Cancelled - Proposal to officiate BitcoinZ Community


For a while now, as a common interest internet collective, we have been discussing a way to become recognized as a community without compromising on the core and fundamental aspects of our existence: to be decentralized, fair and equal.

While most of the core members of BTCZ, that gather around the proverbial ‘campfire’ on daily basis, have developed a fair degree of trust between one another, we have some community members that simply come and go (@cryptorex has summarised this phenomenon very well in his ‘Campfire’ post). Due to the nature of the ‘open door policy’ in our community, we have to take into consideration that not everyone will always act in our best interest therefore we can’t allow the bad actions of the very few to create issues, legal or otherwise, to the remaining members of the community while at the same time not unduly restricting anyone from becoming a member.

Universal Declaration of Human Rights opens possibilities for our community to thrive. Article 22, the second cornerstone of the Declaration, introduces articles 23 to 27, in which economic, social and cultural rights - the rights to which everyone is entitled “as a member of society” - are set out. The article characterizes these rights as indispensable for human dignity and the free development of personality, and indicates that they are to be realized “through national effort and international cooperation”. At the same time, it points out the limitations of realization, the extent of which depends on the resources of each State.

The European Journal of International Law published a paper on ‘The Legal Dimension of the International Community: How Community Interests Are Protected in International Law’ in which, the author, Santiago Villalpando, states:

The ‘international community’ remains an evasive concept and […] while the majority of international lawyers seem to have embraced the notion, which provides for an attractive solution to many of the problems and tensions of the contemporary law of nations, authoritative appeals for caution are recurrently made and the very legal value of the concept is sometimes put in doubt.

A brief consideration should also be given to a possibility of becoming what is commonly called a Micronation. The major and only real obstacle of becoming a legally recognized nation is having a claim of sovereignty over some physical territory. (I am happy to discuss the reasons behind not proposing this avenue in Discord/Slack)

Further to the points outlined above, plus our desire to be officially recognized as a community, we are left with very limited options that would allow us to remain decentralized to the fullest extent of the international law, while consciously avoiding to adopt any available corporate or centralized structures.

Therefore, having considered all available options, I would like to propose for BitcoinZ community to become an Unincorporated Association.

What is an Unincorporated Association

An unincorporated association is a membership organization that is recognized in a majority of jurisdictions and can be defined by:

  • Having voting members
  • Ability to be charitable (but does not have to be)
  • Is not incorporated

The association can be whatever its members want it to be, and carry out whatever activity the members choose. It is the easiest and most cost-effective way for a group to set itself up. It is ideal for any groups, especially those without staff or premises. To set up an unincorporated association, BitcoinZ community needs to draw up a constitution, setting out the rules under which it will be run.


A constitution is simply the aims and rules that BitcoinZ community will use. It’s a statement of what our association is going to do and how it is going to do it.

The most obvious reasons for having a written constitution is that it provides a record of what was agreed. New members joining should understand far better what is expected of them, and disagreements as to how the organization should be managed will be minimized.

The second reason stems from the fact that all members are collectively responsible for the actions of the BitcoinZ association. Writing the rules down reminds all members what they may or may not do and therefore helps reduce the possibility that an individual acts in a way that jeopardizes the interests of another member.

It follows that the downside of being unincorporated is that the members are never safe from liability incurred by others of them. The safest way to run a simple organization is to make sure that the rules make clear that no member may commit the association to any contract or expense without the consent of the body of members and that all expenses are funded in advance.

By providing clear guidelines as to how the BitcoinZ community organization will work, a constitution safeguards the interests of members against each other and ensures on-going success.


The community will need to have a vote to decide who will be entitled to be a member of the BTCZ Association.

This could be:

  • everyone who pays a membership fee; or
  • all users and volunteers at the project; or
  • anyone who supports the aims of the group and participates in its activities

Whether there will be a membership fee is entirely up to the community, the membership may be a donation. The advantages are that it makes it very clear who is a member (the people who have paid) and it raises a bit of money. The disadvantages are that it may put people off and that it can be fiddly to collect the money.

