Bitcoin Forum

https://encrypted-tbn3.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcS_SmDARtMdvMnc4drTawAqfVzemd_yktCp-8iW61G337JdVpUtqQ
Roger Ver has been spreading the ideas of Bitcoin for years with his advertisements on Free Talk Live,
his bold $10 000 bet (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gfydIbhduu0), his investments in many Bitcoin related projects
(such as blockchain.info and Bitcoinstore.com) and his many public appearances (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X4d_29vJlB4).

Remember this?
http://prospectingjournal.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/07/BITCOIN_BILLBOARD.jpg
Yup, that was also him. (Man, was I excited in 2011 when I saw this!)




http://lifeboat.com/board/jon.matonis.jpg
Jon Matonis published countless article about Bitcoins (many on Forbes (http://www.forbes.com/sites/jonmatonis/)) and has a
professional background in the banking system, making him an excellent liaison
with this otherwise strange world. He also made multiple public appearances (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9xKaeS1iLec).


Both of these individuals are amazingly well spoken and have brilliantly spread
the Bitcoin word for years. And yet, now that Bitcoin is getting more media exposure, they have
been rejected (https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin.org/pull/139) from bitcoin.org as potential interviewees (http://bitcoin.org/en/bitcoin-for-press). Apparently, their views are too
"extreme" to be shown on TV, or they have done some things in the past that could be
used against Bitcoin image, even if completely unrelated. (Yeah right, Silkroad and the anonymity aren't enough...)

I think this is a load of crap.
You have potentially the most important invention in the history of mankind, but you try to gift-wrap
it in a nice little politically-correct package. What are you afraid of? If Bitcoin is an efficient system,
it will be adopted regardless of the opinions of some of the speakers.

As this move seemed to have gone mostly unnoticed, I wanted to bring some light to it.

So, any of you appreciates what those two individuals have done for Bitcoin?
Do you think they should be pushed aside to protect Bitcoin's image?
If, like me, you think they are great representatives for Bitcoin, please speak!

I'm not sure I understand why there needs to be <5 people listed as press contacts. If by magical decree there could only be 4 press contacts, then of course there will be great advocates that wouldn't make the cut for one reason or another, but there is no such decree. Jon Matonis and Roger Ver could and should be listed. Bitcoin is not so weak that a less than perfect spokesperson (however perfection is defined) would destroy it. Quite the opposite, in fact.

Love both these guys and can't have enough appreciation for the sacrifices they've made for bitcoin, but I actually agree that they are a bit too extreme and not very well-rounded thinkers/speakers.  I'm glad bitcoin.org is migrating toward a more moderate and pragmatic representation

Some of the Bitcoin community is claiming to speak for all of Bitcoin. Those that are claiming the voice have an irrational fear of anarchists and other such horrible things that might make Bitcoin look "weird".

Uh...right.

We also can't have Joe Mainstream thinking that the first stateless, decentralized currency is some kind of anti-government/bank statement, even though its creator said:


    
My own opinion is that it makes no difference if Bitcoin is accepted by the "mainstream" or not. They'll have to use it in two or three years anyway. The more quickly the tools of the mainstreaming banks and governments like MtGox, Coinbase, Coinlab and other centralizing influences are gone, the better off Bitcoin will be.

Bitcoin would also be better off if people didn't claim to speak for Bitcoin.

I will say that I have always thought of Tony Gallippi as the best at pitching bitcoin. Everybody else mixes politics and computer science to various degrees in their bitcoin pitch, but Tony's is 100% business.

Tony Gallippi is by far one of the most articulate bitcoin advocates out there.  Here is a great example: http://youtu.be/hH4rH6wu25U

Roger Ver I don't trust.

Jon Matonis has been and will continue to be a great advocate for bitcoin as a journalist and doesn't need to be on the press list.  Just read any of his articles over the past few years or better yet follow him on twitter.  https://twitter.com/jonmatonis (https://twitter.com/jonmatonis)

A real journalists is going to talk to whoever they want if they do a little research,  regardless of whether or not they are listed on the press page.

What's your beef?

This is the real issue; assisting journalists in performing their professional responsibilities.

As I commented on the thread:

just a guess but if the press wants to do a story on bitcoin they will probably interview someone actually involved with bitcoin like a business owner? Or a user?

I was the first bitcoin blogger and wrote the first press releases, which I believe attracted some of the first users.  As bitcoin grew others have taken my role which I have accepted.

notig,

unfortunately this form of journalism is essential dead. 

Most media outlets just reprint what they are feed.

What about Bruce Wagner? </sarcasm>

Personally, I have always understood "press contacts" to be facilitators of information between the working world and the press world. PR managers if you will. That very duty demands someone who is good at presenting things in a factual light, without emotional or financial bias of any kind. Basically, there are probably pretty few people in bitcoin suitable for the job because they're either nerds with no social skills, businessmen who only want to plug their own tools, activists who will scare everyone away, or conspiracy theorists who think that the questions being asked are "attacks on bitcoin". This is kind of why I co-started Bitcoin Magazine in the first place, to give a place where media could go to for information (although that has yet to prove itself as such).

Maybe you should have someone like Adam Back who developed hashcash be a contact, since he talked with Satoshi, understands what Satoshi was trying to do, and has both understanding in the technical topics and an ability to speak with other humans without making everything offensive.

Governments don't care what the "official representatives" of bitcoin.org say, the only thing that matters to governments is whether they will be able to control Bitcoin. If not, they will say anything to discredit you, even if your "official spokesmen" are politically correct as well as immaculate saints. Deal with it.

Thank you for establishing that you should also not be on the list. No one said anything about governments. We were talking about press contacts for slimey news organizations who would take something you said and make us all look like kooks. Yes, I suppose it's possible that what's in the news has an affect on laws being created, but your obsession with governments and extremist tone makes me think that you'd be a perfect person for them to interview if their intention were to discredit bitcoin as a joke.

A time progresses, advocacy needs to be watered-down and dumbed-down to appeal to an ever larger audience. Until at a certain point, Joe Sixpack can explain the advantages of using Bitcoin to Jane Sixpack without mentioning any technical detail. A lot of the early adopters and promoters will think this sucks but are drowned out in the noise of millions of new users.

Government and business people will come up with weird, far-fetched analogies such as series of pipes, and we'll know it's exactly like the internet in the 90's :)

I wonder if half of bitcoiners realize that arguments on reddit and other places caused by someone's inaccurate depictions of bitcoin aren't due to actual ignorance, but are in fact intentionally inaccurate to draw out the emotional and overly defensive crazies for comedic value. Bitcoin or not, crazy is never good.

There's little to any difference between slimy media and slimy government these days, especially in the US.


Anyone using Bitcoin is a kook by default to the mass media. Anyone with more than 100 posts on this board would be considered a kook in the mass perception.

I am the one who pushed the press center without Roger Ver and John Matonis. If they were still on the page, the page wouldn't be online at all because there was legitimate discussions and disagreement on them. Not only from developers, most criticisms came as comments from contributors I don't know, and they presented good arguments. So I took action to make sure that this wouldn't block the whole project for two interviewees that we can add later if needed.

As said in the github issue, civilized criticisms and arguments are welcome. An issue for Roger Ver has been opened already.

However, choosing interviewees will always generate accusations and criticisms no matter what is the final choice. I don't mind being a target for criticisms. What matters to me is that we have a press center with great quality content for journalists and we didn't have it yesterday. We can continue to improve it. The current interviewees list is really just a beginning, we want much more.

If you want to participate in the press team, there it is : https://groups.google.com/forum/#!forum/bitcoin-press-team

Jesus, this is ridiculous.  I can barely even read it.  It's like a bunch of five-year-olds fighting over who gets to be the prettiest princess.  Ironically, if any of them should be kept far away from the media, it's Jeff Garzik.  He's the only one of those mentioned who repeatedly says stupid things to the press, and generally looks like a hobo while doing so.

I have been as skeptical about Matonis and Ver as anyone, probably moreso, but no one can deny that they are doing an effective job of representing Bitcoin in the media.  Hell, even Matthew, who is a complete idiot otherwise, would make a decent media spokesperson.  It's not a skillset that tends to coincide with software development.  It requires a quick wit, wide understanding of the topic at hand, and most importantly an alpha personality.

And, Luke-Jr, buddy... lol.  At least try to remember that you wouldn't even be on the dev team if it were a popularity contest, and keep the statist obstructionism to a minimum.

I remember that, too, from the early internet. Many mass media tried to trivialize and belittle the internet, its impact on society, and its users. And when the dotnet bubble burst it was all over, the internet was dead, we'd go back to the old ways. That mostly went away as years passed :) Good ideas won't go away when people are laughing at them. But there is an initial hostility toward new technologies, what Michio Kaku calls "The caveman principle": If it wouldn't appeal to our early ancestors, it won't appeal to random people now.

Anyway, the earlier advocated were very different from the latter ones. Take for example another idea that was severely belittled and underestimated in the beginning: free software. Though he was great at pitching the idea to software developers and idealists back in the day, most news outlets are not going to invite Richard Stallman to an interview about the subject. He's just too extreme.

As a latter-day advocate you need someone that is likable in the eyes of the masses, doesn't make them think too much, doesn't say anything too politically incorrect (or idealistic), wears a suit and tie and makes great promises, tells you why *thing* will make your friends and family love you more, makes your skin look younger, improve the taste of your food and improve your sex life. Only that, and generational shifts, will conquer the caveman principle.

And Bitcoin probably might not exist but for some of the foundational work put down by Stallman. It doesn't matter what the mass of mediocrity that is mainstream culture thinks about Stallman or Bitcoin. Free software and Bitcoin keep on rolling, don't they?

Wanna know what sells Bitcoin to those in my life that come to me wanting to know about it? They can hide their money from banks and governments. That's what will sell Bitcoin to people, not the fluffy bullshit about "yes sir! so happy to be regulated" and "tax me, please!".

The good journalists will find Matonis anyway, and the bad journalists will keep saying the usual BS, despite the likability of your spokesman.

This is exactly the problem. If you want Bitcoin to succeed, you should be encouraging people to pay their taxes.
If all you care about is tax evasion, you are part of the problem.

Well, not necessarily encouraging to pay taxes, but discouraging raving fanatics who have no concern for their fellow man and just want to watch the world burn because they hate some dudes at the top. There may be a country someplace where you would actively *disagree* with paying taxes too, like North Korea for example. For the USA though? Probably better to not say "don't pay taxes" and rather just "don't do anything stupid and don't be a loud mouthed anarchist who puts everyone around them in danger".

Afterall, don't like the US? Move. I did. Staying there and not following the law because "freedom" and all that is kind of dumb. Go kill some officials and overthrow the government, or spend your life changing the laws from the inside out, but just ignoring the laws that everyone else in your country agreed to put into place is just stupid. Go someplace where those laws that make you uncomfortable don't exist, change your citizenship like so many are doing, and get it over with. Why fight something you don't want to be a part of anyway, while selfishly living off of it's rewards at the same time?

(Not talking about you Luke, actually agreeing with you)

Why? Bitcoin will succeed with or without people paying taxes.


Bitcoin was created as a weapon and a balance against the power of banks and governments. You can use it however you like. I'll use it for its intended purpose.

Imagine a roomful of 100 people that know nothing about Bitcoin. I'll tell 50 people people why Bitcoin was created and what they can do with it. You tell 50 people they can use Bitcoin but only if they pay their taxes.

If I know humans, and I do, I'd be willing to bet some bitcoins who'd be able to sway more people to Bitcoin.

