Bitcoin Foundation

[Clark]

This sounds good to me, especially as a source for press releases and public relations. The amount of misinformation and lazy reporting out there is hurting the reputation of Bitcoin.

I also agree with the point made about 'competing' representative entities.

[1713548298]

1713548298

[1713548298]

1713548298

[1713548298]

1713548298

[1713548298]

1713548298

[1713548298]

1713548298

[1713548298]

1713548298

[fennec]

Perhaps the idea of an "official" group is not wise.  Instead, the core dev team could create an organization, with special logo and name. This organization would be the de facto official group, but only so long as it held up its reputation. At all times, other groups can form and compete for "de facto officialness."

In essence then, this would just be a Non-profit, spontaneously organized by individuals. If multiple such organizations sprout up, then each community member can support whomever they wish.

Think of it like a market for competing representatives. No group official by law, but any group official by market sentiment. We would see one group come to dominate the sentiment, but Bitcoin would not be irrevocably tied to it.

No group should be granted an explicit monopoly... but an implicit market-derived monopoly would not bother me.

Another vote for this idea.

[Coinabul]

The problem with this idea is that most bitcoiners hate any idea of centralization... Perhaps a group founded on the ideas of crowdsourcing?
Structured much like Anonymous, everyone would be allowed to contribute and then individual groups would split off and create press releases or whatever else is needed.
No official power structure, just those that do and those that don't.

[becoin]

No official power structure, just those that do and those that don't.

Okay, but then who will be the bitcoin trademark holder and bitcoin.org domain owner?

Coinabul, I have sent you PM.

[teukon]

Okay, but then who will be the bitcoin trademark holder and bitcoin.org domain owner?

The bitcoin trademark holder?  Who holds the trademark for "internet"?  What about trademarks in different countries?

As for the bitcoin.org domain owner, what about the bitcoin.com domain?  What about bitcoin.net, bitcoin.gov, bitcoin.xxx, or bitcoin.bit? not to mention bitcoin.jp, bitcoin.de, bitcoin.us, bitcoin.co.uk, ... et cetera?  If we're only worried about "established" bitcoin sites then who gets to own bitcointalk.org, bitcoincharts.com, and bitcoinwatch.com?

If these are real problems then I have a few more:

• Who gets to be the Bitcoin CEO?
• Who owns the patents on the basic concepts behind Bitcoin?
• Who owns the copyright on the blockchain?

To me at least, the formation of an organisation to protect and promote Bitcoin (at least during the bootstrapping decades) very much seems to be an optional good rather than a necessary evil.

[Are-you-a-wizard?]

• Who gets to be the Bitcoin CEO?
• Who owns the patents on the basic concepts behind Bitcoin?
• Who owns the copyright on the blockchain?

Me, pick me!

[HorseRider]

I WILL DONATE.

[BitcoinRedLight]

Only the last item on this list seems good. Collecting (bitcoin!) donations to fund infrastructure is a good idea.

+1

Gavin is trying to save Bitcoin, and that is highly praiseworthy. If he wants to centralize 'power' then he should go for it. But those other efforts will take him off on spaghetti-tangents of endless debates. They are not the silver bullets that Bitcoin needs.

Why? Because in the end, it's all about the infrastructure and its peripherals; no ease, no security, no trust - no liquidity and no Bitcoin.

And, as in other economies, it's the wealthy who can make that infrastructure happen...fast and big.

Easily, the most debilitating force in Bitcoin is the legacy of the Wagner-to-the-moon effect which has permeated the minds of the early (large) Bitcoin holders. They have preferred to watch their stash dwindle to a fraction of its conversion value rather than putting it into productive use within the sphere of Bitcoin development and Bitcoin support for entrepreneurs.

Bitcoin VC/bounties is moribund...which DEinspires everyone else.

The Bitcoin wealthy have a tremendous responsibility but no obligation. Overwhelmingly, they focus on the obligation and void the responsibility. That is the mind of the opportunist, which is fine, but parading as idealists is really no fun to watch.

Corralling them into a serious fund is a tall order, but if anyone is in position to do so then it's Gavin.

-jack

[BitPay Business Solutions]

+1

Gavin is trying to save Bitcoin, and that is highly praiseworthy. If he wants to centralize 'power' then he should go for it. But those other efforts will take him off on spaghetti-tangents of endless debates. They are not the silver bullets that Bitcoin needs.

