Project Genesis - a project to redecentralise Bitcoin

[NotPr0]

Project Genesis
This project will be to bring back the innovation and progress and decentralise the most centralized part of the network that Bitcoin currently has. It is not the miners. It is not the exchanges it is the development and client. There should not be a reference implementation as it moves vulnerabilities from being client vulnerabilities to network vulnerabilities. We aim to create an environment that values security and transparency and promote openness and progress as the core purposes. Problems like block limit have been pushed by companies to further their own projects and closed door meetings decide the network protocol. The developers were unable to have segwit included alone and were losing market to Bitcoin unlimited. After closed door meetings they negotiated for segwit 2x. This too was gone back on after they got what they wanted causing fees to hit huge amounts. Censorship resistance is the most important part of the network and high fees censor the people that have the most need for the revolution that this technology provides. We rely on projects that may not deliver that have only been pushed back and forks pulling away rather than trying to bring people under the united purpose we all share of an open financial system. We will not fork. We will not negotiate behind closed doors. We will make Bitcoin into what it was made to be. Bitcoin: A Peer-to-Peer Electronic Cash System

Aims
Formal spec for the Bitcoin protocol and consensus
More client diversity and implementations
Open and transparent foundation for development and adoption
Node architecture for archival full light and spv
Open standards and interoperability
More flexible and powerful scripting capabilities
Full review of the current implementation and the current optimal network state
Flexible and dynamic block limit and research into both on and off chain solutions

Just getting thoughts on this for now.

[NotPr0]

The foundation will also help to fund projects in the space through a non profit. Hopefully providing devs a way to grow the protocol and support themselves.

[DooMAD]

The foundation will also help to fund projects in the space through a non profit. Hopefully providing devs a way to grow the protocol and support themselves.

As soon as funding becomes a factor, the question has to be asked how you plan to avoid the corruption that occurred with the first "Bitcoin Foundation"?  The issue with centralised organisations is that someone generally ends up in charge of the purse strings and there's not an easy way to hold that person to account in terms of responsibility and ethics.

[funchiestz]

Project Genesis
This project will be to bring back the innovation and progress and decentralise the most centralized part of the network that Bitcoin currently has. It is not the miners. It is not the exchanges it is the development and client. There should not be a reference implementation as it moves vulnerabilities from being client vulnerabilities to network vulnerabilities. We aim to create an environment that values security and transparency and promote openness and progress as the core purposes. Problems like block limit have been pushed by companies to further their own projects and closed door meetings decide the network protocol. The developers were unable to have segwit included alone and were losing market to Bitcoin unlimited. After closed door meetings they negotiated for segwit 2x. This too was gone back on after they got what they wanted causing fees to hit huge amounts. Censorship resistance is the most important part of the network and high fees censor the people that have the most need for the revolution that this technology provides. We rely on projects that may not deliver that have only been pushed back and forks pulling away rather than trying to bring people under the united purpose we all share of an open financial system. We will not fork. We will not negotiate behind closed doors. We will make Bitcoin into what it was made to be. Bitcoin: A Peer-to-Peer Electronic Cash System

Aims
Formal spec for the Bitcoin protocol and consensus
More client diversity and implementations
Open and transparent foundation for development and adoption
Node architecture for archival full light and spv
Open standards and interoperability
More flexible and powerful scripting capabilities
Full review of the current implementation and the current optimal network state
Flexible and dynamic block limit and research into both on and off chain solutions

Just getting thoughts on this for now.

I can't believe like this project ever. There was a project named Lighting. In words, it is still working for better Bitcoin. But we can't see any progress yet!

[NotPr0]

The foundation will also help to fund projects in the space through a non profit. Hopefully providing devs a way to grow the protocol and support themselves.

As soon as funding becomes a factor, the question has to be asked how you plan to avoid the corruption that occurred with the first "Bitcoin Foundation"?  The issue with centralised organisations is that someone generally ends up in charge of the purse strings and there's not an easy way to hold that person to account in terms of responsibility and ethics.