Better yet, Let's put Ben Bernanke in charge of Bitcoin.

PM me. I'll invite you to my town for two days and you can post a public apology after your stay.

This is a serious offer. Put up or shut up.

If all you have left is namecalling, you ain't got shit.


I was wondering why the property rates went up.

Fedcoin: A centrally-issued alternative to peer-to-peer currencies (http://peculium.net/2013/03/26/fedcoin-a-centrally-issued-alternative-to-peer-to-peer-currencies/)

Please don't get me wrong. I'm not saying that his work was and isn't still very important. In my opinion it is. In general, someone's work may be very important, for example a scientist may be toiling his entire life finding out some basic principle about the universe, ideas that change technology and infrastructure forever. That doesn't mean that the masses will ever acknowledge that. Stallman isn't exactly out of a job either. There's always idealists to pitch to, too, and in the long run they may be more influential.

My point was that the people that communicate something to the masses are usually not the great thinkers that came up with the idea/implementation themselves, but people that are good at communicating and 'feeling' people. And yes that's fluffy...  But that's MSM and they have a lot of short-term influence. I was just trying to explain why first-day promoters of the principle are being ignored by MSM in favor of new talking heads as popularity increases, as that was the question in the OP.

xD  With your permission, I will translate the text into Spanish for posting it on elbitcoin.org.

GNU didn't need the fluffy stuff. Linux didn't need the fluffy stuff. Bitcoin doesn't need the fluffy stuff. People looking to make some money or a name for themselves like to dish out the fluffy stuff. That's all fine and dandy as we're all free to make a living as long as we don't engage in force or fraud.

But let's not labor under the untrue notion that Bitcoin "needs" a PR department.

I'd be honored! Thank you.

I can assume you're the one that translated the "Bubble" article earlier? Please feel free to take anything from the site that would be of use.

What, you mean like cash and Tide laundry detergent?

Is that why there's no more cash? ;)

Agreed.

Having concern for your fellow man is a lot deeper than being able to borrow sugar. Telling everyone they should fight against paying taxes will end badly for everyone involved. If your belief is that Bitcoin is a way of doing that without even talking, why don't you just do it then without even talking?

It's like saying "drugs shouldn't be illegal!" so you go shoot up in front of a police station because "drugs were designed to make you free and everyone who will do drugs will love them for that reason". Yea, but why would you want to sit in front of the police station and invite violence, when you could just get the fuck out there, or better yet, join the police force and let people go on a regular basis who do it? You're not very clever or passionate about changing things if you think change is going to happen in your lifetime by just pissing governments off. History backs me up on this one. Bitcoin isn't going to cripple governments. Bullets in their brains might, or 200 more years of evolution.

You can catch more flies with honey than you can with vinegar. Let the politicians know why bitcoin is good for them. Let the businesses know why it's good for them. Evolve society, then post your public apology when everything sorts itself out and you realize people like you were the reason it didn't happen sooner. </end rant>

You have exactly zero room to say anything on the topics of honey and vinegar, Matthew.

Since no apology is forthcoming from you for your descent, or maybe ascent for you, into namecalling, I guess I have nothing left to say.

I'm not here to be pleasant to you Severian, I can't hold your hand during this discussion, you need to find the points and respond to them or ignore them completely.  You're presenting unpleasant cultism into this discussion, recommending that people endanger themselves for your ideals. What is unpleasant to me is being branded as a terrorist because I use Tor, just because some other dirtbag decided to use it for illegal purposes and then brag about it. This is why we can't have nice things. Stop dragging emotion into it, it's absolutely a logical argument. You're sitting beside a pack of wolves who doesn't notice you, you're claiming we should all shout out "HEY WOLVES, WE AREN'T AFRAID OF YOU" just because "bitcoin". Why not just kill them in their sleep and keep our mouths shut? Why not just walk around the pack completely and let them starve? Why advertise?

Banks are already making it difficult. Bitfloor was the shot across the bow. Bitcoin is seen as a threat to the central banks because its continued existence undermines their reputation. There's no PR department in the world that can counter the storm of BS that's coming.

What happened to Bitfloor? I thought they were *hacked*. What does that have to do with banksters and our evil reptilian government overlords?

Bitcointalk to manage a team? Seriously. This group has been announced on bitcointalk before the group was actually created.
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=156364.0

Their bank account is being closed - something which has happened to exchanges so often in the past that they should have had a contingency plan.

Were they AML compliant? Did they register with FinCEN? Did they do anything that everyone else who runs an exchange has had to do or were they just winging it because "bitcoin is freedom maaan"?


Also what you said. Why would a high risk merchant have only a single account?

Indeed. Thank you!

I'd just like to thank Roger Ver for the amazing things he's done for bitcoin and thus for the whole world! :) You are a true hero!

+1

The regulators may dislike what he says, but what about the millions that are trying to survive the regulations?

How about the millions of bitcoiners who don't want their police taken away from them and replaced with a society that the richest people only have police like Roger does? I don't think we have to worry about the regulators as much as people from within bitcoin destroying it with their own capitalist agendas or extremism to be honest. Let's hope it grows fast enough that none of this will matter.

I think we have to worry about people from within bitcoin that are extremely untrustworthy.

I agree, be sure to point one of those people out if you see one. I'll do the same.

There's no working with banks. I'll use the banks if it suits my agenda just like they do with us, but I have no interest in working with them.

First, I think Bitcoin is amazing but it is objectively way less important than the invention of fire, electricity, the contraceptive pill, and a bunch of other stuff. You'd rather have Bitcoin or antibiotics?

Second, it is naive to think that the future has already been written. There's nothing ineluctable about Bitcoin and its image will impact its adoption. Put Ben Laden in charge of the PR, and you will see what will happen to your beloved currency (hint: it won't be pretty).

Ok, just be careful - some of them have scammed many people in the (not so distant) past.

I don't use exchanges to buy or sell bitcoins. I have other sources and I move them around to people that want them in my social and business circles.

Kind of the way we should all feel about Bitcoin if you ask me.



I know, it was a joke. Some people on these forums are cold, lifeless, humorless, overly serious, some people recognize mistakes of others but don't forgive them for it, and still some are paranoid regardless of any facts presented to them. People like majamalu probably think growing up is a spotless endeavor with flawless results and that anyone who makes mistakes is probably "untrustworthy", primarily because a single admin who refuses to give a scammer tag to *actual scammers* (BFL) decided it was so! Frankly, I'll take a guy who admits his mistakes and fixes them over someone who throws around claims that people "can't be trusted" any day.

I have no problem that Sonny (BFL) went to prison, nor what Roger Ver did, so long as the reasons they did aren't reoccurring (For Sonny, they are. I don't see Roger selling explosives through the BitcoinStore though). So why would someone claim I'm untrustworthy to carry money, operate a business, speak publicly or cook for them just because I made a prank bet and then ended up paying it anyway because I felt sorry for others? It's just more cultist assbackwards extremist paranoia that makes all bitcoiners look like kooks.

In line with the original topic of this thread, I remember the Reddit and Forum threads about "Keep[ing] Amir off TV!". It was a disgusting display of pigs slopping over each other to say the least. "He's not dressed right!". He's also not trying to be the "representative of Bitcoin". Everyone here is a representative of bitcoin everytime we talk, and we will all have different view points. The point of this thread was to discuss people whom we can *all* agree more or less will cover the topics in a way we can all agree with. I don't think Roger Ver's viewpoint about how Bitcoin will destory the governments is one I would be proud support, nor do I believe anyone on this forum who claims that Bitcoin was invented for tax evasion should ever be chosen for that role either.

How about someone who talks about Bitcoin leading digital currency evolution and making it easier for people to *share*? Why is everything about VENGEANCE TOWARDS THE BANKS and KILLING OUR MASTERS? Better yet, how about someone who can publicly admit that Bitcoin could fail, that it is a project and an experiment, and that it is most likely that it will simply lead the way to better alternatives and not be the end-all solution in and of itself? In other words, a fucking realist (or as some of you would probably mislabel them, "BITCOIN DETRACTORS").

"Bitcoin has neither an official organization, individuals with authority nor spokespeople."

-- quoted from bitcoin.org "Press" web page

Yes, this was added by Trace and ACK by me and jgarzik a few hours ago. This might help finding a good compromise add better address the issues that has been raised. We shall see!

Looking forward to it!

For anyone who doesn't know me,  I'm Roger Ver.

Since discovering Bitcoin in late 2010,  it has consumed every moment of my life.

My company, Memorydealers.com (http://Memorydealers.com) was the first semi-mainstream business to accept Bitcoin as payment.

I'm directly responsible for

1. National radio advertisements on more than 100 stations for over two years. @ $2,800 / month http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5pV9ptoCMyc (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5pV9ptoCMyc)
2. A Bitcoin Bilboard for over 2 years.  @ $1,200 / month
3. Bitcoinstore.com (http://Bitcoinstore.com)
4. The Bitcoin Bet  http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gfydIbhduu0 (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gfydIbhduu0)
5. I was the first and only outside investor in Bitinstant.com (http://Bitinstant.com), Blockchain.info (http://Blockchain.info), BuyBitcoin.co.kr (http://BuyBitcoin.co.kr) and several others.
6. I was part of the seed investment round for  Coinlab.com (http://Coinlab.com), Bitpay.com (http://Bitpay.com), Kraken.com (http://Kraken.com) and several others.
7. I donated over $100,000 USD worth of Bitcoins to the Bitcoin foundation to help get it started. (value at the time of the payment)
8. I've also donated more bitcoins than I can count to various charities, organizations, and groups who's goals I support.

The reason  I have done all of the above is because of the philosophy I hold.
I think that all human interactions should be on a voluntary basis.
I'm opposed to using violence or threats to solve social problems.
I see Bitcoin, combined with the internet, as the best tool the world has ever seen for minimizing the amount of violence in our society.


What I'm advocating isn't extreme.
The governmental systems we have today,  that murder hundreds of millions of innocents,  drop nuclear bombs, enforce sanctions,  extort money under the threat of violence, control capital flow,  debase currencies,  and retard the overall rate of economic growth,  causing everyone to be poorer than they otherwise would have been, is extreme.

Whether or not I end up listed on the press page,  with every waking moment, I will continue to promote Bitcoin and the voluntary world it will help to bring us closer to.

My philosophy aside,  I do think it is clear that I'm great at promoting Bitcoin:

http://video.foxbusiness.com/v/2297014298001/should-bitcoin-be-regulated/ (http://video.foxbusiness.com/v/2297014298001/should-bitcoin-be-regulated/)

http://live.huffingtonpost.com/r/segment/the-ups-and-downs-of/5037b5b402a76066bd0000da (http://live.huffingtonpost.com/r/segment/the-ups-and-downs-of/5037b5b402a76066bd0000da)

https://sphotos-b.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ash4/400799_420194741351368_782844884_n.jpg

I also think that the following people should also be added to the press page:

Jon Matonis
Erik Voorhees
Jeff Berwick
 

Bitcoin is about inclusion,  not exclusion.

Indeed, it didn't take long ...

Yeah, let's add the person responsible for the most violent damage against Bitcoin done to date...

MtGox? Butterfly Labs? Pirate? I'm lost.

There's no particular reason there are only 5 people there. There should be more but we wanted the press center to go live as soon as possible in order to try and catch the tail end of this media cycle, and be ready for another one should something dramatic happen and interest flares up again. It's still a work in progress.

