Bitcoin.org Domain Ownership

[beyourseff]

_This is a follow up regarding a discussion between @Cobra-Bitcoin and a number of individuals within the Bitcoin Core #UASF Slack channel._

The Problem: A number of individuals _(including myself)_ feel that @Cobra-Bitcoin has become an unreliable person to own the Bitcoin.org domain name, mainly given his public support for BCH _(as well as other things, but this is not supposed to be an attack on Cobra)_. We fear that Cobra:

1) May suddenly start propagandizing BCH as 'The Real Bitcoin' and re-purpose Bitcoin.org to promote BCH.
2) Sell the domain to someone else, who'd use it for malicious intent. The fact that he's only known only by his pseudonym would make this relatively easy and have no consequences for him whatsoever, there's only a lucrative upside for him.

I personally feel that one person, pseudonymous or not, should not have total control of the Bitcoin.org domain name, since it has too much importance within the community.

The Solution: The domain name should be placed in the hands of the community. The solutions which had been discussed in the Slack discussion were the following:

1) Cobra transfers the domain back to @theymos and therefore relinquishes his ability to perform either of the above two actions.
2) A select few veterans within the Bitcoin community would be chosen to form a non-profit, and the domain would then be transferred into this non-profit.

If option 2 were chosen, the community would have to decide which individuals to choose from. We do not want to end up in a Bitcoin Foundation _(Vinny Lingham)_ scenario.

I would like to invite you to discuss the domain ownership issue at hand so we can resolve this accordingly. Please do let other people know of this so everyone can get a say in this.

[jmcorgan]

I recommend #2, though I expect the selection of individuals would end up a politicized debate. (I did not participate in the earlier discussion, so I don't know what the suggestions were.)

[AmishNick]

/O/p/t/i/o/n/ /2
Option 1 but no reason to kick cobra out

*edited

[buzztiaan]

2 please

[coolpick]

Option 2 would be my choice. Andreas Antonopoulos would be one of the people I'd want to have partial control over the domain. Needs people who fully believe in Bitcoin, and are uninterested in hard forks/personal gain (Not to say Cobra is). I also believe Cobra should be one of the people in this group. 5 people or so, requiring 4/5 to make any form of significant change would be ideal.

[bbrout]

2 seems best. Governance is becoming a major issue. In the longer term, would it be possible to have governance handled by a smart contract?

[Cobra-Bitcoin]

Ouch. This is going to be a pretty intense thread. But I guess these things have to be discussed. Let me first say that option 2 is a non-starter, I don't trust anyone with that responsibility except @theymos. I have serious levels of respect for him, and believe him to be incorruptible, so if I were to ever leave bitcoin.org, I would have to have him still involved, and if he doesn't want that role, I would trust him solely to pick a suitable successor or make arrangements as he deems fit. There's no way on earth I would transfer the site to random people I don't know or respect.

Anyway, I think this idea is pretty stupid. Maybe I do like some aspects of Bitcoin Cash, and find it pretty useful in a limited context at times, but that doesn't mean I'm some raging "Bitcoin Cash is Bitcoin" lunatic. How do you guarantee the next set of owners would be incorruptible? You think I haven't had people attempt to "buy me out"? If I listened to this type of crap a few years ago, the site would have ended up in the hands of the Bitcoin Foundation, and then likely sold off. There's always people that think the grass is greener on the other side.

I won't deny I can be erratic at times, but there's a difference between "difficult to work with" and outright malicious intent. Maybe go on Bitcoin.org, and try to find something egregious enough that even comes close to the type of garbage and outright fraud you see on Roger's site. I'm sorry if I don't call Bitcoin Cash "Bcash", or hate it with a fiery passion (I used too), or I don't have exactly the same set of opinions as you. But that doesn't mean you can attempt to pressure me into handing over the domain to some random group (of strangers no less!).

This type of witch-hunting is so crazy. Since when did we turn so easily against each other over our opinions? When did everyone get so batshit tribalistic and insane? I remember a time when I thought I was crazy, but now I think I'm pretty moderate, and I'm surrounded by an angry mob, constantly ready to attack the next person. Bitcoin.org is an amazing site, and it has consistently advocated for and defended Bitcoin against horrible attacks. I find it so offensive and completely disgusting that you would sit there and say _I_ would shill altcoins on the site, the person who was aggressive as hell during the entire scaling debate to make sure Bitcoin didn't get co-opted.

It's people like you that make your own enemies, but you won't make me an enemy of Bitcoin, no matter how much you try to smear me, discredit me, or get me replaced.

[aggieben]

I think No. 2 makes the most sense (and I think No. 1 doesn't help anything in the long run - all the bad incentives are still there). I agree with @coolpick. @Cobra-Bitcoin should be one of the directors/board-members if for no other reason than to make it clear that this is a legitimate community concern and not just a personal attack.

[moonstash]

I'd like to see what cobra has to say about this and I'd also like to know who legally owns the rights to it.

[AmishNick]

If cobra is sincere in what he said above then idk that there is a need for change at all...

[zaowens]

I'd like to hear what @theymos has to say. Can't they both split the responsibility in some way?

[luke-jr]

@Cobra-Bitcoin What if option 2 was an org including theymos? I don't have any problems with theymos, but he does have a lot of control over other Bitcoin resources, and it may be better to avoid too much power in the hands of one person, no matter how benevolent he may be.

Maybe a board of Cobra, theymos, and 2 others weighed at 0.9 each (or 5 others weighed at 0.39 each)?

@coolpick Hardforks* are not the same thing as personal gain, and while we wouldn't one someone prone to push a hardfork without consensus, it would also be bad to have someone who opposes all hardforks irrationally/unconditionally.

* Note that BCH and such are altcoins, not hardforks.

[coolpick]

@Cobra-Bitcoin I'm glad you could clear things up a little. It's VERY hard to tell based on things you post on Twitter, if you are for Bitcoin, or Bitcoin Cash. I believe I speak for all of us when I say that I would never want bitcoin.org to turn into a redirect for bitcoin.com.

I think it's also worth bringing into question what would happen with the domain if you either failed to renew (not suggesting this is likely), or died unexpectedly. Would @theymos be given ownership? What's the game plan? Would it be worth setting up a small group to takeover when you're finished with it? Objective being keeping bitcoin.org out of the wrong hands - as it's one of the only Bitcoin websites that we all trust.