The community can decide this each year at the Annual General Meeting, and we have to remember to put this in our constitution.

Decentralised association

While a vast majority of the unincorporated associations opt to be run by an elected committee the constitution can specify for it to be run without a one, therefore, on a completely decentralised basis.

In this instance, the entire group/community is the ‘committee’ and everyone is responsible for the group’s affairs.

We will still need to have members that share responsibility for long term tasks such as managing the money. It is useful to decide in advance of each meeting who will be the Chair or Facilitator and who will take minutes. Our existing proposals structure can remain and be built into the constitution.


All in all, I would like everyone to give this proposal serious consideration. I think this would be a big step forward for the community and truly one of its kind in the decentralised cryptosphere.

I am conscious that this vote is only the very first step to make this a reality and there is a long list of things to consider. This is a big project; amongst other things, we will have a vote on the official name, each aspect of the constitution etc. nonetheless we have to start somewhere, right?

While I may not be as active in the social channels as I would like, should this vote be a success, I would be privileged to go on this journey with the BitcoinZ community and promise to assist in making this happen.

I will be glad to answer any questions you may have and I would like to thank you for taking out the time to read my proposal.

Please vote on the following question

Would you like BitcoinZ community to become an official decentralised Unincorporated Association governed by a democratic constitution?

  • Yes
  • No

0 voters

1 Like

Hellll no this doesn’t follow the whitepaper. and surely doesn’t follow community. the formation of cliques undermines checks and balances. the system in place is working and we need not change shit. especially when community inclines us to not be sued, not be a security. what in the hell is this committee shit. placing people on a higher level to make decisions is the exact opposite of decentralization and the corporate world. operating a community is NOT the same as a corporation or business. I do not believe in this at all. this will cause disruption and stifle growth as well. not in the best interest of “community” at all.

1 Like

Thank you MinerHuck for your comments. While reading your response it quickly became apparent to me that you have not read my proposal with due attention.

Let me address:

  • we are not forming cliques - it is the same community, one and only
  • I specifically chose Unincorporated Association so we can’t get sued as a community
  • the community is the committee - please read the Decentralized association paragraph again - we are NOT placing anyone on a higher level
  • we will NOT be a corporation or a business

I respect your views. I also spent some time researching this. I believe this will open a lot of doors for our community, show that we are serious about being denentralised and organised in a sense that we coordinate efficiently as a community.

Happy to answer any questions you may have.


I voted NO because I see that the “association” and “constitution” mentioned in the proposal are both unnecessary because 1, we do already have an association: the community, where everyone – BTCZ friend or foe – is automatically a voting member and 2, we do already have a constitution: the BTCZ white paper.

Since both the association and constitution already exist, there is no need for a proposal for them.

By the way, my understanding is that what we’re trying to do here is create a global currency, global meaning for each and every single human being on the planet. How are we supposed to achieve that if there are non-members, outsiders? If we want BTCZ to become truly universal, everyone, supporter and hater alike, owner and non-owner, whether he/she likes or not (and whether or not he/she wants to exercise his/her voting right is irrelevant), is a voting member by default.

Don’t worry, by sheer merits of BTCZ, the most dedicated hater will become its most passionate defender.

BTCZ is not afraid of anyone. Everyone is welcome. The BTCZ community is the entire human race.


Thanks @plodoto

I understand what you are saying, we already are a community and we have a ’ constitution ’ which is the White Paper - the only problem is, those are not officiated in the eyes of the basic international rule of the law therefore the ’ association’ or ’ Constitution’ are not unnecessary but in fact, I would call them essential.

Why wouldn’t you consider keeping things as they are with the added benefit of being internationally recognized?

I may have to simplify the ‘membership’ section slightly. While we could restrict membership, I never said we should. I merely gave options on how the community can vote on the membership types.

