Quote from: EcuaMobi on May 14, 2019, 01:38:47 AM

Quote from: yahoo62278 on May 14, 2019, 12:46:13 AM

I'll would almost guarantee that he has the home address and real name of OGNasty in case something like theft were to happen

I sure hope so. I'd consider that absolutely required, regardless of whether a multisig address is used, for security, to sign the contract and for tax purposes.
That would also allow to make sure the chosen treasurers are really different people and not related to each other, which worried QS.

My concerns are primarily around possible business relationships. If you would trust the keyholders with being solely in control of 500BTC, having this conflict will not make any difference, however if the conclusion is the person would only be safe to hold much less BTC, my concerns become more relevant.

Quote from: OgNasty on May 14, 2019, 02:28:54 AM

Quote from: yahoo62278 on May 14, 2019, 12:46:13 AM

I doubt very much he's gonna just send 500 btc to a guy and not have some sort of information on the guy.

When theymos sent me the treasury funds, I had not given him any information about myself whatsoever. I keep the funds safe because I am an honest person, not out of fear that I couldn't take the BTC. Read the contract...

"This is a non-legal agreement between The Bitcoin Forum ("Forum") and OgNasty ("Treasurer"). This agreement is intended to be enforced in a non-violent, non-legal way by the community."

This Libertarian treasury experiment was a leap of faith by theymos, and I am not going to disappoint him. Don't just take my word for it though. Watch and see.

This seems to have worked well with living treasurers, but not so much when the treasurer dies. I suspect this is in part because a treasurers heirs are not going to care about the community the same way a treasurer will, given a best case scenario, and a more common scenario is that the heirs will make a mistake and sell the treasurers computer equipment holding the private keys