(from X)
Today nine institutions including BlackRock, Fidelity, Coinbase, and Strategy announced the Bitcoin Security Consortium (@BTCconsortium), pledging $15M toward Bitcoin security work over the next three years. I've agreed to help coordinate the group's work as a volunteer.
I said yes because supporting Bitcoin's developers and helping people understand their work are the two things I've spent my time in Bitcoin on, through Brink and Optech. This group wants to do both: fund the people already securing Bitcoin, and bring accurate information about that work to audiences it doesn't currently reach.
The group's first focus is quantum computing, a potential long-term threat that's reasonable to prepare for. Its true that a sufficiently powerful quantum computer would break Bitcoin's current signatures. What's usually wrong are the loudest "imminent doom" voices. The development community is already working on this.
These institutions want to help. I know exactly how "nine giant institutions form a group to 'help' Bitcoin" sounds, I had the same reaction. So before accepting, I spoke one-on-one with each company about their values and priorities, to judge whether this would actually be a productive initiative for Bitcoin. Two things mattered most to me, and I found the members already aligned on both:
- No pooled funding. Each member company funds who they choose, independently. The Consortium doesn't hold funds or pick recipients.
- No Consortium positions on protocol changes. Members speak for themselves.
I'm a volunteer, receiving no compensation from the Consortium. I continue to run Brink, independent of any Consortium member. I've committed to a year in this role, maybe I'd do two, but ultimately I see it as a seat that should rotate to other participants over time. My commitment is to Bitcoin, and that doesn't change.
My hope is that this effort results in more funding reaching more developers/researchers, on their own terms, and a measured counterweight to quantum panic, in both directions (no doomerism, but also no dismissal). Quantum is the first focus, but if this group works the way I think it can, there's room to support other security efforts down the road too.
More about the Consortium: https://x.com/Strategy/status/2080262323491455290
I expect plenty of skepticism. Ask me anything.
Great that the money is being allocated to Bitcoin work.
It needs to follow the same model as other grant programs.
Should be no strings attached, transparent, and proof of work based.
Otherwise, this will face the same fate as the Rust Foundation initiative.
You're referencing the funding piece of the Consortium's efforts, which is setup so that each member company funds independently (as they can today). There is no pooled money into the Consortium.
I agree on no strings, public announcements, etc and would advocate to each member company the same.
I am glad you are involved.
Those are a lot of big ticket names!
Bearing in mind it is still very early, can you provide assurances for those who might consider this consortium on security reminiscent of the "big blockers" in 2017?
the big blockers didn’t want to fund important work afaik
I don't disagree with your point, but I'm struggling to understand the functional purpose of a consortium that has these caveats.
Why couldn't these entities fund whoever they wanted to on their own, without the formalization? There's probably a legal reason I'm not seeing.
Its a good question.
The idea is that "externally facing" there is value in having these voices united combating quantum FUD (or the overstated quantum claims) and elevating the discourse about work being dont by Bitcoin researchers on the topic. This is the "inform" part of the organization's activities.
Additionally the Consortium members also want to actually support that existing Bitcoin research work being done. But to me that is more "internal facing" and I think its dangerous to pool funds or for the Consortium itself to be personified to have a stance on protocol changes. Thus, for these "support/fund" activities of the organization, Ive advocated that member company retain their autonomy and act independently (although Im sure companies will agree on some things over time).
I don't think there's a legal reason. When people share a common goal, they usually come together to help each other in any way they can. When it's a group of companies, we call it a consortium.
So if the point is to create a good PR splash, I get it. But I'm still not seeing in what way they are going to push for this stated goal if they aren't doing the main thing (i.e. pooling resources) that consortia actually do.
I'm not alleging conspiracy, but just asking, what problem was this created to solve? All of these companies could have- and I'm guessing did do - independently funded development prior to this.
For many of the member companies, this will be their first time funding this sort of work. And in fact the Consortium has been a motivation for them to do it.
Thanks for clarifying. I'd hoped your answer would be something like this.
I should have started with this, but congrats on the new role. I'm glad Bitcoin has you as its ally.
resources != money
¿So then why lede with:
Name another meaningful resource they might be sharing that doesn't sound conspiratorial.
knowledge
I'm happy to hear you are involved with this. I will admit that I'm not too excited about institutional money pushing for a quantum resistant fork. One of my fears is that quantum cryptography being newer and less battle tested will expose us to a pretty big attack surface. I'm worried institutional weight will prioritize a timely solution over a solid solution.
How do you think about resisting pressure the consortium might receive to act quickly?
I think the tensions around quantum are present regardless of the existence of this Consortium. My hope is the Consortium keeps the dialog more in the open and less opaque than a world without the Consortium where things are just happening behind the scenes with secret new dev teams, etc.
That makes sense. I'll definitely be following it, and if you all produce reports/info/podcasts/newsletters in a similar vein to Optech, I am quite sure it will be a big benefit to the Bitcoin community.
+1 and will heartily zap said reports when shared on SN
How does one speak one-on-one with a company?
Who is the one at those in part behemoth companies who can mirror the company's intention so accurately you can come to a reasonably confident judgment?
I spoke with the people who will be the representatives of the member companies. My goal wasnt to determine across the board values alignment, but only if I thought this was workable and "could this lead to positive results for Bitcoin?"
Glad you're involved in this Mike. Appreciate all your efforts in coordination and technical communication. I know we like to keep development decentralized, but given the stakes, I think a bit of a coordinated effort on the quantum front is a worthwhile response. Best of luck!
I think adding a handful of new donors is incrementally decentralizing. I think having a guardrail of no pooling funds and having each company fund directly instead can help. But there remain many minefields in the quantum discussion broadly, regardless of this organization.
https://asicmarketplace.com/blog/what-is-bitcoin-mining-council/?srsltid=AfmBOoqV5EpLOtRc-K6kYsHqvXqNZHoMk-AaK5yXy_KS1A51FAih_OOZ
Lol. This is poor narrative attempt at control.
You think most of us are stupid enough to believe that it's "FoR oUr sAfEtY" and that they won't abuse the influence? It's centralized in nature. Which always leads to shit incentives.
This is centralized attempt at coordinated control as a reaction to bip110 in part.
Bitcoins' principles are antithetical to this.
Expect plebs to reject this in principle.
This is just an announcement. Theres nothing about "for our safety". These companies want to participate in the quantum/security discussions, which they have the autonomy to do. And each member company is doing so through the Consortium in a way that preserves that autonomy in that they fund directly (no pooled funds) and speak about protocol changes themselves (the Consortium itself doesnt have such positions).
yikes
https://twiiit.com/bitschmidty/status/2080263159152091455
Bitcoin security is one area where long term thinking really matters. Hopefully more developers benefit from this.
Sounds promising on paper. The real test will be whether it stays true to those principles over time.
Transparency will be key. If they stick to those commitments, it could be a positive step.