A serious proposal for a replacement non-profitable elected Bitcoin Foundation

[equinox9]

PLEASE VOTE IN THE POLL

The communities response to my other thread referencing the current foundation has been more than a surprise. It seems that the foundation has been self appointed, appears to be self serving and is doing so whilst accepting dubious donations.

I propose therefore, that the community dissolve ties with this ponzi scheme and set up a new Bitcoin Foundation.

The core principles should be:

1. Accounts are made public. Spending must be focused entirely on furthering the Bitcoin idea i.e ATM's Marketing etc and Donations must be logged for public viewing (Donors can choose to remain anonymous)
2. Anyone can run for election to be on the foundation and is not restricted to large stakeholders or those with business interests.
3. The foundation is re-elected annually capped at a maximum of 2 years.


Please post with your suggestions. The community decides who represents and how they are represented.

.

[Raya]

I would be more than willing to support this and would like to see this happen in the future.

[RodeoX]

The more the better. 

[Welsh]

This is a idea I do support, although I would suggest that the new foundation should be registered as a non profit. Donations will only be used towards Bitcoin projects which benefit the community. The books would need to be open and every part of the foundation would need to be transparent.

Some key problems which it would face:

• Who would decide who wins the election
• Anyone associated with a Bitcoin should be disallowed or allowed to run for election
• Who owns the domain and the non profit organisation?

I would think that the community would elect who become board members of the Bitcoin foundation, however how would this be done? Most votes? Most votes could be manipulated by using such services as Tor to register many votes.

Allowing Bitcoin business holders could cause a few problems such as conflict of interest. But, not allowing business holders defeats the " Anyone can run for election" statement.

The foundation would have to register as a non profit therefore would require someone to actually register it as a non profit, therefore the person who does that will always be part of the Bitcoin foundation, unless the person is willing to not be part of the board and has simply registered it as a non profit organisation and owns the domain. That being said we would also need someone to run the election process and assign new members their positions.

I wouldn't introduce donations to become "lifetime members" because what's the point of that? That's just encouraging people to donate for no reason other than to get status of being part of the foundation.

Another question is, why does Bitcoin need a foundation at all? No one owns Bitcoin therefore, no one should be representing it's community.

My personal opinion on the matter is that we don't need a Bitcoin foundation to represent us as a community. That's not how Bitcoin works no one controls Bitcoin and no one represents Bitcoin. Satoshi is the one that created it but, he doesn't represent us because that's not why he created it. What if they make a bad decision it will reflect on the Bitcoin community. No one likes to be controlled and to be spoken for because we are all our own person. What makes the foundation to be correct in it's decision making process? Nothing, because they would take the option with the most votes which could not be the necessary the best decision, as well as some members of the Bitcoin community will disagree with any decision that is made by anyone.

I won't be supporting or claiming that any Bitcoin foundation represents the Bitcoin community even if they do achieve great things.

[whtchocla7e]

Can you guarantee that the new foundation doesn't end up becoming a self-serving pile of crap like the current foundation?

No, you can't.

Say NO to foundations.

The Bitcoin network is in itself a foundation both literally and figuratively and doesn't need a third party to speak for it.

[hilariousandco]

Do we even need one at all? And can you define business interests? Many Bitcoin believers will have business interests. In fact, the greatest/smartest ones almost certainly will have.

[RodeoX]

Can you guarantee that the new foundation doesn't end up becoming a self-serving pile of crap like the current foundation?

No, you can't.

Say NO to foundations.

The Bitcoin network is in itself a foundation both literally and figuratively and doesn't need a third party to speak for it.

I disagree. That is not how things get done in Washington. Without professional lobbyists, lawyers, editors, etc. You do not stand a chance at drawing anything but draconian laws made by completely ignorant policy makers. You cannot refuse to participate in the process then demand special rights and laws for bitcoin.
The reason bitcoin is succeeding in getting through the regulatory process in the U.S. is in part because of the work you don't see. Work done by the foundation.

[Raya]

I agree that not allowing people with Bitcoin businesses to run for election is a silly idea as they are indeed the smartest within the community.

[whtchocla7e]

I agree that not allowing people with Bitcoin businesses to run for election is a silly idea as they are indeed the smartest within the community.

Conflict of interest.

[equinox9]

• Who would decide who wins the election
• Anyone with a Bitcoin business should be allowed or disallowed to become a board member
• Who owns the domain and the non profit organisation?