Re: who ends up on the site. The initial criteria we used were to find people who would basically stay away from politics and stick to educating journalists about how the system works at a technical and financial level. That's it. Simple as that.

As it happens, I often agree with Jon and have enjoyed Roger's contributions to Bitcoin. But in the end I agreed with the initial version not having them there because the goal is to have people who will be reliably apolitical or, at worst, boringly mainstream.

I'd like the site to evolve over time so that journalists who explicitly want to get the libertarian perspective can easily find such people and nobody will be taken by surprise when their interviewee suddenly starts espousing unusual political views. But it's super important that this clarity exists because the media is an echo chamber - it only takes one or two stories that paint all Bitcoin users as fringe anarcho-capitalists to switch off huge swathes of people who would otherwise consider getting involved.

Hasn't this already happened?  Bitcoin users have been painted as illegal drug users and weapons buyers in the mainstream. 

And yet despite this Bitcoin's popularity grew to the point where the price took off.  Who cares what the mainstream media thinks?  They become more irrelevant as each day goes by.

Indeed the press page should not be regarded "a shortlist of people that the community respects". It has nothing to do with who we personally respect, just who we trust can explain the concept as boringly and simply journalists as possible, without saying things that the journalists can blow out of proportion.

Hear, hear. Roger Ver has my full support. I've yet to observe him do or say anything that could be called objectionable, extreme or untruthful in any way.

It may be more a sign of the times and current society that we live in that a message of peace and non-violence is found to be "unspeakable". These are not times for lily-livers and weak of heart who fear speaking the truth to power.

Just tell the truth, how hard can that be?

This is the issue; the standard for inclusion and it is likely determined based on the strategy for the Press Center.

Trace Mayer pushed for the standard for inclusion to be competence, professionalism and generally good reputation in the Bitcoin community. This would be to further the strategy that the Press Center should assist journalists in finding competent and professional individuals for whatever stories or segments they are producing.

Jeff Garzik, gmaxwell and Lukejr turned this into an issue by moving to strike Jon Matonis and Roger Ver, two established Bitcoin community members who present themselves competently and articulately, based solely on their political ideas. Now, instead of discussing the topic of strategy and purpose for the Press Center, jgarzik wants to silence any debate. I think that determining the press strategy is very important.

I think the goal of this Press center should be to make the press's job easier and the standard used for inclusion should be competence and professionalism along with established reputations in the Bitcoin community. I do not see why political ideology is relevant or should be used for any type of test or standard for inclusion.

It appears, implicitly in their argument, that they want to politicize the Press center by making political ideology relevant as a test for inclusion. As a professional journalist myself I think that using political ideology as a test or standard for inclusion will be a disservice to the other journalists who visit this page seeking guests or commentators for pieces they are writing or segments they are producing.

Since the argument against inclusion is politically motivated, using political ideas as a standard for inclusion, therefore I doubt this issue will just go away after a 'cool-down period' and therefore needs to be addressed by logic and reason. Consequently, if Jeff Garzik, gmaxwell and LukeJR could please present the reasoning for their argument I think it would go a long way.

Indeed. As someone who was persuaded to adopt Bitcoin by Jon Matonis's voluminous and eloquent output (http://themonetaryfuture.blogspot.com/) on the subject, and as someone who holds Roger Ver in the highest esteem for his integrity and significant contributions (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=181168.msg1893085#msg1893085) to the project, I think any effort to censor these two eminent gentlemen based on political views can be considered nothing short of shameful.

Both Matonis and Ver are excellent and effective spokesmen for the project and, self-evidently, ought to be featured in any press section on Bitcoin.org.

I typed a whole spiel about the importance of guests not only handling themselves well, but crucially being invited back by the media; but after watching the clip again I just want to leave this here:

Katherine Mangu-Ward of Reason magazine on Fox.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L6kRZo63IPE (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L6kRZo63IPE)

Katherine's composure and answers were even better than I remembered them; and should remind everyone that it is possible to have a sensible MSM discussion between adults on the politics of bitcoin and its effect on the scope of government.

Having said that, it's better to keep bitcoin.org focused on a new and interesting payment protocol and currency. The politics and implications can be handled elsewhere (Bitcoin Political Action Comittee: BitPAC??), by passionate people like Roger, Erik, Jeff B, Katherine and others.

It's incredibly tangled right now, but we do need at some point to draw a line between the steel and the weapon. Leaving one set of people to get on with (and help explain) the technical stuff, and another group to convince the world that bitcoin can help construct a future you might actually enjoy living in. With each making a concerted effort not to step on each others turf. Gavin already has done a pretty good job of remaining apolitical in media interviews. People can contribute to one or both groups as they so choose but bitcoin.org should be a useful informational resource, not an ideological one IMHO.

PR is hard, and for bitcoin it could be going a lot worse than it currently is. Let's at least be thankful for that.

+1 Roger Ver and Erik Voorhees are definitely the best speakers for bitcoin. Jon Matonis does great articles, I have only seen one interview with him, but from what I can remember he did a great job. Looking at that press center list, there are people I wouldn't mind replacing, like Jeff Garzik who seems very pro government and Arwa Mahdawi who I honestly have not even heard of. Also, in addition to Roger, Erik & Jon, I would like to see Jeff Berwick on that list.

Being a digital asset doesn't make it a tax evasion tool, those who buying houses actually get tax deduction  ;)

I believe you're mistaken.  I prefer to be attacked - it's the only way we will learn to defend ourselves effectively.

Trace is right:


This is an important and interesting thread - and quite revealing.

The only thing I have to add to it is this old piece of wisdom, not of my devising; which I would urge everyone to consider well:

We become what we hate.

This decreases my trust in jgarzik, gmaxwell and Luke Jr. A shame, as they're otherwise brilliant people.

Bitcoin itself is a political tool developed by someone with an obvious bias against censorship and narrow mindedness. It's too bad the heirs of Bitcoin's first developer aren't capable of displaying some of the same large mindedness and backbone.

Repeated for emphasis.

I was thinking the same thing:

"The bitcoin project has widely ranging views and beliefs but they all converge on one single point-- the furthering of the Bitcoin proejct. If you'd like more information on bitcoin from a certain perspective, we recommend the following people based on their knowledge of specific aspects of it.

• Libertarian contact
• Technical contact
• Economics contact
• Technology contact
• Community development contact
• Pattaya Cruise contact (No misleading statements, please)

etc.

If you want *everyone* in the world to love Bitcoin, you need a way to explain it that everyone can love. If that explanation can be given by everyone, then everyone can give the same explanation. It's as simple as that.

I wouldn't feel like I would be the right person to explain Linux for any group of Linux developers to the general public, because I would obviously miss some things (I don't use Linux regularly). I also don't feel that Linus Torvalds is the right person to explain Linux to the average person. Someone like James Rolph (Angry Video Game Nerd) is probably more suitable for that. Fuck it, I elect James Rolph as the publicity contact for Bitcoin.

"Fiat fucking sucks, it sucking fucks, it fucking fucks, it's shit..and I don't like it.....ASSSS!!!!"

Think we need an anarcoin where statists are banned from representing it.

Yes!

You'd have to institute some governing body to consider the circumstances for the ban, and then all you'd need would be an enforcement arm of that body to deal with miscreants.  Oh yeah, also some kind of incarceration format to...

This is perfect!  When do we start?

I think the list should be abandoned.

If you're not careful, this stupid controversy will become the story instead of the actual technology and its implications. Headlines: "bitcoiners split between libertarian and 'mainstream' factions".

The split is far more interesting than the Fluffy Bullshit Factory that is being setup by those bitcoiners with a tendency to centralization.

Pushing Jon Matonis aside will lead to half-measures and to the fail of Bitcoin in the nearest future. It seems to me bitcoin.org guys prefer to lick political asses than to fight for freedom.

I don't see bitcoin.org registered as a namecoin domain.

The developers are only interested in creating a useful international payment solution, without color or ideology. Specific ideologies make very little sense when you look at adoption from a global perspective. Why would people in Africa care, for example, who want to adopt something for their mobile payment solution? If anything it's just noise that may blind them to the advantages of the technology.

That may be best that way. Why not start a libertarian-bitcoin.org or so? With its own foundation and press contacts? I suppose it will be really big in the US.

Look at how many people understand fiat currency and our banking system. Very few. I don't even understand it all that well, and I've studied it for decades. So how much can we really educate people about cryptocurrencies? Just surface level. We have to focus on a simple message. It's not for me to decide what that is, but let me just suggest that it could be along these lines: BTC is a harmless technical oddity that may be important to some people, but will run in the background and you never have to deal with it directly or worry about how it changes things. Now go back to sleep!  ;)

Aww hell yeah. Same god, different church denominations. Let's do this! I call dibs as pastor of the Church of Comedic Coin!

This.

And it's really very sad that that sort of auto-censorship is promoted by the bitcoin foundation.

Please include Jon and Roger on the list, and if their interviews will not be appreciated rest assured that mainstream journalists will learn very fast how to avoid them or censor what they said.
That's their job.

Jeff Berwick is not too bad as well.

Journos are going to continue to reach out to certain people because they are interesting, have a good personal story, and are skilled at presenting. I don't think that putting anyone on the official contact list, or taking them off, will matter, unless that person is obscure. For example, if they put me on the list that would alter my public presence b/c no one has ever heard of me (note: please do not put me on any lists! I would not know what to do.)

Modesty! We need that! Quick, put him on the list! Ruin his life! ;D

ahahaha, no really. I don't think my technical understanding of btc is quite there yet. Still learning about it.

Again,

Maybe bitcoin.org  or the foundation needs to submit a press release about this.  I saw one website headline saying "BITCOIN SHUT DOWN"

This is precisely the problem. Three long-standing and respected developers desire to introduce a political ideology test when deciding who should be included in the Press Contacts list as Potential Interviewees.

Why that type of political ideology test would be relevant or desired has not been explained or articulated but appears to basically be an appeal to emotion. Much less how any political ideology test should be applied. And if there is consensus that we should use a political ideology test then what type of a test and why? For example, should we use mainstream political opinions in Africa, Pakistan, the United States or Argentina? Why?

Removing a political ideology test is really the most logical and reasoned answer.

Bitcoin has always been a political project. Hell, all money is political (google's definition: Of or relating to the government or the public affairs of a country).

Excluding somebody because of his political beliefs is akin to a purge. As far as I'm concerned anybody who passes well on TV and who don't come off as a crackpot could be on this list.

You be the judge

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=59bxqxAdCiM (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=59bxqxAdCiM)

One of the more popular discussion panels at the recent Social Gaming Asia Summit 2012 featured BitInstant’s Erik Voorhees and Roger Ver discussing the Bitcoin ‘crypto currency’ and its potential impact on the global gaming industry.



http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2GiQEECNcZM
Keiser Report: Jon Matonis on BitCoin vs central bankers (31May11)

Anything involving money is political.

Bitcoin was born from politics. Recall that the only political view that Bitcoin's creator mentioned in relation to Bitcoin was the libertarian position.

Precisely. Bitcoin, like math and science, are apolitical. But there can be political dogma that surrounds them just like the sun revolving around the earth.

This is one reason why having a political ideology test is not well reasoned and probably a reason why Jeff Garzik, gmaxwell and LukeJR are failing to address the issue on its merits with a logical and reasoned response but instead rely on an appeal to emotion. Why they would turn this into a political issue is very surprising.

Bitcoin Developer Team and the Bitcoin Press Team should be focused on the apolitical Bitcoin project. Let the journalists play politics with their stories and segments. And that means not having a political ideology test for Potential Interviewees but using as criteria only competency and professionalism.