[tnkmt]

What happens if @Cobra-Bitcoin die? Who will have access to the domain name?

What is the plan in case something happens to him (death, jail, etc.)?

[creativecuriosity]

If an organization was created for this purpose the organizing documents would be of the utmost importance.

@Cobra-Bitcoin For what it is worth, as far as I am concerned, you have stood as a rock protecting this experiment in liberty. However, one of the hardest lessons to absorb is the idea that the darkness doesn't exist only in our enemies. The snakes have a home inside of us as well. If nothing else, why not check with an attorney to find out if there is a way you could sign some type of affirmative fiduciary duty that might put those who doubt your commitment to rest? Just a random thought, Cheers :)

[mmhobi7]

I haven’t contributed but to ease any worries I would suggest co-ownership between @Cobra-Bitcoin and @theymos

[MichaelDWheeler]

@Cobra-Bitcoin - Reasonable response. Thanks for being level headed when you are getting attacked.

[lclc]

Nobody should hold that much power and influence over Bitcoin.

bitcoin.org should be hold by a non-profit association run by a big number of known Bitcoiners with the associations statutes saying their purpose can't be change without 2/3 majority or something similar (free to define - at least by Swiss law).

Some of the Bitcoin Core developers already founded a Swiss association for getting the code signing certificates from Apple and MS. Also something no single person should control. See https://bitcoincorecodesigning.org . @jonasschnelli probably knows more.

We (bitcoinassociation.ch) are happy to help you with lawyers and guidance if you consider setting up such an association for the domain.

handing over the domain to some random group (of strangers no less!).

Not a random group and no strangers obviously, but well-known and respected community members. As many of them as possible in the association.

[hashtician]

Glad to see that this thread is not, in fact, that intense at all. Everyone here so far seems to be pretty level-headed.

As long as #1 ends up at #2, this is a move that should happen regardless of the politics of the owner: no one person should be responsible for the domain, lest their death make its future uncertain. It's not so much about politics as proper planning. A non-profit with strict, pre-defined rules (or a charter or a constitution) makes the most sense.

[artlav]

Outsider opinion: Things like bcash come and go, but trust once broken is hard to restore. Broken trust is the principal damage such attacks leave behind.

Bitcoin dot org is not something that can be decentralised or operated trustlessly. Whoever owns it would have to be trusted, and so far @Cobra-Bitcoin have been trustworthy. Trying to displace him would only result in a net loss - one alienated ally and the domain getting into a same-or-less trusted, and still trust-requiring hands.

I do think that a subset of option 1 is needed, however. As the proverb goes, the problem is not that people are mortal but that they are suddenly mortal. So it would be a good idea to have a shared ownership, and @theymos seems to be trusted by all parties in question.

[nullbio]

What incentive is there for Cobra to follow any of this action? The community has no leverage here. Is there plans for a foundation to offer to buy the domain? If not, what's in it for Cobra? It's his property, he should at least be compensated for it if he's okay with the idea of handing control to another entity.

[mjamin]

But that doesn't mean you can attempt to pressure me into handing over the domain to some random group (of strangers no less!).

I agree that you shouldn't be pressured into doing anything you don't want to with your property.

I also agree that the domain shouldn't be transferred to a random group of strangers.

But I do think there's room for improvement here. If you don't need or even want the power to abuse the bitcoin.org domain, it's a good idea to make sure that you're unable to be forced into doing that single-handedly and/or to safeguard against future-you that might have a different mindset for whatever reason.

[Time02]

bitcoin cash is real bitcoin.

[meladath]

Lmfao just like Coreans to try and forcibly wrestle control of something from someone because of IMAGINED woes. Do you not realise the path you are going down?

It's cobra's domain, he can do whatever he wants with it. The "community" has absolutely no say in anything related to this.

EDIT: Surprised you aren't going raving mad over the fact that theymos owns all of biggest mediums of bitcoin discussion on the web. 1 website isn't anywhere near as severe as that.

[NorwayGH]

A select few veterans within the Bitcoin community

The veterans work on bitcoin (BCH) now.

[MrScatman]

Clearly I am best trusted with bitcoin.org. I have demonstrated a consistent and tireless pursuit of truth wherever it has led. I would fill it with glorious memes that would ((( echo ))) throughout all eternity.

[NorwayGH]

@OCHtoe Ack

[harding]

I don't like the idea of an Internet mob pressuring legitimate property owners to give up their property. That seems to be about as far from the ethos of Bitcoin as you can get.

Bitcoin.org is a nice domain name with historical significance, but I don't think it's that important. Indeed, if it is important, it's probably a good idea for it to break sooner than later so that we can rebuild a strong community that doesn't depend on a particular centralized resource.

[achow101]

I am in favor of Option 2. Ownership of the domain under an organization consisting of multiple people allows for recovery in cases of unexpected events. For example, if Cobra were to be hit by a bus and die, it may become difficult for theymos to actually retain control over the domain as, legally, AFAIU, the domain is owned by Cobra. With an organization, the organization has control over the domain and if one of the directors of the organization dies unexpectedly, the organization still has control over the domain and the remaining directors can still do stuff with the domain.

In fact, I think it is still okay to have Cobra and theymos have control over the domain, but instead they create an organization which has the legal control instead of an individual having the legal control.

[Josh-Vaultoro]

Great conversation, I have always had respect for Cobra and Theymos but do think an organisation made up of multiple trusted OGs (including Cobra and Theymos) makes sense. Cobra has always done a good job with .org but to decentralise control a little would be in the ethos of Bitcoin

[buzztiaan]

https://twitter.com/BashCo_/status/1022280480991993858

[theRealBitcoinClub]

The whole issue is rooted in trusting Central Authorities in issuing DNS records.

The whole issue is rooted in an internet which claims to be free but its not.

The whole issue evolves out of an obedient sheep perspective which like to follow the shepard instead of creating something useful to liberate themselves from being a sheep.

Please offer a solution to that issue instead of arguing about nonsense.

Please offer a new internet where domains do not exist anymore and all information must be made available on a non hierarchical structure.

Even the ending .com has so much more authority than .org so you should focus on offering a solution that breaks these chains.