Why? Because in the end, it's all about the infrastructure and its peripherals; no ease, no security, no trust - no liquidity and no Bitcoin.

There is a real need for development, and most importantly TESTING, of all the core bitcoin code.  for this Gavin is 100% right that there needs to be some pooled funding and infrastructure.  

Ok fine, but what do the donors get for their donations to the pool?  Well that's where the pooled marketing comes in.  Just like your Chamber of Commerce promotes the city's member businesses as a whole, or an industry trade association promotes its members as a whole, the bitcoin association can promote its members' businesses.  

Want to grow the whole bitcoin user base from 50,000 to 500,000 by running some ads?  Or maybe setup a few more billboards?  Well, become a member, donate to the pool, and your business will be included.  It's not about power at all.  It's about promoting our mutual best interests, which includes bitcoin adoption by a much larger group of people, and a solid infrastructure to support it. 

[tvbcof]

I read through the various thoughts on this and considered things a bit, and have kind of concluded that I don't think there is a big win here.

I would like to see a 'core team' structure of knowledgeable and active contributors, or I should say, the transparency into the activities and decision making processes of them.  This would allow me to make the best decisions possible should the project splinter.

I think that it is a bit of a pipe dream to hope for Bitcoin to become anything other than a 'guerrilla' currency in a world which looks anything like ours today since as soon as it starts to pose any credible competition to mainstream systems, it will become labeled 'terrorism' or some such.  In that event, any formalized advocacy group would be a big fat target, and any reliance which developed around such a group would be disturbed.

I would favor one-off fund raising for smaller targeted efforts like retaining an attorney to accomplish exactly 'x', 'y', and 'z'.  I realize that this would not be as efficient in a 'typical' project, but I really don't find Bitcoin to be 'typical'.  I think this particular project and it's participants will ultimately be better served by fairly loosely coupled.

I could be wrong...I often am.

[racerguy]

Couldn't it be the Cryptocurrency or p2p currency foundation instead? 

[becoin]

The bitcoin trademark holder?  Who holds the trademark for "internet"?  What about trademarks in different countries?

Most people will associate the Internet (aka World Wide Web) with ICANN and IANA. The World Wide Web has no trademark and logo because it is the only one on this Planet, while above mentioned organizations have. Yes, there are trademarks in different countries. IANA is responsible for determining an appropriate trustee for each ccTLD. Administration and control is then delegated to that trustee, which is responsible for the policies and operation of the domain.

ICANN was formed in 1998. It is a not-for-profit public-benefit corporation with participants from all over the world dedicated to keeping the Internet secure, stable and interoperable. It promotes competition and develops policy on the Internet’s unique identifiers.
 
ICANN doesn’t control content on the Internet. It cannot stop spam and it doesn't deal with access to the Internet. But through its coordination role of the Internet's naming system, it does have an important impact on the expansion and evolution of the Internet.

The Internet Assigned Numbers Authority (IANA) is responsible for the global coordination of the DNS Root, IP addressing, and other Internet protocol resources.

Just imagine what chaos the Web will be if such organizations as ICANN and IANA don't exist? For instance, what even greater mess would be the transition from IPv4 to IPv6? With its expansion and evolution the core of bitcoin protocol will also need to change overtime. There are some brilliant ideas tested in the alternative cryptocurrencies that must be implemented in bitcoin as well. I'm quite confident there will be even more in near future. I'd also like to ask the all those guys that started their own alternative blockchain, please give your helping hand to Gavin and unite around bitcoin. This is a 50 trillion market that will change fiat to bitcoin back and forth many times. There is bread and butter (and caviar) for all of you. If you don't like a certain person to represent you in this Foundation just vote for another one.

Now, bitcoin should be decentralized as much as possible, I'm all for that. But decentralization is not anarchy! We still need organization(s) to coordinate and support our decentralized efforts!!! All such organizations must be build and run in such a way that even forcefully dismantled to not negatively affect the functioning of bitcoin network.

I would be glad to be among the founding members of a not-for-profit, public-benefit, bitcoin-related foundation (say, Bitcoin Software Foundation). If you need organizational or financial contribution, just PM me.

[becoin]

Couldn't it be the Cryptocurrency or p2p currency foundation instead? 

Words like currency and money must be avoided because they fall under heavy regulation. Bitcoin is just bitcoin! It is something very innovative that can not be categorized as per the existing legal framework.

[klaus]

Just imagine what chaos the Web will be if such organizations as ICANN and IANA don't exist? For instance, what even greater mess would be the transition from IPv4 to IPv6? ....