You have that backwards. Bitcoin is designed to resist the efforts of those that would attempt to impose centralization on it.

So... You think you know what the press and the public want to hear, and you're going to continue feeding them the exact same thing?

This should be a wiki page. A few prominent people (+bios) at top perhaps, and a whole list of others (that anyone can edit) down below. Let the journalists choose for themselves.

That is the reasoning behind not having a political ideology test for inclusion.

As a professional journalist myself I think that using political ideology as a test or standard for inclusion will be a disservice to the other journalists who visit this page seeking guests or commentators for pieces they are writing or segments they are producing.

No, the problem (in this case) is not their political ideas.

The problem is that they project their political ideas on Bitcoin, with things such as representing Bitcoin as being a tool used to bring about anarchy. Matonis, at least, seems to be encouraging people to break the law almost every time he talks about Bitcoin.
While I did include Roger Ver in my original objection, it was pointed out that he has (at least lately) kept his politics separate in public - so I've limited my objection in this reason to just Matonis.

The general objection against Roger Ver is that he has a criminal history. And not just some debatable crime (eg, drug-related or statutory), but selling explosives. For all I know, maybe he was just selling fireworks - or even wrongly accused and railroaded. However, the media doesn't care about the truth: this is a tool they can simply say "Bitcoin spokesman Roger Ver, who holds a conviction for selling explosives to terrorists, blah blah blah". Maybe they can say it regardless of who we put up as a press contact, but having him listed will serve to re-affirm such detraction when it happens.

So do you.

So what's the problem?

Every revolution is illegal. By definition. For whatever reason, you're finding yourself on the wrong side of this one.

Political correctness is also political ideas. It's not that the ideas of Matonis is political that bothers you, it's that they don't fit your idea of the ideal ideology. By only allowing mainstream / political correct individuals to represent bitcoin, you have already made a political choice.

And let me add this; bitcoin was not created to fit the mainstream politics and I find this attitude of "oh yes we would love to be regulated" rather disgusting.

See, this is what is hypocritical in this approach.

You have a tool that was explicitly created to give power to individuals.
If you were to weed out people based on their political views, it should be those who don't adhere to this view.
This would be a bad idea, because discarding people because of their political views is just intellectually dishonest.

We had the Cyprus story. Did anyone here said "Oh c'mon guys, what they did in Cyprus was chosen by their government;
we should not encourage them to use Bitcoin to save some of their saving." ?

Is there anyone here saying that we shouldn't emphasize how Bitcoin can help those in Argentina with their 30% inflation?
*crickets*

Their was some arguments recently that Bitcoin could be used in China because of their capital control.
Again, did someone raised up and said that it was bad for the image of Bitcoin?

No, of course not. You don't want to openly say that Bitcoin can be used to circumvent bad laws only when it's in your country.

Of course, I would not defend these gentlemen if they weren't great speakers, but they are!

I think a diversity of views is good, as long as the people expressing their views are honest, trustworthy, and respectable.

I still think Luke causes more trouble and strife than he is worth. And I wish people would stop implying he is part of the core development team.

Bitcoin does give power to individuals. Nobody can stop Roger Ver or me or you or anyone else saying what we want about Bitcoin to whomever we want, including press.

So maybe we need a list on the bitcoin.org page or the bitcoin foundation page.

Bitcoin 2013 conference request:

CAGE MATCH

Luke-JR vs Erik Voorhees

Most of last comments are based on the assumption that jgarzik, luke-jr and gmaxwell are selecting interviewees based on political adherence. In regards to their comments, that seems reductive.

Their main concern seems to be accuracy. And that also applies to the fact that Bitcoin is not exclusive to any ideology. Speaking in a way that let people think otherwise is inaccurate and restrain audience, even interfering with pragmatic goals to bring Bitcoin to the masses. Although many would like Bitcoin to be a political revolution, it will only change the world if it spreads. And it will only spreads if anyone can adopt it regardless of their own personal opinions.

John Matonis : There is apparently many quotes from him that are really inaccurate about Bitcoin. And often politically orientated.

Roger Ver : Don't have the full support of the community. Roger Ver got two NACKs from other contributors before being discussed on IRC. Developers didn't explicitely ACK or NACK themselves, but shared some concerns like his criminal records.

The number one priority of the community should be developing content to bring outsiders into the community. We have to clearly explain the Bitcoin and why they have value. Until we succeed, these will be the first point of contact for people interested in the bitcoin:

http://www.colbertnation.com/the-colbert-report-videos/425561/april-17-2013/bitcoin-plunge (http://www.colbertnation.com/the-colbert-report-videos/425561/april-17-2013/bitcoin-plunge)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0UKC7iaBKvs (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0UKC7iaBKvs)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aM46MLR_b7s (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aM46MLR_b7s)

On the contrary. While it is true that my interest in Bitcoin is for the purpose of furthering the Tonal system, I don't pretend that Bitcoin's reason for existence is to promote Tonal.

But Bitcoin is not a political revolution. Projecting such things onto Bitcoin is precisely why Matonis should not be included in the press center.
Bitcoin is a technological revolution, like asymmetric cryptography or global networking.

The point is to have individuals who recognize Bitcoin as being independent of politics, regardless of their own political views.
I hate political correctness as much as everyone else.

You might want to think a little more deeply about what the bitcoin implies. Currently money is well regulated and controlled by a cabal of secret bankers who are accountable to no one. All monies are inflationary and fiat. The Bitcoin is nearly the polar opposite of the world's money system. If it succeeds, then it will have an enormous impact on the creditability and faith in central banks.

Gunpowder was an incredible scientific accomplishment, but its real impact was forever changing war. The Bitcoin will forever change money if it succeeds. 

Great, I'm no fan of central banks either, and I doubt anyone has a problem with pointing out bitcoin's potential in this area.
The politics is extending this to try to destabilize the government.

But neither gunpowder nor bitcoin necessarily imply change in government.
War innovation changes war. Money innovation changes money.
For an inherent change in government, you need political innovation - that's not Bitcoin.

If that's the point, why do you only let those who follow mainstream political views be listed in the press section? You're basically saying that being pro "status quo" is to be non-political. That's utterly false.

Here is a piece of political innovation for you (which goes hand in hand with bitcoin): http://cryptome.org/ap.htm

Coincidence I guess.
Roger Ver would, I suppose, be a good example of an anarchist who may be able to be non-political (in public at least), but he's got the whole (unrelated) criminal history problem.
Feel free to suggest other candidates... I can't speak for others, but at least I won't oppose them for merely being anarchists.

Money is the tool upon which governments control things. If they lose control of it, then they lose their power

If you really think that, then you have no need to promote anarchy along with Bitcoin - you'll get the same result faster just by keeping your expected end result secret.
(I do disagree, however, with your assessment)

I don't see how that's relevant.
Even less than political views in fact.
Especially since it's unrelated.

Do the police and military work for free? Does the government get its weapons for free? Are the courts filled with volunteers. People have to be paid and the government pays them. It controls the underlying asset and thus can compel people with it. They cannot control the Bitcoin and will have to live within the means of the people it taxes instead of just printing more money.

It's been done before, and I'm sure it can be done again.
Anyhow, this has deviated from the thread topic now...

The fact that Roger Ver was/is a criminal also just boils down to politics. What he did wasn't hurting anyone and shouldn't be illegal. Now you are excluding him because of his political ideology.

To the contrary. Gunpowder utterly changed the economics of warfare, in due course transforming the political landscape of medieval Europe. Cannons obsoleted city walls and did away with what used to be limited-size conflicts fought with mercenary armies. The scale of conflicts escalated and the nation state was born from the ashes of a landscape once populated with hundreds of independent city states.

Cryptocurrencies carry within them no fewer implications for political change than did gunpowder. For future historians looking back on the present day, the Internet and Bitcoin (whether in its current incarnation or an eventual improved one) will no doubt be seen to have been as transformative as were the printing press and gunpowder half a millennium earlier.

Ah, right. This crackpottery again. Your analogy fails, in that talk of revolution and/or anarchism (or a lack thereof) actually matter.


Go read the history of the cypherpunks, in their own words. Bitcoin is explicitly political. Heck, go read the genesis block, it's right there!


Speculating here, I suspect what you really hate is the fear you feel when you contemplate the idea of a society without top-down control, without rulers and without a comfy hierarchy you can wed yourself to -- and this in your political as well as religious beliefs. There are cures for what ails you!

Far be it from Luke to ever tolerate one who offends the King.

One hopes those historians also see the modern nation-state for the monstrosity it is, like most of us now view chattel slavery.

An international list :)

Think of the German, Russian, and Indian medias as well (and any country in which Bitcoin is likely to generate interest).

Quite apart from his own fluency in the domain, Matonis provides newbies with a convenient initial source of links to credible others who comment on bitcoin and crypto- in general, including views divergent from his own.

/pb           

You are projecting your ideals onto bitcoin, heavily so imho. Jon Matonis rather projects forward the implications of bitcoin/crypto-currencies from his own academic work in the field dating back nearly 3 decades. He has been thinking about these things long before bitcoin was invented and is in a group of very select few visionaries to anticipate such a development. Casting aspersions as to Mr. Matonis's political motivations is a low blow given the amount of his prior work in the cryptological and economic aspects of the technology.

You shouldn't need reminding that Satoshi specifically sought out Jon Matonis (contacted by email) for his input/feedback on technical/economic aspects of bitcoin in early development days. Jon Matonis is a stand-out leader and visionary giant for thinking in the field of monetary freedom ... why anybody would disagree to having him talk about bitcoin, or crypto-currencies in general, is completely beyond me and just comes across as petty and egoistical or maybe ignorant of the history of the field. I think initially Jon may have been reluctant to stand up and speak out about bitcoin but salute him for courage and acumen in delivering a resoundingly truthful account when he does speak ... moar Jon Matonis please.

Money is inherently an apolitical tool, it is an accident of history that we have lived through the last days of a period of heavily politicised money, that bitcoin lights the way for us to escape from. Blinkering yourself to look only backwards on a dark period and be bound by its now antiquated norms surrounding how to think about money is to wantonly ignore the complete vista now being revealed.

In fact, Matonis's biggest contribution might just be sheer civility, precluding many instances of the kind of thoughtless flame war that plagues most beginnings.

The fact he no longer needs to shoulder so much of the burden as 'spokesman' is testimony to bitcoin's success, not to his or the community's failure.

/pb

It seems to me that using Bitcoin.org to promote certain individuals is a bad idea. This entire thread demonstrates exactly why.

Matonis last podcast interview with David Birch is an excellent example of his clarity of thinking and his ability to answer difficult questions.

No one currently on the list can come close to doing as well as he.

They are very great representatives for Bitcoin !  They are well infromed, master in the field, one is well invested and dedicated, the other wrotes tons of quality article, well documented, and he's very respected as a writer.  Nice job, nice articles.. Do not have anything against any of them, and I'm always happy to read/listen to a piece from them !

Congratulations folks, keep up the good work, the community owe you respect !

Long life to Bitcoin !

Why do you think the goal of the Press Center should be to project or advocate any particular ideas?

I think the goal of the Press Center should be to assist journalists in finding sources that are competent and articulate for whatever particular ideas [Republican, Democrat, Libertarian, Pirate Party, whatever, etc.] for their story or segment. To accomplish that goal any particular ideology or agenda of the individual would be irrelevant so long as they are competent and articulate because it will assist the journalists in the performance of their duties.