[buzztiaan]

.com has absolutely NO place in bitcoin , bitcoin is NOT a US company at all

[theRealBitcoinClub]

I wish we could get bitcoin.org as much out of business as bitcoin.com and reddit.

All we need is a public wiki where everyone can submit changes who has identified themselves personally by social proof to the community.

We need authentification mechanisms based on private keys and secure identities on the web.

This is how real world works. In real world people behave correctly because of social pressure not because of any fake law nobody actually cares about (not even law enforcement)

Once we can identify the players they start acting responsible.

We need an internet that authenticates people and lets paid shills be identified easily.

Then people can choose which internet they like more:

The old internet full of censorship and lies

Or

The new internet basically replicating natural human behaviour on technology.

We need a new internet and offer an alternative to that IP based shit.

Our new IP must be visible to everyone and not just the authorities

ID instead of IP and we can finally start taking internet seriously again

[buzztiaan]

IP is already visible to everyone, wtf are you talking about?

[beyourseff]

Let it be known that Cobra has requested this ticket to be made, so he can see what the opinion is of those outside of the Slack channel. It is not done by the initiative of 'the mob' to 'coerce' Cobra to 'comply' which has been referred to by a number of people.

I personally don't think anything will be done, but a healthy discussion might bring Cobra to other thoughts. Thus far I am in favor of the second option, which would consist of both Cobra as well as Theymos, in addition to a select few veterans who've proven themselves trustworthy over the years.

[theRealBitcoinClub]

Each domain suffix is intended to define the type of website represented by the domain name.

For example, ".com" domains are meant for commercial websites, whereas ".org" domains are to be used by organizations.

Has nothing to do with united states... They use gov.us

[buzztiaan]

you must be brand new on the internet @theRealBitcoinClub (whats in a name) , welcome!

[dplmr]

Having pseudo-decentralised ownership of the domain by a team of trusted ("don't trust, verify") people is not in the spirit of bitcoin, in the same way that one person owning it isn't in the spirit, but that's how domains work. You'll be changing one imperfect situation for another imperfect situation.

You would need Cobra to cooperate with transferring ownership and you will need to therefore convince him that what you are proposing is for the greater good.

Perhaps the answer is there is no such thing as an "official" bitcoin website and therefore the status quo is fine and what happens to bitcoin.org in the long term isn't so important.

[buzztiaan]

either way , if you just want a 'more commercially centralized bitcoin' it appears you already found one in BCH

[theRealBitcoinClub]

Buzztian i will try to help you understand my sentences even if you show little effort trying to understand it by yourself.

An IP can only be identified by the law enforcement. You can not get the personal details connected to an IP without obeying to authority.

An ID would identify everyone by its private key to make sure we are talking to the person we think we are talking to.

This way we could create a trusted internet as much as we have trusted real life communities.

How often have you seen people in real life who wanted to keep their identity anonymous and how much do you trust these people more than the people from which you know the identity?

[theRealBitcoinClub]

I want a non commercial free bitcoin without transaction fees as long as we have mining rewards.

But that is not part of this issue.

Please stick to the issue instead of personal non substantial accusations.

[chek2fire]

Cobra first must respect every contributor to this site especially the ppl that do translates and to give back to the community the domain name.
Is questionable how this guy become the owner of bitcoin.org because Satoshi not give it to him but to another guy that later trasnfer the ownership to him.
And there are very strong evidence that cobra is compromised.
An anon former dark silent account for years as Cobra cannot be suddenly a social shill guy and an altcoin supporter.
If cobra support all of the "community forks" as he says why he not support bitcoin gold or whatever bitcoin fork?
And a reminder that cobra account was "hacked' at the period of bcash "flippening" attempt and start to shill bcash public as the real Bitcoin. After few days Cobra says that his account was hacked.. lol :P

[buzztiaan]

yes, an IP is not a identity

[NorwayGH]

@Cobra-Bitcoin Wanna swap for Bitcoin.no?

[mazazz]

definitely 2nd option would be more right

[bumbacoin]

we saw what happened to bitcoin.com
now people are concerned about bitcoin.org

the simple knowledge that domain names/websites are owned, transferable, editable and are in no ways ever safe from tweaking obviously gives pause when consider that such valuable internet real estate is in a single hand?

if it's possible to have a community posse that would seem to give a clearer view of the long term potentials of the site than having a one cowboy posse.

thanks cobra for all your work, but BCH has tainted our perspectives of bitcoin ip

[fueleh]

This is how they’re planning to throw Cobra to our community WITHOUT him having Bitcoin.org.

It’s been evident for a while now that Cobra is trying to snake (pun intended) his way into the BCH community, and it’s almost certainly a dragon den’s tactic.

Now, problem is, if he completes the move as planned, he’ll arrive here owning Bitcoin.org and if he actually chooses to be a snake of conscious, he must have Bitcoin.org expose the corporate (Blockstream/LN) takeover of BTC.

Of course, if this happens, BTC is practically dead.

What they’re choosing to do is to “kick him out of the community” without losing Bitcoin.org; and it will be so dramatic that the BCH community will end up welcoming a snake.

Watch how the following scenario will unfold; Cobra will now so “maturely” let the community vote, and once they do on what’s obviously option 2, he’ll write a dramatic post about how he was let down and how BCH is the real Bitcoin, he’ll handover the keys to Bitcoin.org and they’ll probably “ban” him from r/Bitcoin as the exit scene, and then he’ll show up here.

Tell you what Cobra. The only and ONLY way for you to redeem yourself is to fight this Github issue tooth and nail. Expose Blockstream for what they did.

Singularity’s post belongs there on the very front page of Bitcoin.org, exposing how theymos and Blockstream took over bitcoin BTC and are reintroducing rent-seeking in the form of forced off-chain scaling.

If you don’t fight them and post exactly that in a neutral manner which does nothing but point people to stone-cold facts, then you’ll never, ever be accepted by me in the BCH community. And I believe the community at large will also realize your efforts and new assigned role arriving here as an opinion leader but empty handed.

If you go the “soft” route and hand it in because they “voted” and then play the whole dramatic exit part; well, stay out of the whole Bitcoin eco-system then.

So far, you did far more damage to Bitcoin than almost any other single entity by allowing this blatant corporate take over of what could already have been the world’s most promising human-rights revolution in modern, if not all of, history.