I am most certainly of the opinion everyone should be a member!

The reason why I proposed this structure specifically, as I mentioned in the early section of the proposal, is because we can’t predict/have influence over the ‘bad actors’ and for this reason we would not want the whole community to pay or take responsibility (legal or otherwise) for attempted sabotage, internal/external plots etc.

I hope I am making sense and I respect your vote.


Thanks for putting this together, it seems like you’ve invested a decent amount of time in researching this. I am withholding my vote for now because I think this warrants much further discussion.

The benefits of conducting extensive research and creating an implementation plan that is aligned with our Community Paper are exponential. I’ll tell you, what has grabbed my attention here is there are situations in which parties require some form of legal entity to execute contractual agreements. It’s understandable these efforts are for the protection of the parties and the inheritance of rights under contract law. Although, these types of requirements are not conducive to a decentralized movement, and in my opinion the exchanges have fueled centralized (or forced) behaviors, there may be a growth opportunity in the future too hard to pass up.

Should the passion of being a decentralized coin for all bound us from exposure and growth opportunities?

Obviously not. We’ve come as far as we’ve come without needing to organize under any Business Organizations Code (statutory authorities), but will there be a time in which we, as a community, need to sign the dotted line? Perhaps. So then what would be the detriment if we could not?

So far, it seems, business is business - and if your project will bring us business well then have a seat. :slight_smile:

Will the proposed unincorporated association still require ‘figure heads’ ?

The closer any association gets to having decision making figure heads, the closer it gets to centralization. I think in practice any association has a (based on deep trust and contributions) self appointed few that carries forward the wishes of the association.

However, here it would would be only those wishes that abide by our voting process and therefore, are the wishes of the community. Just exactly how we do it now. So then, in light of this, it seems that we could actually operate with the same principles. If we don’t require to ‘name’ people I think this could work spectacularly.

Caution - coming under the definition of a ‘security’ under US securities laws

We must also take into consideration any approach that ties funds to voting rights. This is one of the fundamental characteristics of corporations and stocks. There has been some analysis associating this characteristic as a component of a security. Of course, this is far from being the only element in the Howey 4-prong test. I’m also not sure of the treatment by FINRA or CFTC.

A few questions

  • Does creating this association empower us with a document that conveys to companies, organizations, etc. that we are a legalized entity in which we can enter into agreements with?

  • Could we convert our Community Paper into the necessary ‘constitution’ that is recognized under the governing laws for an Unincorporated Assocation?

  • How can we define our community as the committee, to accommodate the easy entry and exit of committee membership?

  • How do you address bad actors that become part of the committee? Could it be done in the same manner that we vote now? Since voting shouldn’t require any type of specific criteria, all members are the committee.

  • What needs to be part of the “constitution” so that we can initiate emergency maneuvers in case of bad actors?

Overall, the greatest benefit would be if this enabled us to enter into contractual agreements with parties. If this doesn’t achieve it, then we need to identify another benefit of being a recognized Unincorporated Association. There must be others.

The hardest is to have an all-inclusive self-governing entity. I’m personally of the belief that we can achieve it, we just need to keep hammering away at it. This is a path to achieving it.


Thank you @cryptorex - I really appreciate you taking the time to read my proposal in detail, and more importantly, thank you for a meaningful comment. I have attempted, to the best of my knowledge, address your points and questions below.

  1. I think in practice any association has a (based on deep trust and contributions) self appointed few that carries forward the wishes of the association.

That is correct, the committee acts SOLELY according to the votes of the members. I also outlined that technically, although it would be a laborious system to maintain, we could make each and every member part of the committee - this technicality, while certainly doable, is not personally advisable. I will elaborate on this a bit more further down, so bear with me :slight_smile:

More importantly, the current community architecture, whether accepted or not, already has a form of a ‘committee’ in place. We have members who are treasurers (multisig wallet to community funds), you and other devs oversee the meetings, act as social channels admin, take notes, even act as a Secretaries by maintaining the site and access to any passwords etc.

