{"type":"rich","version":"1.0","author_name":"npub1f2nvlx49er5c7sqa43src6ssyp6snd4qwvtkwm5avc2l84cs84esecrwet","author_url":"https://nostr.ae/npub1f2nvlx49er5c7sqa43src6ssyp6snd4qwvtkwm5avc2l84cs84esecrwet","provider_name":"njump","provider_url":"https://nostr.ae","html":"📅 Original date posted:2013-12-08\n📝 Original message:On Sun, Dec 8, 2013 at 12:51 PM, Drak \u003cdrak at zikula.org\u003e wrote:\n\u003e What do you suggest though? We will need to trust someone (even in a group\n\u003e each person can act autonomously).\n\u003e The only thing I can suggest would be to hand the keys to the bitcoin\n\u003e project lead.\n\u003e\n\u003e Otherwise, who has admin rights to the code projects\n\u003e (github/sourceforge/this mailing list)? Those people have proven they can be\n\u003e trusted so far.\n\nMy concern isn't a matter of trustworthyness, it's a matter of too\nmany eggs in one basket (especially a basket with potentially poor\njurisdictional locality).  The current control of the domain has\nproven reasonably trustworthy, and if there is a concern for funding\nour own server stuff that can be easily handled (e.g. if need be, I'd\npay for it myself, without being in control of it).\n\nAlso, in terms of effective lobbying/advocacy I worry that the\nfoundation would be unable to do an effective job if its saddled with\nthe belief that its in control of Bitcoin (\"Why don't you just make\nevery transaction {...}\": the answer is because its a decentralized\nsystem and no one can unilaterally change it in ways its users would\nhate, but it becomes complicated. It's crisper when its clear that\ndiverse and independant parties are in control of the popular\ninfrastructure)."}