[mpatc]

Watch how the following scenario will unfold; Cobra will now so “maturely” let the community vote, and once they do on what’s obviously option 2, he’ll write a dramatic post about how he was let down and how BCH is the real Bitcoin, he’ll handover the keys to Bitcoin.org and they’ll probably “ban” him from r/Bitcoin as the exit scene, and then he’ll show up here.

Yeah, I'm calling BS here. A pull request should be about code, not ownership of property. This whole thread is bizarrely out of place, the fact that @Cobra-Bitcoin is allowing this non-technical "pull-request" (_about his personal property!_) is all the confirmation I need. The fix is in.

Inb4 _locked to to "cool things down"._ lolz

[mysidia]

Why do you want to choose a few random veterans from the community to form the non-profit, rather than insisting more than a few would need to be involved? 3 or 4 random veterans may develop their own agenda over time that disagrees with the community.

How about an alternative of chartering a membership organization to be the on-paper "Legal" owner of community resources instead? Membership org. to be The formal "Registrant" owner and entity that officially determines who the admin contact should be and who the tech contact should be for each domain name, website, etc. Also, ideally, if there are still registrars that allow for two Administrative contacts....

Define the basic qualification for membership as something like: having been the author and submitter of 10k or more total lines of code or a BIP article or other substantial document within the past 10 year period which was adopted by the community into bitcoin-core and has achieved consensus and not been withdrawn for at least 90 days. Promulgate an open process to develop founding documents: constitution and bylaws.

Write it that only a full membership vote with a supermajority approval can change either of those documents: Officers to Facilitate operations to be appointed by an election process who then appoint the Technical domain contacts, etc.

[terencechow]

Wow. This is an insane joke. One of the presented options simply goes from 1 dictator to another. You’re not worried about centralization. You’re worried people having differing opinions than you. And that’s mighty pathetic. You want theymos because you know his opinions and you know he will censor to death any other ideas. Personally the best thing about Cobra imho is that he actually thinks critically. He doesn’t call bitcoin cash btrash or bcash because he isn’t swayed by mob mentality and tries an idea out before throwing it out. How many of you think critically like he does? If theymos, peter Todd, peter wuille and wladimir, came out tomorrow and said they supported 4mb blocks, how many of you would think critically and how many of you would just accept the change because “they are the main developers”?

I support cobra and I want him to continue to be himself. If one day he says some bitcoin is the real bitcoin I don’t even care. In fact that will be a signal to me that there may be real issues in bitcoin since someone critical is genuinely concerned about its state. The rest of you sound like you would be up in arms at this hypothetical situation even before you’ve heard the hypothetical!!!

Quit being a mob. The people will decide what bitcoin is and which coin it is. No amount of controlling, censorship or ads will decide. And giving the power to theymos, someone who already controls the biggest bitcoin subreddit, is a terrible idea. The real bitcoin is gonna be the one that We the People choose, not the one Theymos, Cobra or Roger Ver tells us to choose.

[JavierGonzalez]

The Solution: The domain name should be placed in the hands of the community.

This is fucking socialism.

Social engineers always fooling with words to conquer power.
Always the same shit.

Community has no hands.
It has individuals.

Domains have ONE owner, always, inevitably authoritative.
Zero deception with this.

[bbrout]

There is an overlooked third option and that is: don't do anything.
Personally, I wouldn't trust a lawyer any farther than I could throw him
... or her.

Governance is a huge issue and we had all better take our time figuring
this out.

A lot of time. Like ... slowly.

On Thu, Jul 26, 2018, 8:11 AM terencechow, [e-mail] wrote:

Wow. This is an insane joke. One of the presented options simply goes from
1 dictator to another. You’re not worried about centralization. You’re
worried people having differing opinions than you. And that’s mighty
pathetic. You want theymos because you know his opinions and you know he
will censor to death any other ideas. Personally the best thing about Cobra
imho is that he actually thinks critically. He doesn’t call bitcoin cash
btrash or bcash because he isn’t swayed by mob mentality and tries an idea
out before throwing it out. How many of you think critically like he does?
If theymos, peter Todd, peter wuille and wladimir, came out tomorrow and
said they supported 4mb blocks, how many of you would think critically and
how many of you would just accept the change because “they are the main
developers”?

I support cobra and I want him to continue to be himself. If one day he
says some bitcoin is the real bitcoin I don’t even care. In fact that will
be a signal to me that there may be real issues in bitcoin since someone
critical is genuinely concerned about its state. The rest of you sound like
you would be up in arms at this hypothetical situation even before you’ve
heard the hypothetical!!!

Quit being a mob. The people will decide what bitcoin is and which coin it
is. No amount of controlling, censorship or ads will decide. And giving the
power to theymos, someone who already controls the biggest bitcoin
subreddit, is a terrible idea. The real bitcoin is gonna be the one that We
the People choose, not the one Theymos, Cobra or Roger Ver tells us to
choose.

—
You are receiving this because you commented.
Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub
https://github.com/bitcoin-dot-org/bitcoin.org/issues/2548#issuecomment-408110851,
or mute the thread
https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/AeIqH94XDarh_PcthiBmlDuK_CQDmqVYks5uKc4MgaJpZM4Vg_08
.

[Matthew-Davey]

If anything, I propose the domain name be handed over to the EFF. They are incentivized to maintain an impartial stance, since any notion of bias would taint their hard earned reputation.

[vinniefalco]

Greetings, my name is Vinnie Falco. I am the author of Boost.Beast [1], and the founder and president of The C++ Alliance [2], a non-profit for advancing C++. I am also a Bitcoin maximalist who is concerned about the commercialization of social media properties which should in my opinion remain neutral and as decentralized as possible.

When I formed the C++ Alliance, I also planned to start a bitcoin non-profit. Unfortunately, I was not able to find qualified, motivated board members. However, I see that the issue of starting a real bitcoin non-profit has again come up. By "real" I mean one that truly operates in the best interests of bitcoin.

I do not have a horse in this particular race, but I do have an interest in seeing bitcoin succeed. Therefore, I make a standing offer of the following:

1. I have already formed a California non-profit which has a Federal Tax ID number (it does not have the 501(c)3 exemption yet since there are no board members).

