Quote from: hilariousetc on May 15, 2019, 01:08:14 PM

Why is a recurring fee even necessary? Don't get me wrong, I wouldn't turn a fee down if someone offered me it but it doesn't seem like it's essential for doing something that requires no effort once it's been set up. Is OG still being paid 0.5 a month? I know many people like to do things in bitcoin around here but this is why paying things fixed in fiat often makes much more sense, especially if it's a long-term arrangement. It's obviously worked out great for OG but not for the forum and could get much worse.

Forum bug bounties are already denominated in XAU but...

Quote

So you're perfectly fine to do long-term deals in fixed in bitcoin? 0.5 a month was probably mere hundreds when it was initially given. Now it's literally thousands.

... the BTC held by OgNasty has also increased in value. There's an argument to be made that the increase in risk isn't collinear with real remuneration as Bitcoin appreciates in value, but if I'm getting things right, the agreement was first drafted in March 2013 when 1 BTC was worth less than $100. $50 a month for keeping $10M (at Bitcoin peak value) with no multisig sounds way too low to me.

Quote

Well I think the ultimate confirmation of that would be if/when he sends it back (and not saying he wont). Can't remember the guys name but there was one treasurer who was refusing to send the money back initially because his 'wife' was holding his hard drives to ransom or something because someone had said something "she" didn't like here. Obviously complete bullshit and he was just annoyed but he did return them in the end once he'd calmed down which I'll give him credit for.

CIYAM/Ian Knowles.

Quote from: LoyceMobile on May 13, 2019, 09:25:36 PM

If there's going to be a multisig treasurer system, wouldn't it make sense to only pay the treasurers for their services after the funds have been paid back?

Potential treasurers might not care as much to always be around/available and respond within a reasonable time frame if they aren't getting something in exchange. In a scheme involving multiple people, more than one person might start caring less about being available if something takes away their interest from the forum for some time, in the belief that other treasurers are all going to be available.

Quote from: cestmoi on May 16, 2019, 09:52:05 PM

So it is not about the "trust" it is about the "what if" inherent to us living in a world that is safe but not empty of tragedies.
In that case, why not a 1-out-of-2 multisig option with Theymos and OG having a key.
OG is still in charge of the coins as treasurer, the back-up being Theymos also having a key.
Both could spend the coins if needed.
Everybody would be happy, not need to have 7 members like some of you guys said.

Multisig can safeguard the money against the treasurer getting hit by a bus, and 1-of-2 multisig is fine for that (bus factor x2 compared to no multisig), but it can also be used to keep money safe in the event that one or more treasurer decides to retire earlier and with more money. The 1-of-2 scheme doubles this risk, so obviously a different one should be employed.

Same goes for the unlikely but possible event that a treasurer gets kidnapped/tortured/extorted. In the cryptoland there have been more than a few instances of violence employed against cryptocurrency owners to get to their money. Also, on this very forum even some of the most trustworthy people have become scammers (or otherwise contributed to the misappropriation of other peoples' money, but if there's a loss, the distinction hardly matters to the victim(s)), and theymos like no one else should be well aware of this fact.

Given the sums involved, a potential for criminal conspiracy between some treasurers is also something to be taken into consideration. All in all, there aren't many highly trusted individuals fit for this long-term arrangement of a job. And among those who are qualified not everyone might be willing to participate. Theymos/the Bitcoin Forum is already out of 250 BTC after paraipan died without leaving a reliable dead-man's switch, so it makes sense to be more cautious when deciding how and to whom the BTC should be sent to for gatekeeping.

e: typo