Bitcoin.org Domain Ownership issues #2548

[vit05]

https://github.com/bitcoin-dot-org/bitcoin.org/issues/2548

This is a follow up regarding a discussion between @Cobra-Bitcoin and a number of individuals within the Bitcoin Core #UASF Slack channel.

The Problem: A number of individuals (including myself) feel that @Cobra-Bitcoin has become an unreliable person to own the Bitcoin.org domain name, mainly given his public support for BCH (as well as other things, but this is not supposed to be an attack on Cobra). We fear that Cobra:

May suddenly start propagandizing BCH as 'The Real Bitcoin' and re-purpose Bitcoin.org to promote BCH.
Sell the domain to someone else, who'd use it for malicious intent. The fact that he's only known only by his pseudonym would make this relatively easy and have no consequences for him whatsoever, there's only a lucrative upside for him.
I personally feel that one person, pseudonymous or not, should not have total control of the Bitcoin.org domain name, since it has too much importance within the community.

The Solution: The domain name should be placed in the hands of the community. The solutions which had been discussed in the Slack discussion were the following:

Cobra transfers the domain back to @theymos and therefore relinquishes his ability to perform either of the above two actions.
A select few veterans within the Bitcoin community would be chosen to form a non-profit, and the domain would then be transferred into this non-profit.
If option 2 were chosen, the community would have to decide which individuals to choose from. We do not want to end up in a Bitcoin Foundation (Vinny Lingham) scenario.

I would like to invite you to discuss the domain ownership issue at hand so we can resolve this accordingly. Please do let other people know of this so everyone can get a say in this.

He is also responsible for the bitcointalk.org domain.

[qwk]

I've always felt at unease about keeping bitcoin.org in the hands of a private entity.
OTOH, establishing a "safe" non-profit is not trivial.

[Lauda]

A lot of people are very unease about Cobra's control of the domain. It is time to change this.

[Don Pedro Dinero]

But what happens if he doesn't want to transfer the domain?

[Lauda]

But what happens if he doesn't want to transfer the domain?

Bitcoin.org would no longer be the primary Bitcoin site, and nobody (sane) would ever link to it from anywhere.

[Jet Cash]

.org domain names are so last century. Surely as Bitcoin moves into an investment category, then the .com is more significant.

[digaran]

.org domain names are so last century. Surely as Bitcoin moves into an investment category, then the .com is more significant.

Nope, IMO everything related to Bitcoin should move to decentralized domain name system, I can think of namecoin. dot com is also under the control of bitcash shills.

[LeGaulois]

It was my subliminal question a few months ago
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=3284381.msg34254458#msg34254458

I am not against Cobra it's just that I don't have the same opinion.

The domain shouldn't be owned by only 1 person, but by several. Who? I don't know, it can be Cobra and someone else no matter.
I just don't feel the domain is safe to be owned by 1 person. The domain could easily be hijacked (Bitcointalk too).
I know there are people who can sell their parent for money (I am not saying it's the case of Cobra) Money is power, you can buy even what is not for sale.

[gueorguiev]

.org domain names are so last century. Surely as Bitcoin moves into an investment category, then the .com is more significant.

.com is already taken

[vit05]

theymos commented 2 days ago
Although Cobra has ultimate technical control over the domain name, note that I already do have access to the settings. So if Cobra was hit by a bus, I could take over.

In an emergency I could take the domain temporarily, but I couldn't take it long-term because that would make me too much of a central point of failure.

I don't see any urgent need to change the status quo. I am not very concerned about Cobra going rogue (see my comment here), and I am concerned that any non-profit would be more likely to be eventually corrupted than Cobra is. There are disadvantages to having the domain ultimately controlled by one person, and it may be possible to design an entity carefully enough that the risk of it being corrupted is sufficiently low, so I won't completely rule out future changes.

[mobilazy]

Hopefully, it wouldn't be  Bitcoin.io Put it in line with all those scam ICOs. I like the bitcoin.org domain name, very suitable for non-profit organizations, declaring the decentralization and financial freedom from banks.