2. I have paid for and engaged the Foundation Group [3] to provide the resources to guarantee a successful 501(c)3 letter of determination (the thing the IRS gives you when you fill out the lengthy application)

3. I can provide my personal assistance and resources to help guide the board of directors to take over the Bitcoin Alliance assets which includes domain names, and social media identities.

4. I can provide an initial donation to fund the non-profit for the first few years, including attorney retainers and fees, and the costs of maintaining the social media assets, as well as various incidental expenses incurred by the organization such as the G-suite subscription and accounting/tax preparation services (more complex for non-profits).

5. If required I can function as a board member although I would prefer not to since my other responsibilties take up considerable time.

If the community decides it wants to go the route of the non-profit, I am more than happy to supply these resources to assist, provided that a consensus is formed on the initial board of directors (minimum of 3 individuals required).

Feel free to reach out to me via email ([email protected]) or through bitcoin-core slack (or here).

[1] Boost.Beast https://github.com/boostorg/beast/
[2] The C++ Alliance http://cppalliance.com
[3] The Foundation Group https://www.501c3.org/

[vinniefalco]

I propose the domain name be handed over to the EFF.

This might be better than the current situation, but is far from ideal. The EFF are experts in general matters. Bitcoin governance would benefit more from individuals who are experts in bitcoin in particular.

[vinniefalco]

3 or 4 random veterans may develop their own agenda over time that disagrees with the community.

The benefit of a non-profit arrangement is that the non-profit is legally bound to stay within its mission. As long as the mission is well defined, the non-profit can have systems in place to ensure that it stays in alignment. If the organization exceeds its scope, it could be subject to fines, or even worse a loss of the tax-exemption. There is continuity if this happens: a non-profit charter must include provisions on the transfer of assets to other qualifying organizations in the event of a dissolution. In extreme cases, board members can be criminally liable if resources are used in ways that violate the provisions of the organization.

[vinniefalco]

What they’re choosing to do is to “kick him out of the community” without losing Bitcoin.org

Nothing stops a consensus from forming around a board consisting of Cobra, theymos, and another individual (Andreas?). The only requirement is that there are at least 3 board members, and that their terms have a finite, prescribed duration. As a board member, Cobra would still have a degree of shared editorial control, but would be bound to follow the mission of the non-profit.

[theochino]

You can add my name and my vote for option #2.

• Theo
  https://AbolishTheBitlicense.org

[vinniefalco]

".com" domains are meant for commercial websites, whereas ".org" domains are to be used by organizations.

Let me point out that a non-profit is still able to sell things and raise money. They can advertise and offer products, for example T-shirts. As long as they are not competing with other firms. A non-profit "Bitcoin Alliance" can, and should, allow advertisements. The money raised must be used in ways that are aligned with the mission and that respect U.S. tax law. An advertisement doesn't have to be a banner, it could be a sponsorship by a company.

There would of course need to be a clearly defined advertising policy. Promoting a particular commercial wallet over other free wallets would not be OK. However, stating something like "AcmeCo is a proud sponsor of the Bitcoin Alliance" is fine.

Something else to consider, the Bitcoin Alliance can (and should) make investments in the bitcoin ecosystem. They could pay some or all of salaries, offer a stipend, provide grants for speaking at conferences, and various other activities which fall within the mission and are tax-exempt.

[nopara73]

I believe those who are afraid @Cobra-Bitcoin's account is compromised would be reassured with introducing only one more party.

@Cobra-Bitcoin how about option 2 with someone both you and the community trust, like @harding?

[fyookball]

@mpatc @fueleh Agreed. This whole thing is bizarre. BCH community will never trust Cobra after he pushed for the Satoshi whitepaper to be "rewritten". In any case, it sounds like the BTC community is learning an important lesson (hopefully) in decentralization.

[sken77]

why would cobra give up the only thing that makes him relevant for free? People are so disconnected from reality these days. Also option 1 is pointless. how does passing control from someone only known by a pseudonym to another person only known by a pseudonym is even going to solve anything?

[stebansaa]

If control is removed from Cobra, we may end up with bitcoin.org being redirected to blockstream.com

[D-Nice]

Damn, that article about blockstream being infiltrated and Cobra's RT of it really got some people's panties in a bunch. You are all about decentralization, yet wish to centralize when afraid something may deviate from your planned path and won't follow the party line.

Bitcoin is not a commune, therefore what makes you think it's community-owned, it's wholly owned by whoever can control whatever updates take place there, and Cobra or whoever owns it is under no need to seize it to armchair tyrants. You guys are giving a hell of a lot of credence to a lot of /r/BTC arguements here... seeing some of these things happening would have been unfathomable in this community years ago...

[Der-Eddy]

The fact that he's only known only by his pseudonym would make this relatively easy and have no consequences for him whatsoever, there's only a lucrative upside for him.

I personally feel that one person, pseudonymous or not, should not have total control of the Bitcoin.org domain name, since it has too much importance within the community.

Solution:

Cobra transfers the domain back to @theymos and therefore relinquishes his ability to perform either of the above two actions.

Give it to one single person only known by pseudonym
You can't make this up, this argument is beyond ridiculous

Cobra already said that option 2 isn't viable, so you are stuck to give it to theymos (which already owns the biggest bitcoin communities)
laying all power of bitcoin internet sites into one hand

If Satoshi isn't dead he probably would join this discussion and ask if this is a joke or not

[bitPico]

@Cobra-Bitcoin has ZERO control over the bitcoin.org domain.

Enjoy arguing this FUD. Make the scammer prove it and watch him fail.

Wake up Bitcoin community; you are wasting time with this non-issue.

[decentralizeduser]

Outside of any sponsorship deals, the website is very informative and helpful to the community, and many improvements seem to be scheduled, I hope much more can be done. I have a few suggestions, but ill leave that for another post.

Anyway, since bitcoin doesn't require a domain name to run, I feel that the domain name ownership is a non issue providing that users feel positive about the message being delivered.

I believe the 2 solutions that @beyourseff are not acceptable, but I do support discussion regarding website/domain governance thru non profits, smart contracts (as @bbrout mentioned) etc, with some sort of governance that not only protects bitcoin.org from potential take over, but for greater community help & development.