100% true.

thanks alot for this perfect comparison !!!

[teukon]

The bitcoin trademark holder?  Who holds the trademark for "internet"?  What about trademarks in different countries?

The World Wide Web has no trademark and logo because it is the only one on this Planet, while above mentioned organizations have.

My point was simply that, for some terms, a trademark is not appropriate.  Where a specific trademark office (I don't know the term) would draw the line is not so important (I very much doubt they all agree).

Just imagine what chaos the Web will be if such organizations as ICANN and IANA don't exist? For instance, what even greater mess would be the transition from IPv4 to IPv6? With its expansion and evolution the core of bitcoin protocol will also need to change overtime. There are some brilliant ideas tested in the alternative cryptocurrencies that must be implemented in bitcoin as well. I'm quite confident there will be even more in near future. I'd also like to ask the all those guys that started their own alternative blockchain, please give your helping hand to Gavin and unite around bitcoin. This is a 50 trillion market that will change fiat to bitcoin back and forth many times. There is bread and butter (and caviar) for all of you. If you don't like a certain person to represent you in this Foundation just vote for another one.

Now, bitcoin should be decentralized as much as possible, I'm all for that. But decentralization is not anarchy! We still need organization(s) to coordinate and support our decentralized efforts!!! All such organizations must be build and run in such a way that even forcefully dismantled to not negatively affect the functioning of bitcoin network.

I feel this takes things too far in the direction of centralisation.  If we had an unquestioned "King of the internet" then changes like IPv4 to IPv6 would be much easier.  But changes like global internet filtering would also be easier.  There are undoubted pros and cons to great central power.  Those who advocate less central power must accept both the good and the bad that comes with this.

Yes, Bitcoin will want/need changes with time, but as time goes by this will (and rightly should) become harder and harder to do!  A guy at the top that can simply apply changes to the protocol at whim is exactly what I would like to see Bitcoin evolve away from.  Changing the transaction limit for example really should require much planning and organisation of the most powerful Bitcoin-related businesses and the consequential changes to the existing clients and mining software would have to be accepted by very many people (almost a forced global referendum).  If a similar change to make Bitcoin inflationary were proposed then it should fail to make it through this process.  I would rather see Bitcoin wither and die due to lack of organisation than to succeed and succumb to central authority.

I agree that a "Bitcoin Foundation" would be very useful at this stage to "coordinate and support our decentralized efforts" and I'm very grateful to the continued efforts of people like Gavin in helping and guiding Bitcoin at this very early stage.  However, I feel that if such an organisation does its job well then Bitcoin will have no need for such support in the future.

I agree that such organisations should be built and run such that their sudden removal will not hurt the network.  But more than this, such organisations, suddenly working hard to deform or destroy Bitcoin, should fail.

Provided I agree with the constitution of a proposed "Bitcoin Foundation" and the key members remain people I trust then I offer my support.

[BitcoinRedLight]

There is a real need for development, and most importantly TESTING, of all the core bitcoin code.  for this Gavin is 100% right that there needs to be some pooled funding and infrastructure.  

Ok fine, but what do the donors get for their donations to the pool?  Well that's where the pooled marketing comes in.  Just like your Chamber of Commerce promotes the city's member businesses as a whole, or an industry trade association promotes its members as a whole, the bitcoin association can promote its members' businesses.  

Want to grow the whole bitcoin user base from 50,000 to 500,000 by running some ads?  Or maybe setup a few more billboards?  Well, become a member, donate to the pool, and your business will be included.  It's not about power at all.  It's about promoting our mutual best interests, which includes bitcoin adoption by a much larger group of people, and a solid infrastructure to support it. 

Good comments.

In my post I typed the word power thus: 'power', because I know it's not power that Gavin seeks. He simply wants a stronger Bitcoin, and that is laudable. Probably "centralized promotion/information" is more accurate. However, it will still need to proclaim some measure of authority...which is fine. Go for it.

My main point was that it's not core. At the core is trust.

In fact, in the final analysis, trust is beyond the core thing, it's the only thing.

It is trust that has been blown out and until that is restored, vis-a-vis infrastructure, it's lipstick on a pig. But who is going to make that happen in a serious way? It MUST come from the guys who have benefited the most from Bitcoin and who also have the most to gain from greater Bitcoin success.

As far as I can see, nobody is taking these guys to task.

