pull down to refresh
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.
It depends on who you ask.
In the Common Law legal system, for example, were we charged and convicted by a jury of conspiring against the state, then legally speaking it would be, definitionally, conspiratorial. We don't have to agree with the verdict to be convicted coconspirators.
I reckon the consortium members wouldn't think of themselves as conspiring either, but does that exclude the possibility? Not even remotely.
So then how could we conclude they are not conspiring? We could wait and find out, but that doesn't like sound very good answer.
Suggestions?
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.
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.