eventually but initially it might take a year before you have enough members to incorporate. I'm just thinking that not being setup might discourage users from participating (i.e. those that will wait till everything's set up).

[franky1]

I'm open to suggestions on how to avoid sockpuppets. The obvious solution would be members have to tie to identities, at least once for verification. We can discard the records once verified. We can use an independent company to do the identity verification without giving us details. We can even outsource the membership management and vote management to an independent third party.

2 methods

1. auto block tor/proxy IP's to stop clones making a ridiculous amount of names. but dont record or log IP's just compare them at registration and block known tor/proxy addresses.
2. why need someone whole life story. a simple webcam/picture of the user holding up their username on a piece of paper should suffice.

but more important then members fee's what benefits/services/powers will this organisation have/give. and what salary will you earn from the fee's

[charleshoskinson]

Alright this is my two cents and it's a little long:

Issue #1 Unique Voter ID
======================
Solution

Establish an independent entity that both processes annual member fees and collects three pieces of information from members:

• Full Name
• Government Issued ID Number
• Date of Birth

After a member has paid, she will be issued a member ID number. Take it alongside these three pieces of info and produce a unique hash for a member. The new org will receive a copy of the hash, but not the member data. Members will then create a password and can log into the new org's website with the hash and password (two factor authentication). To make the process easier, we could also allow the user to alias the hash after the first time login. Hence we have preserved anonymity while ensuring everyone only gets one vote.

Issue #2 Funding and Transparency
===========================

The independent entity shall fund on a quarterly basis the new org via Bitcoins only. The new org shall submit to an independent audit every two years and must disclose its donors and industry associations. Members have a right to request at any time, communications, minutes, meetings schedules, and lobbying efforts.

The new org shall be permitted to pursue industry donation; however, must issue a notice that it has accepted money if it is at least 10% of the quarterly funding from the independent entity

Issue #3 IP and Branding
===========================

All materials and projects the new org shall develop must be released under a creative commons license. The brands, copyrights, patents, and other IP obtained by new org shall be either open sourced or transferred to the independent entity with explicit instructions on how and when to pursue legal protection of said IP.

Issue #4 Crowdfunding and Community Engagement
======================================

The new org shall create a crowdfunding website (project bitstarter- kickstarter for bitcoin) to allow the community to vote with their bitcoins towards worthy projects. The profits generated from operating bitstarter will be invested into the developer's fund

Issue #5 Developer funding
======================================

Having a single paid developer for Bitcoin is a major point of failure regardless of the integrity of said developer and those who pay him. Therefore, the new org shall establish an independent branch dedicated to developing bitcoin software and working on the core bitcoin software. This branch will not solicit donations from any entity. All funding shall come from two sources:
(1) A bitcoin mining pool (or donations from pool operators)
(2) The new org

The developer branch shall also solicit corporate entities such as facebook, amazon and others to assign employees to work either part or full time on its projects.

Issue #6 Bitcoin Education
=====================================

In an effort to make Bitcoins more accessible, the new org shall embrace the Bitcoin Education Project and its goal of releasing crowdsourced, free online content to promote mainstream acceptance and use of bitcoin.

Issue #7 Media Relations
=====================================

The new org shall not endorse any viewpoint or ideology in relation to Bitcoin. Instead the new org will create a media center and allow the community to nominate (with the permission of the individual) preferred contacts. The community shall decide who they wish to speak on their behalf

--------------------------------------------------------------------------

That's all for now folks     

[aantonop]

but more important then members fee's what benefits/services/powers will this organisation have/give. and what salary will you earn from the fee's

Let me clarify this last part because it is very important

1) The association will do bitcoin advocacy and media to promote bitcoin. Whether there are member services will have to be decided by members.

2) No one will earn a salary. Board members will be volunteers.

3) I will especially NOT earn anything from this. I will in fact donate at personal cost without any return other than membership as a plain (no other kind) member. I will not be on the board because I have stated that I will neither seek, nor accept nominations and will decline any position in the association. No salaries. If a person can't volunteer for free for this work of caretaker for the board, then they are not the right candidate anyway. This is not a personal enrichment machine.

The only thing I can imagine as a "benefit" would be to call myself the first member to join, which will be entirely symbolic and carry no power.

[aantonop]

Quick update:

Have a reddit discussion going on here:
http://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/1dbpqf/proposal_an_open_bitcoin_user_group_that_is_open/

Please upvote and comment so we can get lots of input and diverse perspectives!


I have setup a placeholder website here: bitcoinusergroup.org

No, the "webmaster" doesn't get to set policy. I just dumped some ideas in there, but they I don't have veto and we can change everything if that makes the user group more broad and effective.

Please keep sending suggestions - this will be everyone's organization, not mine.

[charleshoskinson]

We need to create a blog or a website to help develop this idea further. I think there is great potential, but trolls and cynics are going to try to derail this one pretty quickly

[tuliplover]

Why would I give money to an organization where the majority can vote against me, instead of just donating it to something specific I personally support?

[charleshoskinson]

Because the rules are defined and the system is fair for everyone. They don't change at the whim and will of some cabal that might agree with you for the day.

[aantonop]

Why would I give money to an organization where the majority can vote against me, instead of just donating it to something specific I personally support?

You can donate it to an organization which claims to support your goals and then decides how to spend it without any vote whatsoever. I don't see how that is better. Or you can just donate to very very niche things and dilute your voice.

I think there's room in between for a organization that listens to members.