It is irrational to think that guys with no stake in the game are going to keep falling on their sword, day after day, just because Bitcoin is a great idea (which it definitely is) and they are idealistic. Idealists have to eat too.

Talk is cheap. The guys who have the Bitcoins need to pony up and get behind Gavin with a serious effing fund.

[nighteyes]

As far as I can see, nobody is taking these guys to task.
It is irrational to think that guys with no stake in the game are going to keep falling on their sword, day after day, just because Bitcoin is a great idea (which it definitely is) and they are idealistic. Idealists have to eat too.
Talk is cheap. The guys who have the Bitcoins need to pony up and get behind Gavin with a serious effing fund.

Ive been on em,taking em to task....but I would disagree this is about being rich....its about hoarding or not putting money to work.
They dont have to commit funds right away ala 'give to some org who really is Bruce Wagner'.
What Im looking for is like Tradehill....a step to trust the new org..and a commitment that says 'if the org allows my money to actually be put to work for long-term health, then Im there'.

So what we need is not discussion...but who is willing to be on the board of directors(since they are the ones who determine what the org actually does) or who is willing to volunteer and what can they provide?

Such as Im an accountant, and I know for sure we dont need lawyers to set this up. For my industry, I think the one most qualified should be on the board, and if Im that person, then Im willing. I also am willing to go for a background check(and pay for it), which I think should be part of the process.

[BitcoinRedLight]

Ive been on em,taking em to task....but I would disagree this is about being rich....its about hoarding or not putting money to work.
They dont have to commit funds right away ala 'give to some org who really is Bruce Wagner'.
What Im looking for is like Tradehill....a step to trust the new org..and a commitment that says 'if the org allows my money to actually be put to work for long-term health, then Im there'.

So what we need is not discussion...but who is willing to be on the board of directors(since they are the ones who determine what the org actually does) or who is willing to volunteer and what can they provide?

Such as Im an accountant, and I know for sure we dont need lawyers to set this up. For my industry, I think the one most qualified should be on the board, and if Im that person, then Im willing. I also am willing to go for a background check(and pay for it), which I think should be part of the process.

Excellent!

Though it's a tall order to get these holders on board. Bruce did a 'three-prong' on many of their brains, and they have already moved into their imaginary mansions.

[phelix]

I would like to suggest this as a mission for the bitcoin foundation:

bitcoin is by far the most powerful distributed computing network in the world. we should claim this record. it would bring publicity and convince a lot of people that bitcoin is much more than a game.

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=29722.0

[ArticMine]

Bitcoin is revolutionary because it is decentralized, with no single point of control or failure.

However, over the last six months or so it has become obvious to me that the rest of the world isn't set up to interact with a radically decentralized system like Bitcoin, and I think forming a not-for-profit organization will be a positive step towards Bitcoin's long-term success.

I'm posting this to see if there is a consensus on what a Bitcoin Foundation should be.

To get the conversation started, here are some functions I think a Bitcoin Foundation could perform:

• Interact with the legal system, where a centralized entity is needed: for example, to hold the Bitcoin trademark, own/control the bitcoin.org domain name, etc.
  
• Act as a central library for accurate information about Bitcoin, so journalists and policymakers have an 'official' place to learn about Bitcoin.
  
• Collect donations to fund infrastructure necessary for Bitcoin's growth (organize regular developers' conferences or get-togethers maybe? pay for development of cross-implementation testing tools? pay core developers' salaries? create a certification/testing program for Bitcoin implementations? create a central clearinghouse for information about legal issues surrounding Bitcoin across the world?)
  

Other not-for-profit organizations that could be emulated:

• The Anti-Phishing Working Group (the APWG's chairman, David Jevans http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Jevans, is willing to help make a Bitcoin Foundation happen).
  
• The Tor Project
  
• The Apache Software Foundation
  

Are there others that work well, or are there examples of what NOT to do? Assuming there is rough consensus that a Bitcoin Foundation is a good idea, I would like to get something imperfect up and running quickly, with the expectation that it will evolve over time.

I like the idea. David Jevens is the kind of person one wants on board by the way. One suggestion is to encourage the creation of sister organisations in different jurisdictions that are loosely, in that they share similar objectives, but are not legally related. This is similar to the relationship between the Free Software Foundation (FSF) and its sister organisations Free Software Foundation Europe (FSFE), Free Software Foundation Latin America (FSFLA), FSF France, Free Software Foundation of India etc. The idea is to avoid a single point of failure at the Foundation / Association / Organisation level.