Bitcoin Forum
May 25, 2024, 05:27:25 AM *
News: Latest Bitcoin Core release: 27.0 [Torrent]
 
   Home   Help Search Login Register More  
Poll
Question: Do you support the creation of a new elected Bitcoin Foundation
Yes - 36 (66.7%)
No - 10 (18.5%)
Maybe - 8 (14.8%)
Total Voters: 54

Pages: « 1 [2] 3 »  All
  Print  
Author Topic: A serious proposal for a replacement non-profitable elected Bitcoin Foundation  (Read 2163 times)
cloverme
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1512
Merit: 1057


SpacePirate.io


View Profile WWW
February 20, 2014, 05:31:14 PM
 #21

Good idea, I'd support this as well.
CIYAM
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1890
Merit: 1078


Ian Knowles - CIYAM Lead Developer


View Profile WWW
February 20, 2014, 05:38:50 PM
 #22

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

Really - so the person with the most "alts" wins!

With CIYAM anyone can create 100% generated C++ web applications in literally minutes.

GPG Public Key | 1ciyam3htJit1feGa26p2wQ4aw6KFTejU
CIYAM
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1890
Merit: 1078


Ian Knowles - CIYAM Lead Developer


View Profile WWW
February 20, 2014, 05:41:59 PM
 #23

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.

You see - keep trying - there is simply *no* way to do it which is perhaps why we need to get over the whole "1 person 1 vote" concept.

With CIYAM anyone can create 100% generated C++ web applications in literally minutes.

GPG Public Key | 1ciyam3htJit1feGa26p2wQ4aw6KFTejU
qwk
Donator
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 3542
Merit: 3413


Shitcoin Minimalist


View Profile
February 20, 2014, 05:48:05 PM
 #24

The communities response to my other thread referencing the current foundation has been more than a surprise.
You're surprised by reactions to trolling? You must be new here.

It seems that the foundation has been self appointed,
Yes. Basically, that's what you do when you start an organization.

appears to be self serving
To a certain extent, absolutely.

and is doing so whilst accepting dubious donations.
WTF are you talking about?
What are dubious donations and where do you see them?

I propose therefore, that the community dissolve ties with this ponzi scheme and set up a new Bitcoin Foundation.
I.e., you're basically appointing yourself to start serving yourself with organizing a "new Bitcoin Foundation" which will probably accept donations.

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.
Sounds familiar. Now where exactly is your Foundation different from the existing one?

Please post with your suggestions. The community decides who represents and how they are represented.
My suggestion: inform yourself about the existing Bitcoin Foundation.
Make an educated statement once you're done.

Yeah, well, I'm gonna go build my own blockchain. With blackjack and hookers! In fact forget the blockchain.
Armis
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 588
Merit: 501



View Profile
February 20, 2014, 07:30:45 PM
 #25

I support:
1) multiple foundations to further the cause of bitcoin,

additionally, I support foundations:
2) to further the cause of all cryptocurrencies,
3) that are organically formed, meaning community centered, mission oriented, bottom up elections, top down management, and all around accountability,
4) with a clearly stated mission, plain language bylaws, and self funded (dues, events, etc)

I believe there should be multiple foundations and that at least one of the foundations should:
5) form in an ad hoc fashion so as to allow for a great airing of views, and to allow the community to get to know itself
6) after about 1 month of open community discussion, a steering committee (SC) should be formed for ALL of those who wish to serve on that committee,
7) 3 days after formation, giving time for campaigning, the first meeting should be convened where each member will formally introduce themselves to the SC and indicate what skill, experiences, talents, and/or resources he or she wishes to contribute to the foundation.  For example: Hi, I'm Bob Jones, email: bob.Jones@gmail.com, owner of Bob's Bits, a bitcoin exchange; I'm a CPA and I would like to run for treasurer and chair the finance committee, I've worked for ...   This introduction can be done in different ways, email, skype, forum, or many other ways. 
8 ) After everyone has been introduced to the SC.  Someone (anyone) should move that an election be held immediately to determine the leadership of the SC.   
9) Vote immediately for 3 leaders, in case of a tie create a fair tie breaker
10) After the 3 leaders are elected, the three should vote for Chair, Vice Chair, and 2nd VC of the SC. 
11) After formation of the leadership, the leadership should form: a bylaw committee, a finance committee, a election committee, and any other committee(s) they feel necessary for the formation of the foundation. 
12)  After all of the committee formed the Chair should determine the committed chairs for each committee. 
13)  Each committee chair should solicit the help from the SC population for committee membership to help determine goals for each committee and to achieve those goals by the next meeting 20 days later.   The leadership should be available to assist all committees
14)  At the next meeting it should be announced :
           -  a name, website address, and email address for the foundation,
           -  the bylaws for the foundation have been determined
           -  $X amount of funds have been collected 
           -  Y# of members
           -  a formal election of board members has been scheduled for ____ date
 and     - any other info to report