Additionally to your point above, the association committee is NOT self-appointed but voted on by a democratic vote of the members. In fact, every by-law of the constitution, whether it is an amendment, a new addition or a clause removal, can be voted on by the community.

  1. Coming under the definition of a ‘security’ under US securities laws

In short - not applicable.

Howey test would not be applicable to the BTCZ Unregistered Association for the following reasons:

  • We would, by the means of our constitution, declare ourselves non-for-profit
  • Any funds the association would operate can be traced to a voluntary donation
  • There is no expectation of any means of interest payout on the community funds
  • Finally, BitcoinZ technology is considered Open Source therefore not considered to be the associations’ exclusive asset
  1. Does creating this association empower us with a document that conveys to companies, organizations, etc. that we are a legalized entity in which we can enter into agreements with?

Firstly, by becoming an association and approving a constitution we will straight away be taken more seriously as a community therefore, it will most certainly empower us.

We would be unincorporated so, by definition, not a separate legal entity in its own right - for that reason BitcoinZ, as an association, could not be sued.

Although we would not be considered a standalone legal entity, the committee members would be able to enter into contracts on behalf of the association.

That ability comes with a warning though; Committee members who enter into contracts on behalf of their association can become personally liable under those contracts. So if you were to be voted into the committee, you could choose to approach Binance and sign a contract with them on behalf of the BTCZ association.

Contractual liability will ultimately rest on those who have authorised a contract. For instance, if a committee member was to enter into a contract to purchase server equipment and the contract was authorised by the committee, each committee member could be held liable under the terms of the contract should something go wrong.

Furthermore, in certain circumstances committee members can be held personally liable to compensate a third party for harm they have suffered as a result of the wrongful actions of the association. Wrongful actions can include a negligent act causing personal injury, an event causing nuisance to a neighbour or simply the making of a defamatory remark.

In order to mitigate the risks mentioned above, we would make certain provisions in the constitution i.e. restrictions on members who can enter into contracts on behalf of the associations (they would not be allowed without a majority consent and a signed waiver confirming that he/she would be solely responsible for any issues arising from the agreement they opt to sign)

Personally, I think It would be prudent for the constitution to declare only a few of the committee members to be granted powers of signature on behalf of the association and its members, like the current state of affairs where only very few are trusted with the community wallet signature rights.

  1. Could we convert our Community Paper into the necessary ‘constitution’ that is recognized under the governing laws for an Unincorporated Association?

We most certainly can do that, it would be a great starting point. We would however have to vote on additional clauses since the current version of the Community Paper does not address all of the necessary matters the association’s constitution should include.

  1. How can we define our community as the committee, to accommodate the easy entry and exit of committee membership?

This is where I need to refer you back to my comment under point no 1. While technically all members can form part of the committee it would not be wise to do so - not only because it can quickly become a bureaucratic nightmare but also because it would expose us to an array of unnecessary risks i.e. everyone having access to the community fund, passwords etc.

I would therefore, propose we keep the current approach (where trusted few have access to the core BTCZ services, wallets, passwords) and by means of a democratic community/members vote we appoint them to the committee roles.

We can also accommodate an easy exit from the committee by making a clause in the constitution outlining that a committee member is free to resign from their post by making a formal announcement in the forum 7 (or however many) days before departure - all up for discussion.

Gaining a membership (and giving it up) should be just as easy, if not easier. Anyone would be able to become a member by filling out a short form (can be built into the BTCZ Forum sign up process) and ‘signing’ a virtual declaration that he/she will respect the constitution of the Association they are becoming a part of.

  1. How do you address bad actors that become part of the committee? Could it be done in the same manner that we vote now? Since voting shouldn’t require any type of specific criteria, all members are the committee.

