also sprach Daniel Pocock <daniel@pocock.pro> [2014-08-24 22:52 -0700]: > Just to clarify this point: I'm talking about situations where the > expense is defined in some nominal Bitcoin amount, not where > Debian has some USD expense and the vendor will accept the > equivalent in BTC based on the USD/BTC conversion rate at the > moment payment is executed. I agree with you. However, this is a (global) chicken-egg problem and we could contribute a little tiny bit towards solving that. > But that is like saying Debian should also set aside $5000 worth > of silver (it is used in computers) or $5000 worth of contracts to > buy oil (energy prices impact data centers). A speculative > investment in any of those may be useful for some purpose, but how > does Debian decide which is best out of BTC, XAG, oil and all the > other possibilities? There is something to be said for diversification of assets. Here is the proposal I would like to make: Let's define a maximum amount, e.g. $5.000 and up until that amount, we are free to figure out best practices and see if this is something from which Debian could benefit and hence something we want to do long-term. If we exceeded the limit (consistently for a longer time period), we would convert to fiat. Below that, we get our hands dirty and the maximum risk would be losing $5.000, which is highly unlikely anyway, but Debian could handle it. My motivation is simply that I think it's tedious to argue over issues we only think exist. Let's get our hands dirty instead and keep an open mind. "rough consensus and working code…" -- .''`. martin f. krafft <madduck@d.o> @martinkrafft : :' : proud Debian developer `. `'` http://people.debian.org/~madduck `- Debian - when you have better things to do than fixing systems
Attachment:
digital_signature_gpg.asc
Description: Digital signature (see http://martin-krafft.net/gpg/sig-policy/999bbcc4/current)