I

1. I think this can be done online safely with a vote. I'm sure the community has the expertise  to create a system that would not be compromised.
2. A 50%-50% of a board split between Bitcoin Business owners and non Business owners would be a fair compromise? This would better reflect the communities ideas as a whole. I dont think it would be fair to alienate either.
3. I believe the person who registers the organisation and the domain should be restricted from being a member of the board. They should be responsible for the administration of the election.
I agree that there should be no lifetime membership. In fact I dont see a reason to have membership at all. Any donations should be considered as a donation to the Bitcoin cause and not to join an elitist club.

The foundations purpose should to facilitate the adoption of Bitcoin and nothing else.

I propose that Board meetings are public via live stream.
[/list]

[Gabi]

Another "foundation" (aka "self entitled group")? No, thank you.

[Raya]

 

Mixed reviews so op are you going to be doing this?

[equinox9]

Mixed reviews so op are you going to be doing this?

I could set up the site if there was a need.

[Meuh6879]

foundation is not bitcoin.
bitcoin is P2P anarchy ... when it need, it work.

[un_ordinateur]

• Who would decide who wins the election

I would think that the community would elect who become board members of the Bitcoin foundation, however how would this be done? Most votes? Most votes could be manipulated by using such services as Tor to register many votes.

It would be pretty simple to tie votes to bitcoin amount.

Just send your vote in a message to [whoever compiles the result] and sign it with your bitcoin address, proving you own that address. Then at a given block height, it is really easy to check the balance in that account and weight the votes.

It has the advantage of being a stakes-weighted method, but it has the disadvantage of giving a LOT of weigth to big bitcoin owners. Unfortunately, it is the only scheme (I can think of) that cannot be cheated.

Any other scheme may be "cheated" by creating new addresses; splitting balance, etc... (Since address creation is inexpensive)

The only "cheat" that [whoever compiles the result] could do would be discarding some votes, but it the votes are made publicitly availables once recieved (even if in an anonymized form; prehaps by only showing the votes with the hash of the address and and amount rounded to the most significant digit), then people may check that the votes add up correctly, and if I find my vote had been discarded, I can publicitly complain about it.

[un_ordinateur]

I agree that not allowing people with Bitcoin businesses to run for election is a silly idea as they are indeed the smartest within the community.

Conflict of interest.

I fail to see a conflict of interest; as having big stakes in Bitcoin, it would be in their best interest for Bitcoin to succeed... Which is the Foundation goal, promoting Bitcoin's success.

I don't say they must have ALL the voices in the foundation, but they must at least have some.

[bananas]

I am a candidate.

[CIYAM]

1. I think this can be done online safely with a vote. I'm sure the community has the expertise  to create a system that would not be compromised.

A very easy thing to write - but actually *impossible* to create unless your idea of a fair vote is say "proof of stake" (which means the people with the most Bitcoins win the vote) or perhaps "proof of work" (in which case those with the most powerful mining devices win).

You could do either of those but my guess is that you'll find most people are likely to think that a "fair vote" should be 1 vote per person. Just one snag with that though - there is simply no way to do that online!

[RodeoX]

1. I think this can be done online safely with a vote. I'm sure the community has the expertise  to create a system that would not be compromised.

A very easy thing to write - but actually *impossible* to create unless your idea of a fair vote is say "proof of stake" (which means the people with the most Bitcoins win the vote) or perhaps "proof of work" (in which case those with the most powerful mining devices win).

You could do either of those but my guess is that you'll find most people are likely to think that a "fair vote" should be 1 vote per person. Just one snag with that though - there is simply no way to do that online!

I can think of one possible way. Create a foundation, associate membership with an account, allow one vote per account.

[un_ordinateur]

1. I think this can be done online safely with a vote. I'm sure the community has the expertise  to create a system that would not be compromised.

A very easy thing to write - but actually *impossible* to create unless your idea of a fair vote is say "proof of stake" (which means the people with the most Bitcoins win the vote) or perhaps "proof of work" (in which case those with the most powerful mining devices win).

You could do either of those but my guess is that you'll find most people are likely to think that a "fair vote" should be 1 vote per person. Just one snag with that though - there is simply no way to do that online!

I can think of one possible way. Create a foundation, associate membership with an account, allow one vote per account.

Then one could easily create multiple account. Of course one could put a CAPTCHA to prevent robots, but it is inevitable that people with a lot of ressource will cast more than their share of votes; for example by paying (many) people to register multiple accounts and then vote.