For example, if a particular member of the press wants to setup a debate between a Republican, Democrat and Libertarian then how is the Press Center going to help assist that journalist if it only includes Potential Interviewees who can competently present objectively or subjectively from only two of three major political parties?

The intentional limiting of the marketplace of ideas does a great disservice to the members of the press that are the intended beneficiaries of this resource. The goal should be to have enough Potential Interviewees that members of the press can find one to fit whatever vignette they need for their story or segment.


AGAINST INCLUSION
The criminal record could be used to taint arguments against Bitcoin by showing that one of the community's most ardent proponents is a convicted criminal and Bitcoin should be opposed or stop in order to keep people safe.

But this type of argument by the press would be a logical fallacy of association and an appeal to emotion (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Association_fallacy). Nevertheless, the press can act in a way to mould public opinion irrespective of the underlying logic or facts. And the press has stronger facts to use such as Silk Road since it involves current activities.

Notwithstanding, for those reasons Mr. Ver should not be included. If there are additional reasons then please articulate them.

I am only concerned about Bitcoin as a whole and rather unconcerned about the use of the conviction against Mr. Ver on a personal basis as he can pull up his big boy pants and handle himself. Plus, as discussed in the for inclusion section, he could frame the argument in a way that is could help mitigate the damage for both himself and Bitcoin.

FOR INCLUSION
Mr. Ver's conviction happened while he was a young adult, is stale since it is over ten years old, was relatively minor because it involved neither violence nor moral turpitude such as fraud and resulted in only 10 months of jail time, a $2,000 fine and some probation.

A stated intent of the criminal justice system is rehabilitation. Mr. Ver has, to the best of my knowledge, not been convicted of anything else since and has not become a repeat offender. To the contrary, he has built a reputable and profitable company, Memory Dealers, that does millions of dollars of gross revenue with several employees, has been tax compliant and has invested and provided guidance to several Bitcoin companies. Absent the conviction, Mr. Ver would be a great role model. With the conviction, he is a fine example of rehabilitation by showing what those who have had a criminal record can do to become legitimate, useful, productive and contributing members of society.

Additionally, if the press wants to disparage Bitcoin regardless of logic or facts and instead appeal to emotion then who we suggest to them as Potential Interviewees is irrelevant because they will find whoever they want anyway to craft the narrative they want. On the contrary, if Mr. Ver wanted to engage in further criminal activity then he would likely not be seeking such a public profile by running a successful company or giving interviews with FOX Business and other media outlets.

Additionally, while I am not sure whether Mr. Ver was wrongfully convicted, Ohio State University reported (http://researchnews.osu.edu/archive/ronhuff.htm) that annually over 10,000 innocent people are convicted of serious crimes.


Consequently, Mr. Ver's inclusion would be beneficial because he exemplifies rehabilitation which is a very positive message to be sent, is an articulate and competent speaker who also has business and managerial experience and exclusion for a stale conviction is based merely on an appeal to emotion but not a weighing of the benefits and potential risks resulting from the underlying facts and logic.

Sorry to break this to you: Bitcoin is The Rebellion. It's as political as it gets.

Do you happen to have a link. I'd love to listen

Here's the link to the forum's thread:
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=177631.0 (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=177631.0)

For what it's worth, Gavin, Matonis, Ver, Voorheese, Mayer, and Berwick are about the only ones I have any interest in listening to. They represent the essence of Bitcoin. They speak truth to power - regardless of how uncomfortable it may be for those who wish to stay in The Matrix.

Bitcoin is about freedom. These individuals don't hide the fact. We need more of them! A strong argument can be made that these ideas are what primarily attracted people to bitcoin in the first place. I know they were for me.

Keep up the great work guys!

BTW, I consider Roger Ver's criminal conviction a badge of honor that demonstrates the evil and violence of the State towards peaceful, mutually voluntary relations. He paid a high price and has my highest respect.

He did time for that?

"What are ya in for, kid?"

"Litterin'."

"What are ya in for, kid?"

"Liberating mice."

Eh, kids these days have it easy. They don't even commit real crimes and they go to prison.
In my time someone had to be really bad for that!

*Shakes fist angrily*

Well it is slightly more subtle than that. Bitcoin has become "The Rebellion" by default because inside The Matrix all monies are highly politicised, and bitcoin is basically just a dumb machine following pre-determined rules. It is precisely because it is almost perfectly apolitical that it is controversial, but only because it has been introduced at time when all monies are politicised.

In another era, or cultural environment of competing currencies, e.g during the Scottish free banking or formation of Hong Kong, etc it may have been looked upon entirely differently but not as a political instrument.

It is the ethical equivalent of some tribesman pointing to the newly introduced money stones of Yap and cursing them, "Damn things, they will cause havoc, mayhem and hellfire to rain down on all of us!!"

It would seem so.

Please keep in mind that nothing anyone involved in Bitcoin does from here on out is truly private.  People are watching.  They don't have to be rocket scientists to recognize the promise of Bitcoin.  And they aren't all idiots who can be blinded to the consequences by sterilized talking heads.  Honesty and openness is the best policy.

The hard-core Libertarians in the ecosystem have served their purpose in getting things bootstraped.  Now it's time to move forward and start making this thing pay off, and these guys scare people and limit the solution in mainsteam-land where the real money is to be found.

I'm all for putting the most wholesome and friendly a face on Bitcoin as possible and that seems to be what the Bitcoin Foundation is all about.  They are doing admirably at this, and moving the whack-jobs out the back door is illustrative.  Hurrah for them.

My feeling is that Bitcoin proper has one foot in the grave already in terms of achieving any worthwhile political or social goals, and there is very little chance that the next foot won't follow.  At this point I mostly want to see a run-up in valuations so I can cash out at with the highest take possible.

It might be awhile. If you get impatient, PM me and I'll take them off your trembling hands.

I'm looking for about 1BTC/kilo of physical gold.  PM me when you wish to go for it.  I'll know how to tell gold from tungsten by the way.

* sigh *

Nobody got the Alice's Restaurant reference, huh?

Excuse me now - I need to go pick out a nice urn...

I'm playing a longer game. I'll PM you in 7 years when I'm looking to unload a city block. You send first.

Sorry. I was sitting on the group w bench.

I see no conceivable reason to liquidate completely whether the value approaches near zero or near infinity.  If I walk among the living in 7 years and there remains a functional legal system under which private ownership of property is feasible, I would probably wish to have a city block.  Maybe we'll chat again then.

I'll lend you one of mine and you can see how you like it first. Tungsten refineries will also be in high demand, word to the wise.

Translation: you do not want it to be a political revolution.

But it's not you who decides that. It's the Bitcoin users that decide that.

This is a dumb thread. These people deserve credit, yes, but why do they need to be famous?
Why not worship any number of the people who have developed and sponsored bitcoin over the years?

They probably are rich on their investment, so I'm not sparing any sympathy.

famous? worship? ... umm, did you read the dumb OP? You seem to have pleasantly missed the point entirely and blundered on in.

FYI:
It is simply about who, if anybody, gets posted as go to people for press on bitcoin.org website.

Exactly. This is another State-invented, victimless crime.

Roger Ver was a political prisoner.

http://dailyanarchist.com/2012/11/12/bitcoin-venture-capitalist-roger-vers-journey-to-anarchism/ (http://dailyanarchist.com/2012/11/12/bitcoin-venture-capitalist-roger-vers-journey-to-anarchism/)

He said that we were a bunch of jack booted thugs... Lets act like a bunch of thugs to prove him wrong!

Yeah...

I had a look at Roger's interview on Fox business, and I do not think his views are too extreme. I think he reacted with great aplomb to the inane talk of the professor. I would have probably laughed at him and talked shit about the dollar "game". I imagine Roger would have done this too when he was younger. If I had a criticism, it would be that his political views are somewhat interjected into his responses. They could be shorter if he focused on the features of Bitcoin.

I don't see any reason why he can't be on the page except that the other interviewees are better. Can/did anyone link to their interviews?

Also, my opinion doesn't really matter as I am not in charge of anything.

I've not studied the case as it is unimportant to me, but...

If that is true, it is what I would consider probably criminally negligent behavior in most circumstances.  Storing any sort if incendiary or explosive devices in quantity is serious business and putting the lives and property of others in danger is very wrong.  Unfortunately is is completely appropriate that some of my tax dollars get burnt up in an effort to protect society against people who lack common sense and will subject others to undesired risk without their knowledge.

A little off topic but I've come to view Bitcoin as digital Yap money.

It totally is, except the stone will fall apart if you don't constantly polish it!  :D

They're glorified firecrackers containing 1 gram of powder or about 1/3 of the size of what I used to call an M80 when I was a kid. It was a bullshit case brought by a bullshit government because some employees of said government have very thin skins and didn't like the criticism being thrown their way.

Did you miss the 'in quantity' part?

Or the part the 'apartment' and 'that he was renting' in the original text?

It could be the case the Ver told his landlord that he would be using his apartment room to store the devices and told all his neighbors.  Also told the local fire department such that if there were a fire the firefighters would know to avoid his apartment room as they were attempting to fight it.  And that they all said, 'Sure.  No problem.'  Somehow I find it doubtful that this is how things went down.

I would not rule out that the guy was a victim of retribution for various of his activities.  Off hand I would find some combination of retribution and punishment for being irresponsible the most probably.  But again I've not looked at the case.  And I believe that at this time information about who engages in 'thoughtcrime' is likely cataloged but the info tends not to filter down into the various arms of our justice department very much...though this is likely to change drastically and quickly at some point.  Given the timeframe I'd tend to guess that Ver's case was likely driven largely by his own lack of common sense and it sounds (admittedly through docs that the government has written) as though there is a fair degree of legitimacy to his treatment.

So he was stupid. He wasn't ten months in a Federal prison stupid.

Ver was a political prisoner, like it or not. He's a great spokesman for Bitcoin.

I've thought his presentations have been good to excelent, yes.  And I believe that his efforts with the retail outlet are doing Bitcoin a good service...at least in regard to guiding the solution in a way which makes me rich(*).

*: I believe that developing Bitcoin with an 'exchange currency' focus, that is, used for buying trinkets, will ultimately kill it, but it will take years and make me rich in the process though.

This week's Ed and Ethan's Bitcoin cast (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5a_jHGdGXxk) is related.

Enjoy!  ;D

First of all, Bitcoin is not just a technological revolution. Satoshi mentioned himself, numerous times, that this project was inspired by a political ideology. I understand the point of trying to keep it as neutral as possible, but Bitcoin's foundation wasn't built on purely neutral grounds, so it would seem forced and disingenuous to the public in trying to do so. It goes against the nature of what Bitcoin was founded on, to try and subdue that ideology. Not to mention a waste of time, since all of the media can realize that Bitcoin has great potential to change politics.


I think this opinion is too picky. We are wasting excellent talent over the lack of being flawless.


Based off the evidence presented in this thread, Roger Ver hasn't done anything in his past that would make me feel uncomfortable being another representative of Bitcoin to the press. He seems like an outstanding guy to me, and very intelligent. He always provides a good interview.

On the other hand, Jon Matonis has an impressive ability to form exactly the right response. Truthfully, I believe he is not only excellent at taking interviews about Bitcoin, but of all the people I've seen, he is the very best. Every time I listen to an interview with him, I find myself shouting at my computer "YES. THAT IS EXACTLY THE WAY THAT SHOULD HAVE BEEN PHRASED."

I support having them on our list of press contacts. Not to do so would be such a waste of talented resources.

