^
|
V

Obviously having an entity to "govern" bitcoin in any way would negate bitcoin's very goals.  The situation of Gavin wrt the Foundation wrt the blockchain is already, ahem, interesting.

However, there could be

* A Foundation to sponsor technical studies, education, etc. -- but not to control the blockchain, protocol, or core software, or represent bitcoin to government, or engage in business.

* A Trader Association, to publish standards and ethical guidelines for exchanges, pressure them for openness and independent auditing, and evaluate them for compliance;

* A  Miner's Association, to do the same for miners.

Ideally these institutions should have a low fixed fee, and refuse donations.  Otherwise they would soon be "owned" by a few large members, and will cater to their interest even when it is against the interest ot the majority of the memebrs.  Which seems to be the current state of The Shrem Karpelès & Friends Foundation...

Well, the exchanges now are all but transparent.  Are they solvent?  Are they front-running their clients?  Are they faking orders and traffic?  Do some clients have special privileges (like a few seconds advance knowledge of the order book)? 

For a 51% attack, it suffices that the 3-4 largest miners collude.  That is much easier backstage than through a professional association.  On the other hand, a miner's association could better spot and sue fraudulent manufacturers, for example.

There is also a very large amount of fiat to bitcoin trade done outside of exchange and people are willing to pay large premiums to not have to deal with an exchange, much larger then the trading fees, so I would argue that the market is self regulating because the exchanges are not more transparent.

A professional association would set up a forum for miners to communicate that may not otherwise be possible. I don't think operators have a lot of interest in communicating with other pool operators, and since it would likely take more then two pool operators acting dishonestly to launch a 51% attack it would be difficult to bring at least three pool operators together like this without risking your plan leaking without this kind of foum

then you will have 2 fundations, and who would tell which one is the right one?

There would not be any 'right' or 'wrong' foundation. TBF as of now only promotes Bitcoin and hires devs to try to improve/patch weaknesses in the protocol.

The main issue with TBF right now is that they have gone though a lot of controversy and is not very transparent

To date, nary a Bitcoin-theme periodical has penned an exposé exposing that KnC did not indeed pay TBF $100K USD via BTC for their Platinum Membership.

Likewise, nary a Bitcoin-theme periodical has penned an exposé exposing HashTrade for not REALLY paying BFL that infamous million dollars via BitPay for a shitload of Monarchs in October, 2013. Is it because HashTrade and its sister companies, LiquidBits, NimbusMining, and Nitsolus, all under the auspices of Coinware, are all controlled by none other than the Jacobson brothers, Jean-Marc and Remy, who in turn control respectively the Canadian and Miami Bitcoin Embassies?

What gives, you news guys?

~Bruno Kucinskas

I have a writer working on this right now on CryptoCoinsNews.com.
Rick has been doing some excellent work on digging up info on what KnC has been doing.

Definitely some weird stuff happening there as well.
I wonder which direction it will take now.