Right now I'm thinking it would have roles that get elected into and voted on budget proposals. Think like a democratic vote with people representing parts of the foundation and put in by members. Ultimately I'd like to have it be as open as possible. Maybe have anyone able to have membership to vote then like sub branches and committees within. Right now it's more about getting the community interest in a project like this. Many still in the Bitcoin community want progress that the current dev team just aren't willing to provide with probable financial interests prioritized from what the best for the network would be. There has been 0 reason or study for a higher block limit other than weak decentralised node bs with 0 research behind it.

[franky1]

you dont need a treasury or a central budget
that was the failing of the first foundation.

what you need is a bounty board
where people who want something can list what they want and announce a bounty they will pay
and a kickstarter board
where people willing to do projects can list what they can do and have a kickstarter.

bounties just need to show proof of being capable of funding it (sign a utxo of funds they have) or even escrow funds

kick starters just need to show proof of talent by being able to prove who they are and show a portfolio of projects they already completed and payments only made at set progress points

....
having a central treasury directorship is not decentralised
nor is having a central dev team that end up deciding all decisions

but having just a resource to get independant people to connect and communicate and find eachother to innovate is what a foundations should be.
not in one team or one repo or one mailing list/irc
but where teams can form and make different repos, different implementations. that offer different features for the same network

where there is a simple agreement. dont call each different team an altcoin that has to use another network. but just a diverse separation of teams on the same bitcoin network with no leader/dictator/director

[HabBear]

Just getting thoughts on this for now.

Thanks for asking me for my thoughts.

I'm still trying to figure out what you're selling. The title of your thread talks about "redecentralizing" bitcoin but your project overview and "aims" section mentions nothing about improving decentralization.

So what are you trying to deliver?

If Bitcoin is becoming centralized (through scaled mining operations) how can you propose a solution that doesn't influence or change mining operations?

[NotPr0]

Just getting thoughts on this for now.

Thanks for asking me for my thoughts.

I'm still trying to figure out what you're selling. The title of your thread talks about "redecentralizing" bitcoin but your project overview and "aims" section mentions nothing about improving decentralization.

So what are you trying to deliver?

If Bitcoin is becoming centralized (through scaled mining operations) how can you propose a solution that doesn't influence or change mining operations?

Could you tell me how mining is the problem when almost all of the network run 1 client. The development is the problem and by helping fund teams without being paid by a private company we can properly decentralise the network. The miners arent the problem.

[NotPr0]

you dont need a treasury or a central budget
that was the failing of the first foundation.

what you need is a bounty board
where people who want something can list what they want and announce a bounty they will pay
and a kickstarter board
where people willing to do projects can list what they can do and have a kickstarter.

bounties just need to show proof of being capable of funding it (sign a utxo of funds they have) or even escrow funds

kick starters just need to show proof of talent by being able to prove who they are and show a portfolio of projects they already completed and payments only made at set progress points

....
having a central treasury directorship is not decentralised
nor is having a central dev team that end up deciding all decisions

but having just a resource to get independant people to connect and communicate and find eachother to innovate is what a foundations should be.
not in one team or one repo or one mailing list/irc
but where teams can form and make different repos, different implementations. that offer different features for the same network

where there is a simple agreement. dont call each different team an altcoin that has to use another network. but just a diverse separation of teams on the same bitcoin network with no leader/dictator/director

Yeah there does have to be more. The foundation did so much for the space and helped growth through funding independently. Bounties aren't effective in all situations and there's a reason research done often is done through funding by independent sources. It also will help with standards.

There won't be 1 dev team funding will go to multiple.

[HabBear]

Just getting thoughts on this for now.

If Bitcoin is becoming centralized (through scaled mining operations) how can you propose a solution that doesn't influence or change mining operations?