Sucking up to the feign stream media whores or even becoming one.  Yeah, that's ticket.  Roger Ver has my utmost respect.  He's a man who says what he means and means what he says.  Bitcoin doesn't need the media or the sheep.  It will destroy the power of the Federal Reserve and capital controls all on it's own.  The printing press stopped the murderous RCC dead in its tracks.  Bitcoin will stop the NWO.  Watch and see :-)

Happily anonymous

The Bitcoin Channel

"At any rate, the spook spoke the truth: cryptology represents the future of privacy, and more. By implication cryptology also represents the future of money, and the future of banking and finance. (By "money" I mean the medium of exchange, the institutional mechanisms for making transactions, whether by cash, check, debit card or other electronic transfer.) Given the choice between intersecting with a monetary system that leaves a detailed electronic trail of all one's financial activities, and a parallel system that ensures anonymity and privacy, people will opt for the latter. Moreover, they will demand the latter, because the current monetary system is being turned into the principal instrument of surveillance and control by tyrannical elements in Western governments." - J. Orlin Grabbe. The End of Ordinary Money. 1995

"First they ignore you, then they ridicule you, then they fight you, then you win."
-- Mahatma Gandhi

+1

Matonis's blog on Forbes has the best insights on the economic aspects of bitcoin that I've found anywhere:
 http://www.forbes.com/sites/jonmatonis/ (http://www.forbes.com/sites/jonmatonis/)

Hiding from politics won't work for much longer - you'd better believe the US feds are mounting a massive assault
on Bitcoin. Based on prior scenarios, I'd assume that there will be a mainstream media FUD campaign, a legal
attack on bitcoin users, and probably an underground attack on the infrastructure...

When I heard about this yesterday, I thought it was a joke.

It is appalling that Roger Ver and Jon Matonis, two of the most professional and eloquent public proponents of Bitcoin, would be removed from a press list, merely because they don't cater their discussion to the lowest common denominator of public perception.

Yes, some out there would be turned off by their ideology.
Yes, some press might try to target them personally and thus tarnish Bitcoin's reputation.

So what.

Bitcoin is not so weak and pathetic that it requires only tacit, cowed spokesmen who are more like politicians than real individuals with passion and ideology and, importantly, the character to stand up for that in which they believe. Bitcoin is not so fragile that it can only be advanced by grovelling to the very people who built the terrible systems it seeks to replace.

It is embarrassing to see Bitcoin reduced to sniveling permission-seekers, too cowardly to speak about the real issues and the real reasons why this technology is so important. There is not a global, passion-driven community around Bitcoin because it offers lower money transfer fees. We do this because of what Bitcoin means on a philosophical and societal level, and Roger and Jon are two of the best at conveying this sentiment in a professional, non-confrontational, level-headed manner.

And now they've been censored.

Bitcoin is a movement, and those trying to distil it into nothing more than a cute new technology are kidding themselves and doing a terrible disservice to this community. If you want to sell pre-packaged, politically correct PR, go work for Dwolla.

+1

Thanks for weighing in Erik. There was a bit of a void in the thread until now.

If it ever came to pass that the Bitcoin community was forced to choose between excluding Roger Ver, Jon Matonis, and Erik Voorhees or excluding Jeff Garzik, Luke Dashjr, and Gregory Maxwell, I'd be willing to contribute bitcoins for attracting new programmers to replace the latter three. Rather not go down that road, though. I'm willing to refrain from campaigning to oust them as developers if they are willing to refrain from campaigning to oust Ver and Matonis as public faces of Bitcoin.

jeff garzik's attitude towards Bitcoin has always bothered me.  listen to him here:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zhj1zeisqWY

i know alot of ppl thought Garzik was just posturing towards gov't in this interview to allow Bitcoin to grow but in light of what's just happened, i'm not so sure.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5a_jHGdGXxk Lol. I love these guys

So you prioritise two people (excluding Roger Ver here) who are clearly harmful to Bitcoin's viability, one of whom (Erik Voorhees) goes so far as to operate a technological attack on the Bitcoin network.. over three competent developers who actually contribute toward making Bitcoin better and hopefully successful.

Great logic there...

Everyone need to calm down. Roger and Jon will always have a place in the Bitcoin community. The Foundation amongst others are just trying to mainstream the Bitcoin and they are taking a very conservative approach. Remember there is no official bitcoin resource. It is a decentralized community. If someone is interested in the Bitcoin, then Jon will eventually come up and it's up to the individual to decide.

Our biggest issue right now is that no one in the media legitimately understands the Bitcoin.
http://video.cnbc.com/gallery/?video=3000160877 (http://video.cnbc.com/gallery/?video=3000160877)

It's clear they don't get it "it's capped at 22 million..' Lol

The head of core development has stated that you're not crucial to Bitcoin's core development. You're hurting Bitcoin by pushing for bitcoiners to be excluded because you don't like their politics. This is the exact opposite of the philosophy behind Bitcoin, which allows dirty statists and filthy anarchists alike to use Bitcoin itself no matter one's beliefs.

Perhaps sticking to code instead of politics might help to serve Bitcoin better. Just a thought.

Ok someone has to say it Ron Paul 2016

Exactly we don't need a foundation that wants to censor great people like Roger Ver and Jon Matonis, we need a foundation that will take bitcoin to the next level without worrying about politics.

See everyone the bitcoin foundation is already corrupting the newbies of the forum what next corrupt the media. They are hurting bitcoin.

Comments like that make me feel like I'm in no danger of actually needing to keep that promise.

What do you suggest we do? If the United States wanted to kill the bitcoin, then it would be dead in three months. We cannot create a common perception amongst the world that the bitcoin is at best a libertarian playtoy and at worst the newest high tech way to move drug money around.

We at this stage need to do two things. First, we need a clear, articulate, and crowdsourced introduction to the bitcoin that is globally accessible. Second, we need message discipline with how we introduce the Bitcoin to the public.

I don't like censorship. I don't like exclusion. And I will not support anyone who does it. We as a community should give Jon and Roger an opportunity to share their vast knowledge of Bitcoins with the world, but the foundation is not the platform for them to do so. We should construct another platform.

I think the best place for Jon and Roger is a brand new institute/think tank like Ludwig von Mises that specializes in developing the economy theory necessary for academics to understand the Bitcoin.

No, charleshoskinson is correct.
The USA could kill Bitcoin rather easily today.

I will address your post

First


The United States is constructing this facility in Utah

http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/2012/03/ff_nsadatacenter/

This should give you an idea of how powerful the federal government is. If they decide to invest in an ASIC fueled 51% attack alongside a huge surge in DDOSes to every website supporting the bitcoin, then they will be successful. Second, if the US government passed regulation equating the Bitcoin to money laundering and used international agreements to prevent currency exchanges from converting Bitcoins to fiat currencies, then bitcoins have become cocaine. A black market with hefty punishment for use. I cannot buy everything I need in life with just bitcoins. Bitmit and others are working hard, but not today.

The Bitcoin network is not powerful and known enough to prevent this from happening. I'm sorry you don't understand that.  


There were a lot of people who said this about the Internet. They wanted it to be a playground for nerds. I'd refer you to Danny Hillis's Ted lecture about the beginning of the internet: http://www.ted.com/talks/danny_hillis_the_internet_could_crash_we_need_a_plan_b.html

I want our currency to change the world. Not to be something special for a technologically inclined elite.


Do they run Mtgox and the mining pools? Power is distributive and based upon results and community involvement. No one can stop another platform from developing and it will quickly destroy any platform shown to be exclusive.


There needs to be an economic institute for the Bitcoin. I do not want the Paul Krugmans out there to poison academic opinion for something they do not understand.

Speaking as a life member of the Bitcoin Foundation who joined it because Jon Matonis is a Board member, I'm getting a real laugh out of some of these comments. Run for the hills! Jon Matonis is censoring himself! etc.

The foundation isn't censoring anyone. Those actions came from Luke-jr, jgarzik and gmaxwell... which is odd, because nowhere can I find a reason that those three should be able to come along and quash anything to do with the press center.

Then the dressed-up gang of thugs calling itself "the United States Government" needs to die in a fire, most expeditiously.

This is why I support the Bitcoin Foundation and I am donating part of my course proceeds to them. My only point was that over time the community needs to start specializing so we can more seamlessly integrate into the mainstream mindscape.

If this is the only reason you want the USA to die, I'm surprised.
I can think of numerous more important reasons I'd like the USA to fall apart.

BUT, that does not change the fact that in reality, they exist and could kill Bitcoin easily.
Let's not give them a reason to do so on a silver platter...

I'm glad we agree. I want to make sure the public understands that the bitcoin is a good thing for them as quickly as possible. Eventually someone over at the fed is going to understand that the Bitcoin is a very big threat and then pick up his phone.

Let's be realistic.

Step 1: Some lobbyist will convince a member of congress that Bitcoin is a threat, and the government needs to buy some ASICs.
Step 2: Other lobbyists get wind of the plan, and all try to get their own employers' interests included in the upcoming bill.
Step 3: Legislation in enacted and money is allocated.
Step 4: Contracts are written and approved, ensuring that contractors from all 435 congressional districts are included in the project.
Step 5: Construction begins. Only unionized companies are allowed to work on the facility, and they negotiate for 3 hour work days.
Step 6: The facility is completed. The project is now 8 years late and $15 billion over budget, and half the spent money can't even be accounted for. By this time the Bitcoin network has grown by three or four orders of magnitude. The government's new toy has enough hashing power to mine about a millibit per day.

You should look at how quickly after 9/11 the us government moved on the terrorist financial networks or the bank bailout of 2008. If the US government wanted to destroy the bitcoin, then they could do it. Our only advantage is that they are slow, inefficient and very divided. If Bitcoins become too much of a political threat or a monetary threat, then the NSA will develop an ASIC capable of doing it in two months. They don't need congress. An executive order is sufficient.

This way, way off-topic .... but seeing as you are becoming vociferous ....

The US govt, or any govt, do not pose a threat to bitcoin. They can go after individual users, maybe many of them, but bitcoin, no.  You are completely wrong about the supposed "power" of NSA/CIA versus the size, spread and ability to adapt of the bitcoin network/software. And the ability of bitcoin users to counter-strike if necessary for that matter is not nil ... i.e. they don't hold all the cards as you are trying to make out and the hand they hold is pretty crappy in reality ... take a look at the scoreboard.

We will have to agree to disagree. I consider the bitcoin dead if dealing in bitcoins is both illegal and restricted to a technological elite. I am well aware of the skill and proficiency of the NSA and I can assure you that a VLSI project a convicted felon with 22 employees over at BFL can do is within the scope of the NSA's ability. The Bitcoin exists because the governments of the world have turned a blind eye.

Like the internet as a whole, eventually governments will attempt to control the bitcoin with varying degrees of success. My only point is that we are getting close to a tipping point where the bitcoin could still be destroyed by my definition. If we play nice and work hard, then the bitcoin will become too large and too powerful for any one nation to overcome.

The Bitcoin Foundation is trying to become a Government lobbying group.  It will have the funds with the way things are going.  To keep Bitcoin alive, we can't look threatening to central banks.  We also must play ball and give campaign contributions on a corporate scale so things are seen our way.  This is how the system works.

I don't see it as a bad thing.  We are just lobbying for our freedom to use Bitcoin.

Roger Ver on Fox Business looked too threatening I think...lol  Too sure of himself.  And he should be.  But we have to play nice.  I think I agree with their decision but I'd be willing to give other chances.