[vit05]

Hopefully, it wouldn't be  Bitcoin.io Put it in line with all those scam ICOs. I like the bitcoin.org domain name, very suitable for non-profit organizations, declaring the decentralization and financial freedom from banks.

I do not know if I misread your answer. But bitcoin.org is not an organization, it is the domain name of the site. bitcoin.org is not the maintainer of the Bitcoin project. Bitcoin.org is maintained by contributions. But who contributes, is not part of a foundation, non-profit organization or something like that

Some people have suggested that it would be good to create a foundation to be responsible for the site. Fortunately, this idea seems to have been repudiated. As often this type of foundation is more harmful, than helpful. It disturbs, by trying to centralize the decision making. This would put an end to Bitcoin.

Of course, bitcoin.org has a powerful story. But it's just a site that aims to contribute to the mission of educating more people about Bitcoin.

[xtraelv]

If it was an issue you could take the decentralized approach. Have a bunch of domains of different flavors and under different jurisdictions all pointing to the same servers.

[Jet Cash]

.org domain names are so last century. Surely as Bitcoin moves into an investment category, then the .com is more significant.

.com is already taken

Bitcoin Cash seems to own the .com, and that is another problem for the real Bitcoin.

[1Referee]

Bitcoin Cash seems to own the .com, and that is another problem for the real Bitcoin.

Actually, Roger Ver owns that domain. He just turned it into a misleading website using the Bitcoin brand to hardcore shill Jihan's older generation asic recycler toy called BCash.

I wonder if it is possible to have theymos blacklist that .com domain on this forum. It's only being used to mislead people. It's damaging. We shouldn't allow that to happen.

[🏰 TradeFortress 🏰]

It's just a domain name. If bitcoin is at risk from a domain name going rogue, then there is no bitcoin.

[tmfp]

It's just a domain name. If bitcoin is at risk from a domain name going rogue, then there is no bitcoin.

This ^^^

[mdayonliner]

It's just a domain name. If bitcoin is at risk from a domain name going rogue, then there is no bitcoin.

Finally something made sense to me. Wise one.
By the way, I hate to see these Bcash guys are using Bitcoin's brand image to promote the Bitcoin Cash on the bitcoin[dot]com shamelessly.





The most attractive spot of the homepage fills with...
1. Will take you to a page where they are highlighting BCH wallet (not bitcoin)
2. Takes to the page where again they are highlighting BCH again (See it was placed before BTC)
3. There are no Developers tools for BTC. They highlighted Bcash developers tool using their thin strategy.

And what is the domain name?
Bitcoin[dot]com!

Fuck those assholes!

[TraderTimm]

Bitcoin Cash seems to own the .com, and that is another problem for the real Bitcoin.

Actually, Roger Ver owns that domain. He just turned it into a misleading website using the Bitcoin brand to hardcore shill Jihan's older generation asic recycler toy called BCash.

I wonder if it is possible to have theymos blacklist that .com domain on this forum. It's only being used to mislead people. It's damaging. We shouldn't allow that to happen.

I'm tired of shills in the "News" section and elsewhere duping articles from other sources which happen to be mirrored on the bitcoin dot com domain.

Why? Because Roger Ver has a stated objective to usurp Bitcoin.

By supporting him, providing links to his site which helps his rankings, helps his ad impressions and overall statistics -- people are lending the very same person a helping hand when he's trying to destroy us.

That is complete fucking bullshit, in my book.

Much like the same reason that you don't open your fucking front door to let a robber in, I don't see any benefit to having bitcoin dot com links in the News section. Especially when most stories on the camped dot com domain consist chiefly of propaganda designed to rook newbies who don't know any better.

For the people saying "Its just a domain, hurr durrr" -- you're missing the fucking point propeller-head -- you don't give AID to the person who is trying to FUCK YOU UP.

So I agree bitcoin dot com shouldn't be allowed, because I'm not the habit of enabling sleazebags who want to usurp Bitcoin.