pull down to refresh
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.
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.
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.
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.
¿So then why lede with:
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?
Name another meaningful resource they might be sharing that doesn't sound conspiratorial.
knowledge
See last part of my question.
If they are fully transparent about this then fine. But that's a question I imagine neither of us is positioned to answer. In @schmidty we trust.
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.
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).
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?