I probably watched it a long time ago, but just did again thanks to your link.  In retrospect, this interview is probably why I place the most confidence in Garzik (at least until I did until I was more aware of Peter Todd.)  Everything indicates to me both that he is thinking several chess moves ahead of most of the other participants in the ecosystem and that his view of the best practical future for the solution is something I could live with.

The view of the end-point of the Bitcoin solution expressed by Hearn (who also seems to think many chess moves ahead) is not at all to my liking as I see the solution he proposes as one where the operational aspects of the solution are almost completely monopolized by a small number of super-entities.  On the other hand, he seems to be very much the driving force behind keeping things going at all via the LevelDB work.  I value and appreciate this significantly even while I distrust the motives a bit.

Gavin and ~sipa I have yet to get a good read on.

Seems they failed to prevent the recent explosion in waco where tonnes of explosive was being stored next to schools.

I have to disagree strongly with this.
While Gavin and I don't always get along, I can see a lot of good work done by him to improve Bitcoin.
The Foundation's main reason for creation (at least in my view) was to get Gavin a salary so he can work on Bitcoin full-time.
The fruits of that are very much behind-the-scenes, but they definitely exist.

While I agree that the main reason was to get Gavin Salary, if that was smart or not will be decided later, but the foundation has all these intelligent members that should be coming together to make bitcoin better from so many different avenues. Plus having board members that compliment each other, is a huge failure of foundation. I think having Roger Ver and Jon Matonis removed from bitcoin.org press page another failure. Just too many failure for that foundation, but a win of getting Gavin a salary which shouldn't be only win.

That will never happen. Bitcoin's continued existence is threat to the reputation of all central banks. The European Central Bank said as much last fall:


Bitcoin will always be a threat to central banks. For 100 years, banks have told us that we need them. Bitcoin proves them wrong. Everyday that the Bitcoin network is in operation is another piece of the central banks' reputation chipped away.

Exactly. That's how BitTorrent grew into what it is today. Oh wait...

It should probably be pointed out that BitTorrent has survived mainly because the public faces only used it legally and never promoted illegal use...

One does not simply grovel lobby for freedom. The two approaches to life (serfdom vs. freedom) are antithetical.

One day we are going to destroy the central currencies of this world. But we have to wait and be patient. Our time will come

And that's the reason why they have never tried to fight it. Oh wait ...

Uhhm not exactly - there was a HUGE ARMS RACE (ie. http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1989931) between
BT users, ISPs, and content "owners". I don't remember the exact order that these measures/countermeasures were implemented:

* Malicious/spying host blacklisting
* Fake torrents / honey pots
* Port blocking
* Port randomization
* Insane litigation / grandma arrests
* VPNs
* Changes to host discovery (DHT, UDP or something?)
* Trackers takedowns / jail for webmasters
* ISP bandwidth throttling
* Protocol encryption
* Media campaigns from both sides

In the end, I don't think anybody really cared what BRAM posted on his blog or whatever.

I hope we won't have to use such measures to secure bitcoin...

John Matonis speaks about this subject quite eloquently.

Also didn't BitTorrent's Bram Cohen offer free copyrighted porn so people would beta test his software? I don't know if it is true or just a legend of the tech world.

Jon has a piece today on Forbes on this topic:

Bitcoin Foundation Expands Global Media Opportunities


http://www.forbes.com/sites/jonmatonis/2013/04/22/bitcoin-foundation-expands-global-media-opportunities/

Instead of discussing who should be on this list, I think it's much more pertinent to discuss if we need that list.

I think it is a grave error to list representatives there. Regardless of the disclaimer, these are going to be considered representatives.

Lets just leave the politics out of bitcoin.org and remove it. I have created a pull request here, which I hope will put the whole issue to rest:

https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin.org/pull/152

This is nothing against anyone on or off the list. It's just that this is a bad move and is bad for the community and the project as a whole.

I think an idea that should be considered is to take the collection of all Bitcoin-community people who have done media already, and invite them each to opt in or out. If Garzik, Maxwell, Luke et al. want to do "strategic messaging visioning" or whatever-the-fuck, let them do it by persuading the folks who are already talking to the media about Bitcoin, rather than just drawing exclusionary lines. There should be dozens of people on that list, not a hand-picked few.

At the same time, I think removing the list entirely is a profoundly bad idea. If doing this right is too difficult for the people at it now, the correct response is not to just abandon the effort, but to get people who can do it properly involved.

This is a good question. I wondered about where the buck stops, too; looking into it a little bit, my current understanding is that the source code for the Bitcoin.org website is hosted at https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin.org, wherein it is at the moment largely maintained by Saivann Carignan (https://github.com/saivann). This authority was apparently delegated to him by Gavin Andresen fairly recently (https://bitcoinfoundation.org/blog/?p=135).

From the discussions at GitHub (https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin.org/issues), it's a bit unclear at this point whether or not Saivann speaks with Gavin's approval in his confident decisions to exclude (https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin.org/pull/139#issuecomment-16429959) Matonis and Ver, or his decision more recently to reject (https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin.org/pull/152#issuecomment-16812359) Pelle's proposed resolution (https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin.org/issues/152) to the matter. Perhaps Gavin might be so kind as to clarify these matters.

It is not unusual to host website source repositories on GitHub and to use the provided issue tracker and pull requests to facilitate collaboration in developing a website. To programmers (I am one myself), it's all just code, even if non-programmers might perhaps be inclined to draw sharper delineations between a website versus software as such.

That doesn't mean that GitHub tickets are necessarily the most appropriate place for questions of basic policy, of course. GitHub is perhaps better suited to matters regarding mechanism (the "how") than policy (the "what" and "why"). Where such matters ought to be discussed is in and of itself a question of developer policy, however. In this case, it was certainly to all our benefit that the OP raised the matter here on the forums, ensuring that it is now getting the attention it merits.

As for your other questions, I don't have the answers. Hopefully somebody does.

Ha coincidentally found this thread when I was googling my name (not something I am normally in a habit of doing) because I talked to a journalist a few weeks ago and I wanted to check if he mangled my technical explanation or worse; btw he didnt mention my name, even better, win!)

My exchange with Satoshi was early but very brief.  I understand the tech ok and much of the precursor tech with various ecash technology.  Theres a lot that happened since Satoshis paper in altcoin so I am in catch mode for a bit.

But I am not a good public speaker - I am allowed that luxury because I'm a crypto geek not an ex-CEO. 

There are people who are masters at sounding cool, moderate, responsive and informative when faced with Bill O'reilly type verbal rough ups, and while covering controversial topics.  ie Politicians and professional PR & and spokespeople.  Rick Falkvinge is very impressive.  Or for example watch Kim DotKom in this interview http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pF48PjCtW4k  Awesome "Well you have to understand blah blah.."  sounds so reasonable.  (Yeah ok it a friendly interview, but there are a few talented people who are amazing at sounding more reasonable than the presenter under fire). 
Kristinn Hrafnsson holds his cool really well - and given the wikileaks controversies he gets to face up to the worst of it.

I always find Matonis fun, and his mix of ex-hushmail CEO and ex-VISA exec background seems hard to match in terms of bridging credentials.  He does like to push the libertarian angle which is amusing to crypto-libertarian types but might not always look so amusing or bitcoin credibility inspiring to the business people and regulators, but he's still really good.

The main media do seem to more enjoy sensationalizing about the fringe users doing naughty and titilating things with bitcoin that they could just as well use paper notes in the snail for.  Bitcoin isnt even anonymous for example as Shamir et al showed with their statistical analysis paper on the bitcoin public ledger - its less anonymous than paper cash - you dont get that kind of transparency and flow analysis with paper cash or physical banks handling of paper cash.  And as far as that goes HSBC were found guilty of laundering getting on for a trillion dollars ($880 bil) and accepted paying $1.2 billion fine.  Thats probably a slap on the wrist at their scale.  No one went to jail, no one had banking licences revoked etc.  Barclays did something similar.  Maybe the regulators should start with real problems, they say HSBC laundering covered mexican drug cartels and even terror funding.

I always thought Ian Brown does pretty well for a tech guy - you see him on Al Jazeera sometimes for tech commentary.

Also I gotta write code, man, and stop getting sucked into blathering about politics fun though it is.

Adam

Most of this is right. I am Saïvann, and I speak on my own without Gavin instructions, hoping to allows him to stay concentrated on the code. He's already busy enough.

However to make things clear, I didn't close/reject Pelle's suggestion (issue still open). Nor did I reject Roger or Matonis forever. I pushed the Press Center without them simply because people didn't agree on them. To allows these discussions to happen seperately without blocking the whole project. And before we really had an opportunity to go any further on these matters, this thread appeared and created interference with various unverified claims and drama. Though it also generated interesting points of views. I'm reading everything, but I can't satisfy everyone.

Meanwhile, I'm keeping things on hold until it calms down. And I'm trying to see what can be done to achieve a better consensus. Dropping all the interviewees list is a drastic change and is likely to create more outcry and confusion if we do it right now. And I still believe that we can find a better solution.

As I understand you only got involved because you were able to supply better graphics for the website.

What I don't understand is how you became the arbiter (and instigator) of what is a decidedly divisive debate in the bitcoin community? Are you even equipped to be involved in this decision? Maybe stick to graphics unitl you establish some credentials in the bitcoin world?

tl;dr you've been played for your naivete by some schemers.

It's listed right on the Bitcoin.org site, click developers.

Obviously Satoshi is not so active anymore. :)

Please spare some patience and some courtesy for people who are spending their time trying to improve things. I think he's been doing a good job listening trying to balance various views and he does not deserve the hostility being directed at him in this thread.

Bitcoin.org's content is managed by the Bitcoin-Qt dev team. As such, Gavin is the ultimate authority of what stays in the GitHub repository. However, the domain is owned by Sirius, who is independent of the dev team and the Bitcoin Foundation. (He was given the domain by Satoshi.)

Mmm.  And I'm working hard to try to delegate that authority, so can y'all please just work it out?

Do we really know if Satoshi isn't working anymore? He could be reading this message right now......

I have a suspicion that a colleague of mine might be Satoshi, but its just speculation.

Every open sourced project I've ever worked on has a cadre of people who decide who gets to be who. Look at the Ruby project with matz. This things generally work there way out and Gavin is doing a very good job.

Fix issues, submit contributions, and then Gavin will see how well you code and ask you to be a core developer. I seen him ask people in threads. They really can't be picky right now since they need all the help they can get.

I doubt the issue will be resolved easily because it is a hard fork in the press strategy. I doubt many, including you, think Saviann should be the one deciding the entire press strategy and I doubt he wants that role anyway. Based on his performance to date I do think he would do an adequate job being just, even though he lacks the training, in applying the strategy.

By analogy the press strategy is like a Statute and the role of applying the strategy is like that of a judge. It is very unfair to Saviann to throw him into the role of legislator or judge when he clearly lacks the authority and is not provided any standards or tests by which to craft legislation or judge based on that legislation; particularly when he does not really possess the jurisdiction to do so anyway.

Theymos has stated where the authority, both subject matter with regards to the strategy that is to be pursued and personal over the actual domain itself, is vested and that is with the Bitcoin-QT development team and Sirius. In my opinion, that authority should be used to clearly and concisely provide guidance on the strategy to be pursued. After the strategy is agreed upon then I think Saviann and the rest of us working on the Press Center can pretty easily develop the standards for inclusion. It is not that hard.