As per my point above - members/community vote would stand as the ultimate decision maker, no specific criteria. Each member vote carries exactly the same weight - whether an appointed treasurer or anyone else. Just like right now, your vote on this proposal is equal to mine and others.

  1. What needs to be part of the “constitution” so that we can initiate emergency maneuvers in case of bad actors?

I think we can definitely brainstorm this one. For example we could have a procedure where members can bring any individual member integrity to question and a fair vote would be carried out. I imagine a guideline would have to be established (and outlined in the constitution) so nobody can just nominate anyone for removal due to a personal vendetta etc. We can have a separate chat on this one as part of the delivery plan, should this proposal be a success.

I hope the above addresses your questions in enough detail - always happy to provide more info and respond to more questions.

Imho, I think this approach brings us, as close as currently possible, to an all-inclusive self-governing entity.
We will also be setting a one of a kind example - i searched high and low and could not find a community that is organised in that manner. What an amazing opportunity to set a precedent and become an important part of crypto history!



I guess it would help to share a bit of how the current set of trusted members was formed. It may be apparent for some, but for the history books I’ll give an overview.

We all know this project was launched by an anonymous person(s) who went by the name ‘andev’. This person began to recruit community support in public channels, and in my personal view, most of the support was acquired from Bitcoin Talk Original ANN.

I joined simply because I wanted to learn the way an explorer worked, so I launched the first one for BitcoinZ. After that, I began participating in anything BitcoinZ related, exerting efforts without demanding compensation. Andev noticed the participation and felt comfortable trusting me with a portion of the community coffers (initially only marketing and exchanges). During the creation of all social channels, Andev requested I be given admin rights (Slack, etc.) There was one other person that was also ‘appointed’ simultaneously, although not having same degree of access as myself, but is no longer with the project.

When this person exited, there was a bit of chaos and at the time people looked to me to ‘fix’ the chaos and I’ll admit there were several who reached out and gave some brief guidance, which was of tremendous help. There were also people that leaped forward to try and grab the pieces of the broken ‘torch’ and re-craft for themselves, which many viewed as a takeover attempt. As a side note, the takeover failed and other attempts to takeover, even some disguised and genuine help, have also failed.

When this fallout occurred, and based on my knowledge of their extensive efforts, I immediately got on webcam ( with renuzit, equipool, and Hyxt. This was the beginning of forming the current trusted group. It took a lot of observation and time to realize who could be trusted.

From this point we vowed to create community accessible accounts for all of the BitcoinZ infrastructure - to the extent necessary to re-point any of our domains if someone pulled their hardware. The group has grown since, but the number of people having access to this is still less than the trusted group. Meaning, there seems to be a trusted trusted group. So, it does not seem to be one-approach-fits-all - specifically - that every community trustee has access just because they are a community trustee. It seems to be as necessary, and at least three people that need access. For funding, the multi-sig wallet has 6 members of which only 3 are required to sign. That reminds me, rizzman needs to be pulled into the infrastructure access side.

The group has grown by other trustees vouching for others and the trustee group votes Yes/No - with majority vote winning. To this day, and I assume cause the group is still small, all votes have been Yes, with 0 No’s. It has worked well - but the most distinguishable aspect of this has been that the persons vouched for have displayed extensive no-strings-attached efforts to progress the project.

In light of the above history, it seems like random vote of trustees (or committee members), especially those with infrastructure and fund access, could be severely detrimental to BitcoinZ.

I follow - and it also is worth mentioning the fight to be the cleanest coin (no ico, presale, dev tax, premine, chain fork, or masternodes) seems to also help keep us out of ‘security’ scrutiny.

I would like to have a law firm scrutinize our project and render a legal opinion showing we indeed do not fall under the purview of securities laws. I strongly believe we do not, but that extra paper could help later.

As I figured, there is no limited liability, which in my opinion would effectively make this entire effort moot. I think we can already engage in contractual liabilities - either personally, which is obviously not recommended, or through a limited liability vehicle (LLC, S Corp, Non-Profit, etc.).

