I don't understand why people are so fixated on the governments model of providing a service? Why do you want speak for people who didn't give you their consent to speak for them?


Why can't you just start a for profit service on a voluntary basis. If Bitcoin needs a face, have clients pay for it. If Bitcoin needs vetting businesses, have clients pay for it. If the dev team needs funding, have clients pay for it. And there's no need for a board of directors, or elections, or bylaws or anything like that. You can simply run a business that provides a desirable service for a certain price.


Maybe I get it. Maybe it's harder to get people to pay for something than simply asserting yourself to speak in their name whether they want it or not. Well guess what, harder doesn't make it bad or impossible and easier certainly doesn't make it safe and desirable.

What about MNW, he doesn't play by anyone's rules, even his own!

Do you mean someone from the community (not from business) in the bitcoin foundation, or a whole new organization?

Might I recommend we follow Heinlein's Moon is a Harsh Mistress? Here's a quote:


IMHO, it's hard to take any sort of "authority" seriously if they do not adopt this model. If the Bitcoin Foundation isn't going to adopt this model, then the Bitcoin Council, should. Two voting bodies, with nary a representative between.

It's centralized now, so we need to create more "centres" to get something as close to decentralization as possible.

A Bitcoin Union makes more sense. Unions are founded in an attempt to keep corporate entities in check.
The Foundation appointed themselves, they were not nominated by the majority, even though they suggest some kind of political structure to their Foundation.
Instead, we got an announcement about an announcement, which is almost laughable.
Is there room for impeachment in the bylaws? If not, there should be. Anything short of total transparency on behalf of the Foundation would be grounds for it, IMHO.
Keeping the majority "out of the loop" breeds distrust. Distrust breeds fear. Fear, when instilled in the majority of a community, breeds a moral-driven will against tyranny. If Bitcoin should ever succeed, trust is essential. I for one doubt that the Foundation can be trusted.

Oh, and who would I appoint to this Union...? Anyone whom the majority of the community believes should be there.
The Bitcoin Foundation "tax" of 2.5 Bitcoins for annual membership seems unreasonable, because they do not reasonably represent the majority.

Anything involving a committee is centralization.  We want a decentralized bitcoin foundation, a P2P Bitcoin Foundation.  Write some P2P software that has rules built in that is capable of allocating money to top voted projects.  Use smart contracts to enforce rules.

Basically this is a P2P Government, and the possibilities are endless.

Katz is a no-brainer for legal.

I would further suggest:

Ver: = treasury (track record of due diligence wrt putting funds to work.)
BFL_Sonny: = Pubs (editorial experience with LFC.)
Wagner: = director of recreation.

I officially withdraw my suggestion of Gornick in this org.

In light of the pandemonium unleashed by the Bitcoin Foundation announcement, aren't you worried that 1) your name makes it sound like you speak for all bitcoin businesses when you clearly do not, and 2) you are excluding individual bitcoin users?

(This is only partly a troll.)