15) after each report the chair of that committee should move for adoption of that report and recommend it be accepted by the full committee.  The motion should be seconded, and a majority vote of the full SC will determine the fate of the motion. 
16) after all reports are adopted the meeting is adjourned until the date of the election of the board members.  The bylaws will pickup from there





If done right, it will be very, very, hard work,  you will make many friends and a couple enemies (some for no reason at all), you will have the transparency, you will have the necessary leadership, you will have your goals, and you will have a way of achieving those goals.


equinox9 (OP)
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 40
Merit: 0


View Profile
February 20, 2014, 11:21:12 PM
 #26

I support:
1) multiple foundations to further the cause of bitcoin,

additionally, I support foundations:
2) to further the cause of all cryptocurrencies,
3) that are organically formed, meaning community centered, mission oriented, bottom up elections, top down management, and all around accountability,
4) with a clearly stated mission, plain language bylaws, and self funded (dues, events, etc)

I believe there should be multiple foundations and that at least one of the foundations should:
5) form in an ad hoc fashion so as to allow for a great airing of views, and to allow the community to get to know itself
6) after about 1 month of open community discussion, a steering committee (SC) should be formed for ALL of those who wish to serve on that committee,
7) 3 days after formation, giving time for campaigning, the first meeting should be convened where each member will formally introduce themselves to the SC and indicate what skill, experiences, talents, and/or resources he or she wishes to contribute to the foundation.  For example: Hi, I'm Bob Jones, email: bob.Jones@gmail.com, owner of Bob's Bits, a bitcoin exchange; I'm a CPA and I would like to run for treasurer and chair the finance committee, I've worked for ...   This introduction can be done in different ways, email, skype, forum, or many other ways. 
8 ) After everyone has been introduced to the SC.  Someone (anyone) should move that an election be held immediately to determine the leadership of the SC.   
9) Vote immediately for 3 leaders, in case of a tie create a fair tie breaker
10) After the 3 leaders are elected, the three should vote for Chair, Vice Chair, and 2nd VC of the SC. 
11) After formation of the leadership, the leadership should form: a bylaw committee, a finance committee, a election committee, and any other committee(s) they feel necessary for the formation of the foundation. 
12)  After all of the committee formed the Chair should determine the committed chairs for each committee. 
13)  Each committee chair should solicit the help from the SC population for committee membership to help determine goals for each committee and to achieve those goals by the next meeting 20 days later.   The leadership should be available to assist all committees
14)  At the next meeting it should be announced :
           -  a name, website address, and email address for the foundation,
           -  the bylaws for the foundation have been determined
           -  $X amount of funds have been collected 
           -  Y# of members
           -  a formal election of board members has been scheduled for ____ date
 and     - any other info to report

15) after each report the chair of that committee should move for adoption of that report and recommend it be accepted by the full committee.  The motion should be seconded, and a majority vote of the full SC will determine the fate of the motion. 
16) after all reports are adopted the meeting is adjourned until the date of the election of the board members.  The bylaws will pickup from there





If done right, it will be very, very, hard work,  you will make many friends and a couple enemies (some for no reason at all), you will have the transparency, you will have the necessary leadership, you will have your goals, and you will have a way of achieving those goals.