I think as it is now, the only form of association we could have is that a trustee that has been vouched for goes on to create its own limited liability vehicle and enter into contractual agreements on behalf of the BitcoinZ community. However, this brings along with it filing requirements and certain accounting - although there would not necessarily require any exchange of funding - at least there isn’t one I could foresee at the moment. Certain regulatory requirements needing a minor amount of funds (filing to incorporate, any tax efforts, etc.) could possibly be drawn from the community fund, pursuant to community voting results.

For example, a large exchange could require contractual agreements - or large scale marketing companies. If the trustee, through their limited liability vehicle, revoked the contract - then we could in a reasonable amount of time re-negotiate a contract through another trustee. This method seems to be closer aligned with our strongly supported view on decentralization. Although it may smell like centralization, it is the same manner in which we treat our infrastructure - it is immortal to the departure of any one person.

You could argue this leads to anyone being able to do this on behalf of the community, which is true. However, it is foreseeable that there would only be a benefit to the community and not that of any single person. So then, what would motivate them to do it for no benefit - positive or malicious?

Considering the above, it now seems, further analysis of points 4, 5, 6, and 7 are not warranted, but I of course invite scrutiny of this response, applying it to these same points.

I strongly encourage the community to be vocal in further analyzing this proposal.


it most certainly helped! it is an interesting piece of history and I must agree, wholeheartedly, a random vote would be detrimental and threaten the very foundation of what you, and the trusted few, continue to build and are an integral part of. In light of that, I would propose for the trusted few to remain and be excluded from being subject to any committee/members vote. I have no doubt the community would agree. You are trusted for a reason, it is rooted deeper than any potential association conversion.


Yes, this is certainly a valid option and I would be happy to explore this further. The above doesn’t, however, take away from my suggestion that declaring ourselves an association would empower us further as a community, including the indirect possibility to benefit from an incorporated trustee down the line. The association format would, in fact, better suit and enable such approach.

Thank you for your comments and to echo your point, I would really like to hear from the community as well.

Thanks to the white paper, BTCZ is protected from bad actors. Now what do bad actors need to do? Make a proposal to amend the white paper.

I’m not saying this proposal is borne of bad intentions, what I’m saying is that in our desire to see our coin succeed we may unwittingly do careless, unwise stuff, like unintentionally making an opening for bad actors to exploit later.

If we really want BTCZ to succeed, the only sure way is to use it in our daily lives. Buy and sell with it. Offer to pay or be paid in BTCZ. Make it a real currency. When its use becomes widespread enough, governments will recognize it, hardware and software manufacturers will incorporate it in their products, exchanges will list it. No deals necessary, no contracts needed.

BTCZ is above and beyond contracts because being a currency it operates within the fabric of society itself. And like blood to the human body, we don’t mess with it lest we end up harming the host.

BTCZ, through its white paper, has already spoken. Everything it ever wanted to say it already did say. It does not need to speak ever again.

Anyone – governments, manufacturers, exchanges, developers etc – wanting to deal with BTCZ need only approach and consult with one thing - the white paper. Except maybe to inform, guide or educate, people don’t need to talk to people.

If we modify the white paper now we will have created a precedent, which means next time anyone feels there is a need to change it again they won’t have a hard time convincing the community. Then we’re going to amend it again and again until one day we no longer recognize it.

By the way, time and again I hear that one of our weaknesses is in the area of marketing. Well, here’s a surefire marketing trick to accelerate BTCZ mass adoption.

Everyone, put up something…stuff or services – anything – for sale on Ebay, Craigslist, Facebook, flea market, garage sale…wherever… and then insist on BTCZ as the only accepted form of payment.

Making a sale is not the point of this exercise. The point is to inject BTCZ into the public’s consciousness.