Having said that, to accuse @Cobra-Bitcoin of betraying the bitcoin community by moving support to BCH on the site is starting to sound really stupid and irresponsible.
Please cut that out, we are not in a school yard.

Firstly, I doubt this betrayal would ever happen, secondly, if it did, bitcoin would soon find another home on the web, or perhaps multiple homes. The moment people feel that bitcoin.org is no longer positive, they will naturally migrate to another site for bitcoin, after-all, bitcoin is not reliant on one domain, nor should it be.

[vinniefalco]

Regarding The Bitcoin Alliance, my offer stands independent of what happens to the bitcoin.org domain. That is to say, if 3 qualified board members will volunteer to define the missions statement and operate the company I would be more than happy to follow through with assistance.

[theymos]

Although Cobra has ultimate technical control over the domain name, note that I already do have access to the settings. So if Cobra was hit by a bus, I could take over.

In an emergency I could take the domain temporarily, but I couldn't take it long-term because that would make me too much of a central point of failure.

I don't see any urgent need to change the status quo. I am not very concerned about Cobra going rogue (see my comment here), and I am concerned that any non-profit would be more likely to be eventually corrupted than Cobra is. There are disadvantages to having the domain ultimately controlled by one person, and it may be possible to design an entity carefully enough that the risk of it being corrupted is sufficiently low, so I won't completely rule out future changes.

[JavierGonzalez]

@theymos WTF!

Cobra has "technical control" and you have "access to the settings".
This doesn't make any sense.
DNS domains are controlled unambiguously by one person.
One.

You're worried about centralization in yourself.
But you say you can ultimately recover the domain.
Therefore, you own domain.

Can you be more technically precise?

[theymos]

@JavierGonzalez My partial access is done using Namecheap's permissions system. Cobra is the Registrant.

[vinniefalco]

There are disadvantages to having the domain ultimately controlled by one person, and it may be possible to design an entity carefully enough that the risk of it being corrupted is sufficiently low, so I won't completely rule out future changes.

I'm more than happy to put an attorney who specializes in non-profits on retainer that you can work with to see if your needs can be addressed. I think with a very narrowly worded mission statement and particular bylaws, it can be achieved.

I was thinking The Law Firm For Non-Profits: https://www.lfnp.com/ although I'm open to other suggestions.

[JavierGonzalez]

@theymos Thank you for detailing.

With your access, you can change the registrant or request a domain transfer to another provider and change it there.

I know DNS providers who allow you to change everything without verifying anything.

So, unambiguously, you are the only owner of bitcoin.org

[theymos]

@JavierGonzalez No, I absolutely can't. My access is not the same as sharing the username/password. Namecheap has a more detailed, multi-user permissions system.

[JavierGonzalez]

@theymos You're good at creating intrigue.

In Namecheap, ONE user has total control.
That's the one, able to make a takeover at any time.
Like now, for example and take full control of bitcoin.org

Is that you or Cobra?

[mpatc]

@theymos to make this whole thing better, what if you created a new account, with a non-venomous snake, and give it control of this repo?

Maybe an anaconda?

That way, you can maintain the same level of anonymity in your network of 'thought-leaders' controlling the flow of information and ideas, while at the same time you can claim you are making things better, since the snake is no longer venomous. Win-Win!

[minhxtran]

@Cobra-Bitcoin holds the fate of Bitcoin in his hand. Good luck.

[PedroR82]

I think private property rights are a great governance system.

[keo]

@Cobra-Bitcoin you could do a great service to the Bitcoin community if:

• you’d hold onto your property (to show that Bitcoin is not about socialism and mob rule)
• Expose Blockstream’s lies, deception and unfair business tactics

[chrispalasz]

Finally read through all the comments. I'm @chrispalasz on twitter and a Seoul Bitcoin contributer (@seoulbitcoin on twitter).

I think Cobra has been a pretty good steward of Bitcoin.org, and I don't think anyone can deny that with more evidence than I can support it. So I'm thankful for that.

No, Bitcoin does not have a 'real' website but let's not pretend Bitcoin.org is meaningless like some are doing. We love having it around. It's been around since Satoshi, teaching people about Bitcoin, and it's still around today and still does the same thing. It's a great resource for people to look at.

We can't have too many cooks and we don't want to be too centralized. This is a tough problem. Option 1 is not better than how things are currently. It's actually worse because I think we all agree that's too much centralization despite @theymos having done a great job with the other spaces (although I think bitcointalk.org needs a makeover or some steroids...)

I'd like to see at least 1 more trusted party added to the mix for bitcoin.org. Harding is a great suggestion but I'm not sure if he'd accept and he's super busy (although very capable).

I'd like to see someone put into that position who isn't the stereotypical "everyone knows the name" and "everyone knows the face". That's nonsense. Maybe @Cobra-Bitcoin and @theymos can discuss and choose someone themselves with upstanding integrity who is not currently involved full time in a big project who could add some balance. Another anonymous pseudonym bitcoiner.

[inter-naut]

The issue we are dealing with here is more to akin to successorship, rather than governance.

Why can't the owner, whoever that is (person, non-profit, or trust) hold it in-trust for public benefit?

They can formulate their intention to a straightforward, easy to understand, yet public and enforceable and legally binding pledge.

[stebansaa]

People are losing focus on the most important reason for this issue. Bitcoin Core / Blockstream, wants to take full control of Bitcoin.org.

Back to the origin of this issue:
"The Problem: A number of individuals (including myself) feel that @Cobra-Bitcoin has become an unreliable person to own the Bitcoin.org domain name, mainly given his public support for BCH (as well as other things, but this is not supposed to be an attack on Cobra). "

Cobra is the only person preventing Blockstream Core to take full control of the site and use it to push their rotten agenda.

Like it or not, $BCH s an extremely important part of the Bitcoin invention and can't be ignored as Blockstream hopes people will do. At the moment I write this, Bitcoin Cash receives 14% of the total sha256 mining hashrate.

We can hope that instead of giving away control of the site, Cobra will include information about Bitcoin Cash on Bitcoin.org.

[theRealBitcoinClub]

Is this a joke or what?

The only thing that matters for bitcoin is p2p adoption without midleman.

Move your ass on the street and promote bitcoin to be used in your favorite stores!

Or visit Barcelona and check out http://barriobitcoin.com

We did it and now we have 40 shops accepting bitcoin in Barcelona

I am living exclusively on BCH since 123 days!