After the positive feedback shown Ive decided to push ahead with this venture. I like some of your ideas and will be a great template for something that we can do. I have no interest in being a board member on this foundation Im supporting it as Its badly needed. Alot of faith has been lost with the current Bitcoin foundation
equinox9 (OP)
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 40
Merit: 0


View Profile
February 20, 2014, 11:29:30 PM
 #27

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.

You see - keep trying - there is simply *no* way to do it which is perhaps why we need to get over the whole "1 person 1 vote" concept.

It is possible to alienate spam accounts by having each votetlogged via mac id. Of course this can be circumvented by those using multiple devices, but how many can people reasonably log into and vote on? 4? 10? I wouldnt say more than 10.

This can be perhaps be negated by having a set vote time for only a short duration. I.e A 1 hour window to cast votes.


Alternatively the selection could be made randomly. This may seem daft but would it really be?
Imagine 40 people put their names forward-  20 Bitcoin Businesses, and 20 individuals. 5 from each could be selected randomly online via a live stream. This would remove the element of vote rigging and as its random we would be calling up possibly ever aspect of the community.

This thread is mostly to gather the thoughts on the community regarding a new foundation with a little bit of brainstorming.

Im sure there is a workable way to do this.
bg002h
Donator
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1463
Merit: 1047


I outlived my lifetime membership:)


View Profile WWW
February 21, 2014, 12:15:18 AM
 #28


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.

The current foundation has 3 board seats for non-industry members. 3 seats for industry. 1 seat for a tie breaker. Anyone can run for election for 6 of the seats, member or not...but only members vote. Terms are 2 years.

Hardforks aren't that hard. It’s getting others to use them that's hard.
1GCDzqmX2Cf513E8NeThNHxiYEivU1Chhe
Beliathon
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 784
Merit: 1000


https://youtu.be/PZm8TTLR2NU


View Profile WWW
February 21, 2014, 12:19:39 AM
 #29

Oooh, oooh!

PICK ME! PICK ME!!

Supreme Emporer of Bitcoin, BELIATHON!!

 Grin

...too much?

Remember Aaron Swartz, a 26 year old computer scientist who died defending the free flow of information.
Lauda
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 2674
Merit: 2965


Terminated.


View Profile WWW
February 21, 2014, 12:26:04 AM
 #30

Well this is hard to do. Who would we nominate?
Not everyone should be allowed to vote. Not everyone qualifies to vote. We don't need random people from the altcoin (hello doge community, no offence) voting for randoms.
First the current Foundation has to be disbanded. I'm not sure how we can get this to happen either.

"The Times 03/Jan/2009 Chancellor on brink of second bailout for banks"
😼 Bitcoin Core (onion)
equinox9 (OP)
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 40
Merit: 0


View Profile
February 21, 2014, 12:26:09 AM
 #31


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.

The current foundation has 3 board seats for non-industry members. 3 seats for industry. 1 seat for a tie breaker. Anyone can run for election for 6 of the seats, member or not...but only members vote. Terms are 2 years.

And can i ask..the most important question: Are their accounts publicly available for scrutiny~? There is a big difference between the proposed and the current. The proposed would be a Non Profit Organisation, would not have matt 'i lost all your money' karpeles on it and would have public accounts. Where do all the donations go? In someones pocket?
equinox9 (OP)
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 40
Merit: 0


View Profile
February 21, 2014, 12:27:35 AM
 #32

Well this is hard to do. Who would we nominate?
Not everyone should be allowed to vote. Not everyone qualifies to vote. We don't need random people from the altcoin (hello doge community, no offence) voting for randoms.
First the current Foundation has to be disbanded. I'm not sure how we can get this to happen either.

I think we can operate along side it. The current foundation will die a slow death if donations cease. The first objective will be to get a site up and running (which is in the works as we speak) and a forum for ideas to be debated and decided upon. With alot of hard work, transparency and honesty we can make the old foundation redundant.
Lauda
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 2674
Merit: 2965


Terminated.


View Profile WWW
February 21, 2014, 05:50:32 AM
 #33

I think we can operate along side it. The current foundation will die a slow death if donations cease. The first objective will be to get a site up and running (which is in the works as we speak) and a forum for ideas to be debated and decided upon. With alot of hard work, transparency and honesty we can make the old foundation redundant.
You're building a site while nobody has agreed on who will lead nor who will be in this Foundation?
That makes sense.