Once again, the only sure way for BTCZ to succeed is to use it in our daily lives. Our goal should be no less than replacing fiat itself with BTCZ. If we are able to pull this off, everything else will naturally follow: developers and manufacturers will design their products around it, exchanges will line up to list it, governments will regulate it (although I have no idea how).

In other words, BTCZ being the people’s currency, if you want to do business with BTCZ, you come to BTCZ, BTCZ doesn’t go to you. Then you subject yourself to BTCZ’s rules, not the other way around.

Lastly, I’m under the impression that we’re just ordinary people here trying to move away from fiat in a struggle to free ourselves from the predatory ways of the existing money system. We are NOT traders working hard for BTCZ to rise in fiat value ASAP so that we can exchange it for fiat.

So I voted NO.

1 Like

Hi @plodoto, thank you for your comment.

I’m afraid I must disagree with you. How is the WP currently protecting BTCZ from Bad Actors? No offense, but for all I know you might be a bad actor plotting a way to sabotage the BTCZ community, similarly, for all you know, I may be a bad actor looking to sabotage the community with this proposal. All I am trying to say is that there is no way of knowing, and it is even harder with people using internet personas to engage one another.

I would like to clarify, I am not making a proposal to amend the white paper. The core of what this community stands for should not, and will not change. What I am trying to do is to build on those strong founding principles which are:

  • One-hundred percent decentralized development
  • Zclassic spirit, Zcash core, Bitcoin fundamentals
  • Always immutable, hardforks only for improvements, changing history is banned
  • Fair proposal system
  • Everyone is equal and every coin is made by the community and for the community
  • Everyone should be able to mine (ASIC resistant)
  • We fight for freedom and personal liberty
  • No pre-mine, no ICO, no dev taxes

BTCZ becoming an Unincorporated Association under my proposal would NOT change any of the above but can, by a means of voting, enhance it.

Yes, indeed. Nonetheless, the main challenge, at least for the foreseeable future, is that companies, manufacturers, governments etc will not, or are less likely to, recognize BTCZ if there is no defined entity behind it. Now, I know you will counter this argument by saying that BTCZ Community is an entity - yes it is but not an officially declared one. I truly believe that by uniting under the umbrella of an association we can achieve more in shorter space of time.

I am sorry to say, but I need to disagree with you again. We can grow without changing our core principles and we most certainly need to speak, how else do we progress?
Let me explain by means of an analogy. The light bulb is one of the most important inventions of our time. Edison did a great job inventing it. If the people that came after him applied your reasoning, we would have progressed to invent LED bulbs or electricity saving bulbs etc. You see, the core purpose remained, a means of getting artificial light but look how much it improved over the years.

I think you can build a good proposal out of this!

Thanks again for your comments, i value your opinion. Even if this proposal doesn’t end up being accepted, I am very happy I got to have this discussion with the community.


The white paper protects BTCZ by having put in place a power sharing and decision making mechanism which is the voting system. If the community wanted to decide on anything, like what to do, how to do it, who should do it…they have the white paper’s voting system to settle things.

BTCZ doesn’t care about the actor, it only cares about the idea. Before getting executed, all ideas that matter go through the voting system. Malicious ideas will get caught and that’s all that really matters. Bad actors can try as often as they want.

If so, why this?

I’m aware that your statement above isn’t part of your proposal, but this is precisely the rationale behind my forewarning statement:

Companies, manufacturers, governments etc will not, or are less likely to, recognize BTCZ if there is no SIZEABLE USER BASE behind it.

If BTCZ has the users (read: the general public) behind it, it will have no use for a defined entity because it won’t ever face the need to talk to anybody. Anyone who wants to engage with BTCZ only needs to find someone knowledgeable – perhaps someone who made it through the voting system – to teach, guide, educate them about BTCZ. They will discuss only technical matters because BTCZ doesn’t care about legalities, contracts and the like.

Also, and perhaps more importantly, no defined entity means one less channel for bad actors to execute their plans through.