We can pay with BTC and BCH in all stores.

Satoshi Nakamoto

[tedy5]

All we need is a public wiki where everyone can submit changes who has identified themselves personally by social proof to the community.
We need authentification mechanisms based on private keys and secure identities on the web.

You mean something where people can vote with their private key and decide the path Bitcoin should take?
Yeah, because Blockstream is so interested in people's opinion.

[arodic]

So there is this concept called domain ownership...

[ottodv]

I trust @Cobra-Bitcoin over any of the other option mentioned here. He is critical enough of Blockstream, to ensure that Blockstream doesn't end up controlling Bitcoin.org too. Keeping Bitcoin.org in @Cobra-Bitcoin's control, prevents further centralization and is therefore actually good for decentralization.

[buzztiaan]

do all the mentions above of 'blockstream' actually mean 'chaincode' ? after all , they pay the most core devs ...

[vinniefalco]

I trust @Cobra-Bitcoin ... for decentralization.

The logical fallacy speaks for itself.

[is55555]

I missed that @theymos had relinquished control of the domain (?)

Anyway, as others have pointed out, Bitcoin doesn't have a website although it's true that "the community" has put a degree of trust in bitcoin.org and it has real-world influence that cannot be ignored.

It doesn't appear to me like Cobra has gone rogue although he does have some slightly eccentric views IMO, though I'm sure others would think the same about me or about most other early mail-list/bitcointalk people.

For bitcoin.org I'd either leave it as is or maybe do as @luke-jr suggested above. I see some lunatic ideas that somehow multiple ownership of a domain is socialism, or that we should give it to some guys relatively new in the community with openly public ids wearing suits for "decentralisation" etc.

Maybe @theymos and @Cobra-Bitcoin can provide slightly more detail somewhere about the current situation? I'm a bit confused about it. Theymos' real-world id is known, Cobra's isn't (this is a plus for Cobra I'm afraid) but if he's a registrant then it probably it is known for authorities? I'm particularly intrigued about this bit.

[samacumen]

This is my first post here. I have followed the discussion in its entirety and I hope people would read my opinion below with a level-headed mind. With all due respect to @Cobra-Bitcoin, I would like to state two options:

1) Cobra-Bitcoin signs a formal legal agreement citing clauses of concern from community and agreeing to abide by it. This will give enough rest in the community that doubts. And also who takes over (atleast two persons) in case he is unable to continue with his duties must be part of the contract.

2) Form a 5 member committee where Cobra-Bitcoin is the director with most power to him, and other four have proportionate power.

If Cobra-Bitcoin remains steadfast about not doing either of the above two, then I would say something is seriously wrong or the intentions are not in place. Bitcoin was formed by the community, for the community and to the community. Handing too much power in the hands of one individual howsoever benevolent he/she might be, is a no-go.

Cheers,

[theRealBitcoinClub]

All this talk is about to drag attention from solving real issues to non issues.

All this topic is a hoax initiated to waste your energy.

As much as all the over engineering of bitcoin is a hoax to drag attention from the real bottleneck:

Real World Adoption (or call it AFK adoption if you want) thats all what bitcoin needs.

And to keep it in the aggressive tone of many blockstream supporters:

If you dont focus on real world adoption then something is seriously wrong or the intentions are not in place.

[andrerademan]

https://bitcoin.org/en/about-us

"Bitcoin.org was originally registered and owned by Bitcoin's first two developers, Satoshi Nakamoto and Martti Malmi. When Nakamoto left the project, he gave ownership of the domain to additional people, separate from the Bitcoin developers, to spread responsibility and prevent any one person or group from easily gaining control over the Bitcoin project."

When the goal is decentralisation and trustless, then a Bitcoin Alliance makes the most sense as suggested by @vinniefalco .

An 5-member group makes more sense than 3 which is not decentralised enough.

EDIT: Additionally, as the original domain was owned by the initial Bitcoin developers, I believe that should still be the case going forward. Let the top-ten developers by commit over the last 12 months choose 3-5 people (3 might be easier for faster decisions) Could even say each commit counts as one vote. All big decisions going forward can be vetoed by the group of developers.

EDIT2: Bitcoin was a mathematical solution and this should be too to stand the test of time 100 years from now. Give a group the responsibility but build in a check in case they go off on a tangent.

[vinniefalco]

Cobra-Bitcoin signs a formal legal agreement

How can an anonymous individual sign a legal agreement?

[vinniefalco]

Let the top-ten developers by commit over the last 12 months choose 3-5 people

You have good intentions but I don't think this will work out the way you think it will, for a few reasons. First of all, the optics on it are terrible and can only serve to invite more undeserved criticism of the developers. Second, highly active developers are not necessarily also proficient at identifying qualified board members. Finally, and most importantly, serving on the board of directors of a non-profit company (even one as limited in scope as The Bitcoin Alliance should be) requires work. The secretary has to write and maintain minutes and records. The treasurer has to maintain accurate accounting. And they all need to be mindful of the rules and regulations of operating a non-profit.

The ideal board members would of course be individuals who already have experience serving on a board of directors. In particular, someone with experience acting as Secretary. Most importantly however, board members must possess a desire to serve the public's interest. So they must be volunteers who are opting in to the workload of advancing the mission of the non-profit. That said, individuals can volunteer and the community, including the developers, can vet them. This can all be codified into the company bylaws.

There are two volunteers currently:

@StopAndDecrypt very active on social media and blogs, currently anonymous but is open to changing that by serving on the board

@aceat64 has acted as President and board member of the Dallas Makerspace for the first 5 years

Anyone else?

[vinniefalco]

An 5-member group makes more sense than 3 which is not decentralised enough.

There is a common misconception that just because bitcoin is decentralized, that every social organization or apparatus built around it much also be decentralized. Taken to its logically absurd conclusion, you could say that there should be no websites for bitcoin since the domain name system is by definition centralized. This of course is an untenable and impractical position.

3 board members are plenty (also, the legally required minimum). It is the defined mission statement and bylaws which serve to bind the actions taken by representatives of the company and to ensure that it is aligned with the interests of the larger bitcoin community.