Could you tell me how mining is the problem when almost all of the network run 1 client. The development is the problem and by helping fund teams without being paid by a private company we can properly decentralise the network. The miners arent the problem.

I don't think there is a problem, let alone mining. Bitcoin mining is a free market...and that's what Bitcoin is all about, really.

You believe their is a problem and you're now getting clear in your belief that the solution lies in development. I presume you believe that because you can't change the mining ecosystem...so instead you'll blame Satoshi and say "there's a flaw, we should fix it." That's fine, let's just be honest with who your gripe is with. Why should anyone help fund teams without getting something in return? Are you proposing a purely charitable response?

And more importantly, how would you use that help to properly decentralize the network? You have yet to explain your solution.

[NotPr0]

Just getting thoughts on this for now.

If Bitcoin is becoming centralized (through scaled mining operations) how can you propose a solution that doesn't influence or change mining operations?

Could you tell me how mining is the problem when almost all of the network run 1 client. The development is the problem and by helping fund teams without being paid by a private company we can properly decentralise the network. The miners arent the problem.

I don't think there is a problem, let alone mining. Bitcoin mining is a free market...and that's what Bitcoin is all about, really.

You believe their is a problem and you're now getting clear in your belief that the solution lies in development. I presume you believe that because you can't change the mining ecosystem...so instead you'll blame Satoshi and say "there's a flaw, we should fix it." That's fine, let's just be honest with who your gripe is with. Why should anyone help fund teams without getting something in return? Are you proposing a purely charitable response?

And more importantly, how would you use that help to properly decentralize the network? You have yet to explain your solution.

What. You said miners were not me and I said that it's not. I never mentioned satoshi in any way. Because we relly on a healthy network and most run 1 client and that makes any problems that would otherwise be client only be network problems. Not charitable in any way. I'm not sure you understand what a charity is. Maybe you just haven't understood what was put.

The problem 1 company that has financial aims that probably do not prioritize the protocol more than profit controls the protocol right now by being the reference client

The solution foundation to fund other clients and push progress away from the 1 company.

[DooMAD]

Yeah there does have to be more. The foundation did so much for the space and helped growth through funding independently.

But they arguably did quite a bit of damage to the space as well.  There were several controversies and scandals that definitely had an impact on public perception.  Such abuses occur when people are placed in positions of influence or authority, so the key to successful advocacy and funding would be to find a decentralised way to do it.  It's not nearly as simple as your proposal suggests.

Right now I'm thinking it would have roles that get elected into and voted on budget proposals. Think like a democratic vote with people representing parts of the foundation and put in by members. Ultimately I'd like to have it be as open as possible. Maybe have anyone able to have membership to vote then like sub branches and committees within. Right now it's more about getting the community interest in a project like this.

Votes can be bought.  Members can be bribed.  Committees can be corrupted.  We've seen enough projects like this to know they often don't end well.

what you need is a bounty board
where people who want something can list what they want and announce a bounty they will pay
and a kickstarter board
where people willing to do projects can list what they can do and have a kickstarter.

And how much of a bounty are you willing to pay to implement your various "improvements", Mr Double Standards?  All you do is complain that devs aren't making what you want them to make, as if they somehow owe it to you to build your vision for you.  Take your own advice, stump up the BTC and offer to pay someone if you can't or won't code it yourself.  

[KingScorpio]

you want to "redecentralise bitcoin"

how?

bitcoins centre are its miners, and the media pool around it.

i dont think thats possible, its all just pseudodecentral.

you are juste a bunch of "pseudodecentralists" that want to createn and establish a pow cryptotoken selling entity, or save the collapsing rest of it.

regards

[franky1]

as if they somehow owe it to you to build your vision for you.

i do love how you think its a one person opinion.
i do love how you wish to protect the centralised "reference" implementation team by pretending its just me that opposes

you can play all your games you like. but you still miss the big picture
you can play all the games you like but you end up just highlighting the problem. that you think that devs should not listen to the community

[dewildance]

I wonder if this is the avoidant project tried to be made more decentralized? Please leave small calculations and look at the big picture? Support Bitcoin and please don't do anything! We have enough crypto money and more decentralized Bitcoin project!