I was referring to the white paper, which insofar as the founding principles and the voting system are concerned, I’m convinced is good enough at its present state and doesn’t need changing, hence does not need to “speak” any more. We, the community, can speak all we want, of course.

Yes, I was referring to changes to the founding principles, changes to the voting system…not to changes to technology. Obviously, improvements to technology are welcome.

No need for a proposal – BTCZ was created to function just that: a currency that people actually use. A replacement to fiat, this is BTCZ’s true purpose, essentially what I’m trying to say in my “call to action” above.

Please refer to the word ‘additional’ to guide you. There will be no changes to the voting system, no changes to the core principles. Period.

The ADDITIONAL clauses I was referring to would, for example, provide guidance on signing contracts on behalf of the community etc. Currently, the WP doesn’t have any guidance around it.

I do not share your opinion on this. I think we should all care.

As mentioned above, there would be no changes to the voting system.

Whatever you were referring to, I personally think it would be unwise, in ANY situation, to never speak again. Probably the most counterproductive thing you can decide to do.

Many thanks

I have yet to see any further discussion on this. Based on my points, I see that the only benefit to forming this would be to enter into contractual agreements as an organization.

Since this does not appear to afford us that right, I don’t see that this is necessary. Someone that is already part of the trusted group (if they require infrastructure access) can already enter into these agreements by creating their own legalized entity for the specific purpose of entering into contractual agreements. Even further, someone that does not require trusted access can still enter into agreements and utilize the BitcoinZ blockchain, to the benefit of the community.

In light of the above, I’ve voted No on this proposal. Apelan thank you very much for the extensive research in this.

The vote continues for another couple of days.

Not sure how I completely missed your posts plodoto - but I’m glad I was able to read them. I do indeed believe we are protected from bad actors, and as it pertains to this proposal (I mentioned it in Discord) - as it is written does not seem to abide by one of the prongs of the Proposal Criteria for Community Acceptance.

Specifically - it fails at “Fair and not detrimental to the present or future of the chain” - more so the “not detrimental to the present or future of the chain”.

Here I explain how the current trusted group has been formed, and how it can continue to grow. This is fundamentally a major flaw in this proposal. It could mean that unknowns are voted into a trusted position, even though Jhanny mentioned in chat, that its a form of an assumption, my response is that we need to act preemptively to potential threats.

Having seemingly stripped the effectiveness of this proposals approach as it stands, I don’t see any reason why this should take effect. The entry of unknowns into trusted positions puts the chain in jeopardy, and hence, is a violation of the Community Paper and specifically “detrimental to the present or future of the chain”.


A person can have many ideas, some good, some bad. This is why it makes sense to screen just ideas, not people.

Those clauses are just supporting arguments for the “defined entity” being proposed, which is not only unnecessary but also potentially detrimental to BTCZ’s success, as I have explained in my earlier post.

Yes, like I said…

Thanks everyone for sharing your views on my proposal, it became a topic of an interesting debate here and on our social media channels.

Further to the above comments that suggest this proposal goes against out WP I decided to cancel it.

I hope that despite cancelling the proposal, the discussion will continue and community can find a way to improve our legal standing as a united community without it infringing on the founding principles.

I will take a break for a min I think, I will, behind the scenes continue to work on Kiva and the charitable aspect.

“One of the great liabilities of history is that all too many people fail to remain awake through great periods of social change. Every society has its protectors of status quo and its fraternities of the indifferent who are notorious for sleeping through revolutions. Today, our very survival depends on our ability to stay awake, to adjust to new ideas, to remain vigilant and to face the challenge of change.”

  • Martin Luther King, Jr.

Thank you for taking the time to write down and defend your ideas. See you around.

1 Like

Its really really nice @Apelan you worked out an idea, you were fighting for it and you had the power to cancel it.
It shows how strong are you and you really want good for the community. It was not worthless, we all learning together. :wink:

1 Like