[franky1]

Why would I give money to an organization where the majority can vote against me, instead of just donating it to something specific I personally support?

You can donate it to an organization which claims to support your goals and then decides how to spend it without any vote whatsoever. I don't see how that is better. Or you can just donate to very very niche things and dilute your voice.

I think there's room in between for a organization that listens to members.

referring to emboldened text: as long as the members are not part of a special breed of elite secret society that requires a large fee and a secret handshake to become a member. other wise the COMMUNITY's voice is again ignored (EG bitcoinfoundation)

forming a membership platform may weed out cloned accounts but it is always going to have a limited voice compared to the millions of users

[niko]

Interesting.

The technical issues will keep emerging as Bitcoin grows and evolves, and these issues will be global, nation-blind. The best way to address them is to concentrate resources in one entity, such as Bitcoin Foundation or any similar group. This ensures we don't waste resources by multiplying efforts.

On the other hand, we have regulatory issues and educational efforts, which are very country-specific due to different legal systems, culture, and political sentiment. It would be silly to attempt to help Bitcoin in these areas with one-size-fits-all solutions from a single, global entity. What is needed are regional groups that coordinate when appropriate. What OP proposes might work best at this level. Based on IPs of nodes, and number of Internet users per country, we can see that highest levels of adoption are seen in Scandinavia, so these countries may be a good testing ground.

I therefore propose that we keep discussing best ways to organize, but then organize - and incorporate - locally in each region. These groups could then communicate and coordinate as needed. I am currently in Canada, and would most likely join local group with the formalized membership and voting procedures.

[aantonop]

I think there's room in between for a organization that listens to members.

referring to emboldened text: as long as the members are not part of a special breed of elite secret society that requires a large fee and a secret handshake to become a member. other wise the COMMUNITY's voice is again ignored (EG bitcoinfoundation)

forming a membership platform may weed out cloned accounts but it is always going to have a limited voice compared to the millions of users

Agreed. One of the proposals is to have a membership fee of $1 per year. Another is to have no fees, just a requirement that members vote at least twice a year (ie participate).

Another proposal is to allow members to join, but only if sponsored by two existing members, or require some verification. That creates a simple choice - if you're new to the community, you may need to prove you are a human (a photo with your face,  the username and date on a piece of paper would be sufficient), to avoid sock-puppets. Otherwise, you can just have two existing members invite you, no need to prove or provide identity.

I'm open to any and all suggestions that will make this as broad as possible, while still having a defined membership that everyone can trust is made of real humans. Any approach that gets us to this goal, with the minimum cost for members and the minimum barrier to entry is more than welcome.

[aantonop]

Interesting.

The technical issues will keep emerging as Bitcoin grows and evolves, and these issues will be global, nation-blind. The best way to address them is to concentrate resources in one entity, such as Bitcoin Foundation or any similar group. This ensures we don't waste resources by multiplying efforts.

I therefore propose that we keep discussing best ways to organize, but then organize - and incorporate - locally in each region. These groups could then communicate and coordinate as needed. I am currently in Canada, and would most likely join local group with the formalized membership and voting procedures.

Great suggestion on local chapters. I'd like to roll it all up into a global group, but localizing power is always better.

Disagree on not duplicating Foundation. They have vastly different goals and principles from this proposal. While this is not a "bash foundation" proposal, I think it is valuable to look at some of the areas where they are not responsive and fix those as "features" of an alternative organization

[tuliplover]

Why would I give money to an organization where the majority can vote against me, instead of just donating it to something specific I personally support?

You can donate it to an organization which claims to support your goals and then decides how to spend it without any vote whatsoever. I don't see how that is better. Or you can just donate to very very niche things and dilute your voice.

I think there's room in between for a organization that listens to members.

The same is true for you, you or the board might do what you claim or not, voting doesn't change anything in this regard.

If I want to dilute my voice, then I join an organization like yours where there is a majority vote; if I don't want to do that, I just support
those groups that are very close to my goals and have a good reputation. And they don't have to be niche at all.

I'm not entirely against majority voting in a voluntary association, but in this case I don't see any benefit to it. Maybe if you come up with
specific plans and goals, I might.

[cypherdoc]

@aantonop:  i just wanted to say thank you for your efforts.  altho your exuberance can show no bounds, none of the principles or requests that i've read coming from you has been outrageous or unreasonable.  

keep up the good work.

[Terk]

Another proposal is to allow members to join, but only if sponsored by two existing members, or require some verification. That creates a simple choice - if you're new to the community, you may need to prove you are a human (a photo with your face,  the username and date on a piece of paper would be sufficient), to avoid sock-puppets. Otherwise, you can just have two existing members invite you, no need to prove or provide identity.

That doesn't verify anything. Once I have control over two accounts (e.g. mine and my friend's; or mine and mine because I had the skill to find some photo of a human in that thing called internet), I can start inviting myself over and over again to sign up thousand times.

[aantonop]

Another proposal is to allow members to join, but only if sponsored by two existing members, or require some verification. That creates a simple choice - if you're new to the community, you may need to prove you are a human (a photo with your face,  the username and date on a piece of paper would be sufficient), to avoid sock-puppets. Otherwise, you can just have two existing members invite you, no need to prove or provide identity.

That doesn't verify anything. Once I have control over two accounts (e.g. mine and my friend's; or mine and mine because I had the skill to find some photo of a human in that thing called internet), I can start inviting myself over and over again to sign up thousand times.

Please propose solutions... We already know that this is hard and doesn't have easy solutions.