pull down to refresh
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.
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 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?"
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.
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).
Ultimately disclosing is up to the member company. But I am personally very much encouraging public announcements.
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.
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).
Jason Hughes, who is VP of engineering at OCEAN, drafted a “BIP110 / RDTS: What Miners Need to Know”, a 9 page document to help keep miners, including OCEAN customers/users, informed about things they may need to remain aware of as BIP110 plays out (ref: https://docs.google.com/document/d/14DfMSVYBHTHIOmW32JTOR6BAP7AITbinvrhl8rJuvvc/edit?tab=t.0).
He notes that he “had hoped could be put out as a miner education piece at OCEAN” but “it never got published” and “That effort failed” so he posted it personally instead (ref: https://x.com/wk057/status/2077444826232955365).
In your role at OCEAN of “Head of Communications”, this sort of correspondence to your customers would seem under your direct purview. OCEAN has communicated about BIP110 previously, “We encourage miners to study BIP-110, form their own view, and signal accordingly” and this post seems a valuable, if not the most valuable, part of that study.
Did you advocate for or against OCEAN publishing this seemingly thoughtful and accurate information for your users/customers? Why or why not? And why wasn’t it ultimately published?
Woah