[pooya87]

you can not talk about decentralization while proposing a centralized foundation that is probably going to ask for funds (an ICO maybe? or maybe not). even if i misunderstood your goals it still seems like a centralized company to me. and you are trying to use a sensitive subject (core devs, block size,...) to push your agenda.

and the important thing is, despite what you think bitcoin core is not the only implementation of bitcoin out there. there are multiple full nodes out there, which may not be popular but there are many who are making some real effort about what you just theorized here.

There should not be a reference implementation as it moves vulnerabilities from being client vulnerabilities to network vulnerabilities.
More client diversity and implementations

i can understand this part and i agree with it. but show us what YOU have done in this area. as i said there already are other implementations, so lets see YOUR code on github now...

[shamc]

This will resolve many issues and prevent further forks and clones claiming to be a better bitcoin. However, the centralised route may cause bitcoin to lose it's fan base so there needs to be another way

[NotPr0]

you can not talk about decentralization while proposing a centralized foundation that is probably going to ask for funds (an ICO maybe? or maybe not). even if i misunderstood your goals it still seems like a centralized company to me. and you are trying to use a sensitive subject (core devs, block size,...) to push your agenda.

and the important thing is, despite what you think bitcoin core is not the only implementation of bitcoin out there. there are multiple full nodes out there, which may not be popular but there are many who are making some real effort about what you just theorized here.

There should not be a reference implementation as it moves vulnerabilities from being client vulnerabilities to network vulnerabilities.
More client diversity and implementations

i can understand this part and i agree with it. but show us what YOU have done in this area. as i said there already are other implementations, so lets see YOUR code on github now...

Look right now the situation is 1 for profit private company controlling the protocol by controlling the reference implementation. My proposal is to move that to a non profit and transparent one that funds other projects. There will be no foundation client. Yes there are many projects but few get used. Unlimited almost had majority but got fucked by closed door deals.

By the way that whole personal attack rather than talk about the idea is the usual move by the fanbois and core. You have 2 options private for profit or transparent non profit. It's really not that hard. Looking for the perf solution and not changing until you find it will kill a project rather than constant improvement.

[pooya87]

Look right now the situation is 1 for profit private company controlling the protocol by controlling the reference implementation. My proposal is to move that to a non profit and transparent one that funds other projects. There will be no foundation client. Yes there are many projects but few get used. Unlimited almost had majority but got fucked by closed door deals.

By the way that whole personal attack rather than talk about the idea is the usual move by the fanbois and core. You have 2 options private for profit or transparent non profit. It's really not that hard. Looking for the perf solution and not changing until you find it will kill a project rather than constant improvement.

i still don't get why we even need a "company" that is involved with development of a decentralized system. whether it is blockstream or your proposal of so called non-profit one.

as for your example (unlimited) it didn't fail because it was a different group working on an implementation, it failed because it was a different group trying to change bitcoin and also take over the project in their own way. so they failed. and when they did they created the centralized BCH instead.

[DooMAD]

i still don't get why we even need a "company" that is involved with development of a decentralized system. whether it is blockstream or your proposal of so called non-profit one.

This.  How does this "Genesis project" actually make a difference if you're just repeating the same concept other advocacy groups have taken previously, but with the addition of some vaguely upbeat branding about how yours is supposedly better?  Nothing I've read here so far sounds like a new idea.

as for your example (unlimited) it didn't fail because it was a different group working on an implementation, it failed because it was a different group trying to change bitcoin and also take over the project in their own way.  

I still think we need to tread carefully with this supposed "takeover" narrative.  It's all just some different ideas that didn't make the cut.  The moment you call it a takeover, you are implying there is someone to take over from.