"The Times 03/Jan/2009 Chancellor on brink of second bailout for banks"
😼 Bitcoin Core (onion)
un_ordinateur
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Activity: 157
Merit: 100


View Profile
February 21, 2014, 06:19:22 AM
 #34

It is possible to alienate spam accounts by having each votetlogged via mac id. Of course this can be circumvented by those using multiple devices, but how many can people reasonably log into and vote on? 4? 10? I wouldnt say more than 10.

MAC id can easy be spoofed. It is somewhat difficult to "steal" mac id from someone (it is what mac id does, provide a way to uniquely identify devices on a network. But assuming a random (and propably unique) mac id is really easy

This can be perhaps be negated by having a set vote time for only a short duration. I.e A 1 hour window to cast votes.
This would not prevent people from using bots to cast multiple votes within that timeframe. Captcha can prevent bots, but cannon prevent people from hiring people for casting votes for them. Or event do it for free if there is an incentive to do so.
A few years ago, the Times "online person of the year" vote was completely rigged by 4chaners who casted thousands of vote to put some peoples in 1st, 2nd, 3rd, etc... place such as the first letter of their names would spell a word. All that for free, despite a captcha, only for the lulz.

Alternatively the selection could be made randomly. This may seem daft but would it really be?
Imagine 40 people put their names forward-  20 Bitcoin Businesses, and 20 individuals. 5 from each could be selected randomly online via a live stream. This would remove the element of vote rigging and as its random we would be calling up possibly ever aspect of the community.

Then you're just shifting the problem. If someone is able to create 100 fake identities for himself, he has 100 times more chances to be randomly picked.

In fact maybe he me be picked multiple times. Unless those drafted are required to physically move to the foundation HQ, we cannot know. It's the same problem as with other solution.

Im sure there is a workable way to do this.
I think that the problem of ensuring "one person, one vote" has been on people's mind since the dawn of Internet. A lot of smart people have spent countless hours trying to solve it, and nobody has ever found a satisfactory answer.

The closest we had is "proof of work", which essentially gave "one CPU, one vote"... Until people started  making ASIC to have more weight that everybody.

(I guess votes could be cast that way... Requiring people to solve a PoW problem of say... 30 minutes on average, during a voting period of 2 hours. If the problem is not SHA-256 based, then ASIC are useless; it could use scrypt... But it would be funny seeing the bitcoin foundation use scrypt.)
un_ordinateur
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Activity: 157
Merit: 100


View Profile
February 21, 2014, 06:29:54 AM
 #35

What I fail to see is how your "new" foudation would be better than the current one.

The current one's members are elected. Just as you propose. The current one's donations are publicitly available.

You don't like Karpeles on it?
1. You couldn't have know he'd fuck up when he was elected. It's alwayes a risk, a risk that would affect the "new" foundation too.
2. Don't vote for him when his seat gets re-elected.

You don't like their work?
I don't know what th've done wrong... They tried calming people when mtgox claimeda bug in the protocol. They gave thorough explanations! And they helped many people deal with malleability. But if mtgox acts stupid after all that, there is nkthing they can do.

The've sent people to Washington convincing lawmakers that cryptocurrencies are good. And their point of view was well recieved.

You think that malleability should have been solved by now since it was known since 2011?
1. Even if some developpers are on the foundation, the foundation are not the developpers.
2. Most developpers tought that even tough malleability was a poor design choice, it is not a "bug" per say since it does not prevent functionnality, if everybody implements the protocol correctly (i.e. Not expecting txid as immutable but instead checking for the spent status of inputs to know if the transaction went trough.). Not being a bug thus does not require being fixes.

I don't really know how they could have done better...
Armis
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 588
Merit: 501



View Profile
February 21, 2014, 06:34:38 AM
 #36

I think we can operate along side it. The current foundation will die a slow death if donations cease. The first objective will be to get a site up and running (which is in the works as we speak) and a forum for ideas to be debated and decided upon. With alot of hard work, transparency and honesty we can make the old foundation redundant.
You're building a site while nobody has agreed on who will lead nor who will be in this Foundation?
That makes sense.


