rich1.0npub1f2nvlx49er5c7sqa43src6ssyp6snd4qwvtkwm5avc2l84cs84esecrwethttps://nostr.ae/npub1f2nvlx49er5c7sqa43src6ssyp6snd4qwvtkwm5avc2l84cs84esecrwetnjumphttps://nostr.ae📅 Original date posted:2013-12-08 📝 Original message:On Sun, Dec 8, 2013 at 12:51 PM, Drak <drak at zikula.org> wrote: > What do you suggest though? We will need to trust someone (even in a group > each person can act autonomously). > The only thing I can suggest would be to hand the keys to the bitcoin > project lead. > > Otherwise, who has admin rights to the code projects > (github/sourceforge/this mailing list)? Those people have proven they can be > trusted so far. My concern isn't a matter of trustworthyness, it's a matter of too many eggs in one basket (especially a basket with potentially poor jurisdictional locality). The current control of the domain has proven reasonably trustworthy, and if there is a concern for funding our own server stuff that can be easily handled (e.g. if need be, I'd pay for it myself, without being in control of it). Also, in terms of effective lobbying/advocacy I worry that the foundation would be unable to do an effective job if its saddled with the belief that its in control of Bitcoin ("Why don't you just make every transaction {...}": the answer is because its a decentralized system and no one can unilaterally change it in ways its users would hate, but it becomes complicated. It's crisper when its clear that diverse and independant parties are in control of the popular infrastructure).