As there are already 2 volunteers, my estimate of the chances that this project will take off are greatly increased. I think it would be productive to have a discussion on the mission statement and bylaws. Do you have an idea on what a good mission statement might be? And what the bylaws might be (for example, no commercial advertisements on websites)?

[samacumen]

Well, the fact of the matter is one individual should not control access to a domain that will probably be worth a Billion$ someday, if so. As I understand, Cobra-Bitcoin is the only one having control and from what I read may not be in a mood to relinquish that control (I understand his point of view of not handing it over to someone he cannot trust, but this can be worked out). A 3 board-members are good enough in my opinion and something the community must work towards.

The people having control to such a domain cannot remain anonymous, at least should not. @aantonop is one of the best choices for being part of such a board member group, should one be formed. Someone who is public and at the same time be trusted by the wide community.

[vinniefalco]

@aantonop is probably one of the best choices for being part of such a board member group

Obviously, LOL !!

[Cobra-Bitcoin]

If you're going to propose new owners, at least have them be contributors to the site, not random people you fished out of social media because you like what they said.

[samacumen]

So, what does one make of this? No doubt, he maybe the right person to handle the domain and has taken tremendous efforts in this regards which should be respected. Furthermore, one should certainly have difference of opinion/viewpoints. However, here the viewpoints are certainly not in sync with the viewpoints of the Bitcoin core community. I maybe wrong, though I sense something not right.

[vinniefalco]

Saying that bitcoin is larger than bitcoin core is not the same as saying that bitcoin includes bcash.

[aantonop]

I find myself agreeing with Cobra. You should look to the people actually
doing work on bitcoin.org and not to some baseless popularity in social
media. Let's call this merit-based approach "proof of work" ;-). I am not
interested in committee management, it becomes a forum for
self-aggrandizement and self-promotion.

On Sun, Jul 29, 2018 at 8:46 AM Cøbra [e-mail] wrote:

If you're going to propose new owners, at least have them be contributors
to the site, not random people you fished out of social media because you
like what they said.

—
You are receiving this because you were mentioned.
Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub
https://github.com/bitcoin-dot-org/bitcoin.org/issues/2548#issuecomment-408682580,
or mute the thread
https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/ABII2xtyjK9eRKFWM3MWDOPE0Y_67Fqdks5uLcqrgaJpZM4Vg_08
.

[StopAndDecrypt]

I just want to clarify that I only expressed my willingness to _consider_ it, if there was reasonable support for it. _(It being everything down to the members included in such a group, and the communities agreement on those members.)_ I'm hardly pushing for my involvement and if it's decided such a group will be created, I do think there are much more qualified people than I that should be part of such a group. The only question under those circumstances is, who would want to be part of that group that isn't already heavily involved in other matters? _(see critiques of others already "heavy" involvement in similar "pillars" of the community)_ This is the main reason I expressed my willingness to consider my involvement, just in case there was some sort of lack of diversity in people to select from.

[vinniefalco]

I do think there are much more qualified people than I that should be part of such a group

Volunteers are welcomed!

You should look to the people actually doing work on bitcoin.org and not to some baseless popularity in social media

Volunteers are welcomed!

[TheRec]

@aantonop People who contribute to the site are unfortunately vastly ignored when it comes to decisions in relation to the fundamental goals and means of the website. This was recently illustrated with the _sponsorship_ from Paxful that was "announced" with a PR to contributors and despite an overwhelming number of NACK (see #2485) the modifications still got committed and published within few days.

I might be a bit pessimist here but when it comes to the only viable mean of access to the website, its domain name, I would be willing to bet that contributors won't be given any weight or responsibility.

[chek2fire]

A public statement like this prove that Bitcoin is (againx2) under a social engineer attack and Cobra is a part of it.
Is almost one year now from the first fork of Bitcoin, a fork that happen without any consensus, privately frrom Viabtc with the support of Bitmain.
One year after they have fail not only to attract users from bitcoin but even to hijack Bitcoin name, bitcoin usability and Bitcoin development.
Their last desperate movement seems to be their attempt to hijack the most popular Bitcoin social media sites like Bitcoin.org, r/bitcoin and bitcointalk.
That shows and how fragile are this sites and how easy is to transform to a malicious propaganda places against bitcoin.

[chek2fire]

I like to add that everyone here and especially Cobra seems to forget the first community action against central control miners, big profit individual investors to ecosystem and other malicious ppl that try to take control of Bitcoin like Craig Wright.
And i talk about the pure community movement of UASF.
Cobra seems to have a blank memory about this event and of course he only choose to focus his propaganda to support the Bitmain privately fork of the Bitcoin network consensus rules.
Is very clear what is the role of this guy and my only question is how a guy like Theymos continue to trust and support him.

[theRealBitcoinClub]

Adam should come up with his own new lightningcoin website.

I assure him to put a backlink on http://blockstream.RIP

[beyourseff]

Ok, now that the discussion has died down a bit, here's what I think could be done:

• Take @vinniefalco up on his generous offer. As @Cobra-Bitcoin suggested, the board of directors should indeed consist of those who have worked on Bitcoin.org
• Possible directors: @wbnns @luke-jr @achow101 - Is it possible to include pseudonymous individuals? If so, the logical addition would be both @Cobra-Bitcoin as well as @theymos. If all were to agree, the total would consist of 5 directors which IMO is more than sufficient.

Thoughts?

[mysidia]

@beyourseff Sounds like a plan. Honestly I don't know if a full-blown non-profit with a board is necessary, but seems reasonable for directors; I feel like time is of the essence to get SOME sort of contingency or resilient organization in there as the legal domain holder and revise/change if necessary.

I mean.... right now with the domain legally titled to an individual: technically every second is a risk in the off-chance of domain registrant is hit by a bus, or some other freak-accident tragedy, then the domain as personal property automatically becomes property of an estate where it may be auctioned off and be swooped up by a scam corporation or AltCoin promoter with the means to use Bitcoin.Org's reputation as a reliable "official"-like resource to harm the community.

[D-Nice]

Repeat after me

[beyourseff]

Seeing how I don't think any action will be taken to resolve this ticket, I'm closing it. Feel free to reopen or create a new ticket should anything change.

[arfyshah]

I believe you should transfer the domain to me. I will hold it as an impartial custodian tasked with protecting the domain name for the sake of the community and all those who use BTC.org