"If you build it they will come."


My reservation is that there is not enough of a ground swell for any community based organization, the current foundation is NOT community based, yet somehow people think that it should be treated as such.  

This thread needs a minimum of 100 SOLID members to publicly say yes they will support the effort before I feel comfortable that there is a reasonable basis for a community effort; someone else may feel 2 people is enough,  

More importantly, I believe that community efforts that grow out of negativity, protest, revolution, or hate are often short lived, or quickly sidelined, or become insignificant fast.    Community efforts that grow from positivity often result in slow widespread and long-term adoption.


tins
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 882
Merit: 500


View Profile
February 21, 2014, 06:34:56 AM
 #37



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.









Wow, you joined the forum 8 days ago and already trying to stage a coup.
Wipeout2097
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 840
Merit: 255


SportsIcon - Connect With Your Sports Heroes


View Profile
February 21, 2014, 06:52:35 AM
 #38

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.
What about the remaining 96% of the world population? What is the U.S. based Bitcoin foundation doing?

███████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████
██▀       ▀█       ▀████████████        ▀█         █▀       ▀██
██   ▀██▄▄▄█   ██   ████████████   ███   ████   ████   ▀██▄▄▄██
███▄     ▀██       ▄████████████       ▄█████   █████▄     ▀███
██▀▀▀██▄   █   █████████████████   █▄  ▀█████   ████▀▀▀██▄   ██
██▄       ▄█   █████████████████   ██▄  ▀████   ████▄       ▄██
███████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████
██       ██▀      ▀█████████████    ▀██   █████████████████████
████   ███   ▄██▄   ████████████     ▀█   █████████████████████
████   ███   ████████   ████   █   ▄  ▀   █████████████████████
████   ███   ▀██▀   █   ████   █   █▄     █████████████████████
██       ██▄      ▄███        ██   ██▄    █████████████████████
███████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████
██████████████
██
██
██
██
██
██
██
██
██
██
██
██████████████
████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████                                                             ████████████████████████████████████████████████
.
.
.

████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████          ████████████████                                 ██████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████
██████████████
██
██
██
██
██
██
██
██
██
██
██
██████████████
███████
██
██
██
██
██
██
██
██
██
██
██
███████
███████
██
██
██
██
██
██
██
██
██
██
██
███████
►►  Powered by
BOUNTY
DETECTIVE
Armis
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 588
Merit: 501



View Profile
February 21, 2014, 07:00:41 AM
Last edit: February 21, 2014, 03:21:11 PM by Armis
 #39


I don't really know how they could have done better...


We as humans living in advanced societies are CONDITIONED to operate top down leadership communities, we are accustomed to complaining from the bottom up, so when a problem exists the NORMAL thing to do is complaint to management.

The FOUNDATION positioned themselves as major management for major bitcoin matters, as such when the Silk Road issue came to fore, the foundation was expected to move on it, likewise it is expected to make a meaningful move on Mt Gox.  If it cannot, will not, and/or should not do so then perhaps they should reconsider how they want to be viewed in the bitcoin community.

I'm a proponent for self-regulation, Mt Gox screwed up, nevertheless they pointed to a known and existing problem, and made it a major issue.    Any board member that makes a big deal out of ANYTHING that results in the widespread disruption of the market the issue MUST be investigated and acted upon.    If it is determined by the board that the problem was NOT a major problem and that the board member acted irresponsibly they must remove that individual from the board.   OTOH if the board determines that the board members actions were valid then they need to stand by that member in a major way for the stability of the market.   If on the odd chance that they find that the board member cried foul BUT the no confidence vote went in his favor, then they should tacitly support the board member from a distance, in which case the board takes the heat with the board member.

They can take another no-confidence vote if they wish.


Lauda
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 2674
Merit: 2965


Terminated.


View Profile WWW
February 21, 2014, 03:02:55 PM
 #40

You can't really let some new comers create the new Foundation either.

"The Times 03/Jan/2009 Chancellor on brink of second bailout for banks"
😼 Bitcoin Core (onion)
Pages: « 1 [2] 3 »  All
  Print  
 
Jump to:  

Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.19 | SMF © 2006-2009, Simple Machines Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!