When it comes to strategy, what is at issue in this discussion is whether bitcoin.org should be used as a persuasive resource to convey a particular veneer for the Bitcoin developers who maintain the site OR an objective resource to assist journalists in finding competent and professional sources?

I think there is wide consensus that adequate standards for inclusion should include competency, professionalism and a generally good reputation in the Bitcoin community.

When it comes to a political ideology test then for a persuasive resource it would be essential but for an objective resource it would be irrelevant.

As for why one or the other should be chosen as a strategy; well, I think plenty of those arguments have been made earlier. This is merely an objective analysis of the situation.

True, but they are presumably bound by other agreement to do what Sirius says. It would be better for Sirius to have a corporation that's directly listed in the whois.


That's not what I said. The Bitcoin-Qt developers have control over the content. The Bitcoin Foundation is not the same as the Bitcoin dev group. They are two totally separate organizations.

Well then let's settle this theymos. Gavin have you been approached by the Foundation and do you feel like they value your input? I'm actually curious about the relationship between both orgs.

There are no good explanations. It is a decentralised project. You are asking the wrong questions, the framework you are anticipating with your questions just simply doesn't exist. You need to adjust your context to get sensible answers.

People contribute as, when, they like. If the developers like the code contributions they include it. If the users like the software the developers produce they use it.

Bad logic. Just because Gavin is a member of the Foundation's board doesn't mean that he's obligated to execute its orders in relation to Bitcoin development. (He's not.)

The structure of the foundation is described on the website (https://bitcoinfoundation.org/about/governance) and the bylaws (https://github.com/pmlaw/The-Bitcoin-Foundation-Legal-Repo/blob/master/Bylaws/Bylaws_of_The_Bitcoin_Foundation.md) are online. The foundation is a 501(c)(6) trade organization— like a chamber of commerce— not a charity, which is why they aren't listed on guidestar.  All of this information is readily available online.

Basically The Bitcoin Foundation is a Bitcoin "boosters club" created by businesses and individual members who cooperate to do whatever they like to help and promote Bitcoin.  It doesn't administer or run Bitcoin in any capacity, except to the extent that its participants are part of the Bitcoin ecosystem.  (The separation between Bitcoin.org and the foundation is, in fact, nicely illustrated by this thread).
 

The more I read this, the more I believe Satoshi was smart to stay anonymous and vanish early and stay away from all of this, lest he will get all kinds of pleads like "Please, Satoshi, we need someone to make a decision for us, you should stand out..."blahblahblah

Lol, ok delete my bold claim about Satoshi :). But in all honesty we are getting really off topic. Any conclusion to Jon and Roger?

Many of the posts in this thread appear to be designed to be inflammatory. What difference does it really make whether or not someone's name is listed on some website? If the people on the website want calmness and neutrality, and they have control of said website, then so what?

The gnashing of teeth, the wailing, the gesticulation. All these things are irrelevant; when it comes down to it, think closely as to how many people in this thread, and elsewhere, will be keeping their heads up when actual attention is inevitably paid us by the authorities? The moderates. The rest are either socks, or people whose convictions almost always melt under scrutiny. Think about it: out of all the revolutionaries, who else but cosy armchair variety can even afford to participate meaningfully in Bitcoin right now?

Shouting into the seeming wind is a waste of time. Exit the discussion. There doesn't need to be one. You are granting these people the power to object just by engaging them. You are legitimizing their vitriolic attacks.

And for those people whose attacks may actually matter in the press-attention, public forum sense? Well now, they don't really have control of the website, now do they? And, we can safely assume that the people talking about replacing or removing the developers are part of a well-known, unfortunately well-funded echo-chamber. Keep that in mind.

The press are going to talk to them, and they are going to talk to the press, regardless of whether or not they have a name and a photo on the press list.

Everyone has their knickers in a twist over a tempest in a tea cup.

As I new member of the Bitcoin Foundation, I will fight against censorship in any way, shape or form :)

Uh. Right. We decline to list one of the Foundation founders and board members as a press contact, and this proves that there is no separation.  I think this is the point where I'm supposed insert one of those meme images.

(checks page count)  This is 14 pages of "silenced debate" and counting?  That excludes further silenced debate on reddit and github.

Matonis has a Forbes column.  Silenced and censored?  Posh.

Further, you will also note that I retweet (https://twitter.com/jgarzik) @jonmatonis material, and happily review (http://garzikrants.blogspot.com/2013/01/bitcoinstorecom-review.html) Ver-owned BitcoinStore purchases.  The world is not as simple as the critics would paint.

But bitcoin is growing up.  The number of non-anarchists in this world vastly outnumbers the anarchists, and a truly global, inclusive currency needs to appeal to all.

The fundamental nature of bitcoin is. It is what it is today, and nobody is trying to the change the engineering.  You want true monetary freedom?  Get bitcoin into as many peoples' hands on this planet as possible.

Tonal is a pointless waste of brain space.

Yes, you can, because they are.

Frankly, I do not think bitcoin would work, or be useful to anybody, if it was "controlled" by the Bitcoin Foundation.

At that point, even if the code is available for download, I would not really call it open source.

Moving on to terminology.

"core developer" tends to be strictly defined as anybody with push privs to github/bitcoin/bitcoin.git -- but we must admit that that term becomes less relevant over time, as other implementations and other non-bitcoind developers start contributing BIPs and other major, impactful changes.

i.e. should we consider the Armory dev a core developer?  etothepi has written BIPs and certainly contributes to the wallet side of things.  Mike Hearn (TD) and Matt C worked on the bloom filter feature, which revolutionizes the network-sync time for lightweight bitcoin clients.

The bloom filter feature alone is huge.  An embedded, low resource bitcoin client that is truly decentralized and P2P may be built -- as we see from the current Bitcoin Wallet on the Android market.  Is that not a far better solution than more centralized, hackable, DDoS-able websites?

So are they "core developers"?  In the less strict sense, I'd answer "yes"  Their changes are certainly trusted by the community at large, in addition to the yahoos on the bitcoin/bitcoin.git commit list.

This may be a significant issue to distinguish on bitcoin.org.

I think those who make 'substantial and material' contributions should be considered 'developers' instead of just 'contributors'. I think it should be left to the developers to determine which of their colleagues have substantially and materially contributed. Perhaps have a current developer nominate and 3-4 other current developers concur. This type of recognition system will help VCs know where to look for talent. 

For example, Mike Hearn has (3), etothepi has no recognition, etc. and they may personally want some. VCs who are looking for talent may have a difficult time doing so. Additionally, I think you should get explicit permission from any individuals you do decide to list.

Perhaps this language would help inform the public about the differences:

I wish people would stop implying that Bitcoin, rather than its "standard" client or "standard" daemon, has a core development team.

Because it it has, there goes decentralisation.

As much as I respect jgarzik for the great work he does with the bitcoin s/ware and the very level-headed comments he provides in most public forums, it makes me uncomfortable when I read him actively denigrating (borderline slandering) the subjects of this discussion, Roger Ver and Jon Matonis. Especially since they would be competing voices on the page in question that he is already listed on.

In all fairness he should be recusing himself from the discussion since he could be seen to be conflicted, not saying that he is but it should be above that level.

Jgarzik, you should open up the list to matonis and ver.

And change the title from spokesperson to contacts list.

How is it possible that Satoshi Nakamoto is a FOUNDING MEMBER of the THE BITCOIN FOUNDATION, INC??

(a) Founding Members. The Founding Members of the Corporation shall be:

...

vii. Satoshi Nakamoto, at satoshin@gmx.com, author of the white paper “Bitcoin: A Peer-to-Peer Electronic Cash System” published on http://bitcoin.org and owner of the PGP Public Key with fingerprint: 5EC948A1.

This has been discussed before. He's named in the bylaws, but he wasn't actually involved in the Foundation's creation.

I just noticed that they didn't use his full PGP fingerprint, though. What'll they do when someone creates a colliding KeyID? It isn't that difficult.

Satoshi will never come forward and anyone who claims to be him is a fraud. Satoshi is likely Wenbo Mao and the Chinese government will go after him if he is revealed

Hi there!

I had joined the press team because I thought Bitcoin needed something like this and because it is quite a challenge to set up and operate a non-corporate communication department without hierarchical structures with some decider on top. But I have the feeling the experiment has already failed and we need to re-think how to run such a thing. It cannot work the way it does now with some two or three people determining political correctness and an according content strategy, believing they speak for the whole community, which they are not.

Maybe we need more than one press center, different press centers with different editorial boards and different approaches and communication goals. Just like the community has different motivations, visions and points of view on the world.

We could have a competition between these press centers and the press could choose where to go to find stories and interviewees.

The way it's running now is a ridiculous attempt of a few people to promote their own views and ideologies. And it is not going to stop. What if one of the 'accepted' interviewees says something that does not suit one of the censors?

The press center right now is not even a service to the press as it is totally biased and does not reflect the diversity of the community at all. Right now the press center is a huge lie actually :). And the press people are not so stupid not to realise that.

I can imagine that a forked press center is on the way already.

Joe

Hi there!

I had joined the press team because I thought Bitcoin needed something like this and because it is quite a challenge to set up and operate a non-corporate communication department without hierarchical structures with some decider on top. But I have the feeling the experiment has already failed and we need to re-think how to run such a thing. It cannot work the way it does now with
Very well said Joe.

Help if you are really serious about this forked press, then please contact me. I'd like to help you, but we also need to discuss the introduction of new people into the bitcoin community. This is essential for the future of bitcoin.

Looks like there are now pending pull requests for adding both Roger Ver (#145 (https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin.org/issues/145)) and Jon Matonis (#162 (https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin.org/pull/162), following on from #161 (https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin.org/pull/161)). Let's hope the powers that be make the right decision this time around.

...and here's me doing media...


http://www.guardian.co.uk/technology/2013/apr/26/bitcoins-gain-currency-in-berlin

Yes, just start a new one.

Submit a pull request?   That tells you  a lot.

And base it out of here and the other one will just fade away.

Update for those interested.

The developers who are playing a power grab of bitcoin.org set the rules for nomination - a pull request. Then they changed the rules 15 times in a row, as I met every requirement.

To summarize:

* All I need is a pull request to nominate someone
* But only if I get support with votes
* But only the devs get a vote
* But everyone gets a VETO
* Unless it's me, I don't get a veto (I veto'd jgarzik, since everyone gets a veto)
* For that I have to do a pull request for VETO (30 seconds after I stated my veto)
* But only for existing Press Center members (30 seconds after I said I'd do a pull request)
* "Vetos for real reasons are real. Vetos because you want to create problems are not". @luke-jr get to decide which is which.
* Votes keep coming in (16-6 in favor of expanding the list), with people opposed voting as if the vote matters, but votes in support being ignored.
* Voting will continue until I lose in votes, or I lose by veto, or I Iose by having the pull-request closed.
* "Counting votes, after trolling specific audiences for votes on outside forums, just makes a vote even more meaningless". (ie, getting support from the community at large is somehow suspect- that's YOU everyone!)
* "As we see here, the loudest voice -- i.e. the person who posts the most -- just drowns out everything else". (Before there was no support, now there's TOO MUCH speech in this voting process, once I started getting support)

You may add you comments here - suggest constructive solutions, don't bash the individuals, that's what they want to call it a troll. Nominate more people, offer your own substantiated vetos and stick around to defend your positions.
https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin.org/pull/162

I'm also a foundation member. They simply do not listen to us

We're at 16 votes for expanding the press center list, 7 against.

Whether you believe the process will be honored (probably not), please keep voting.

Go to github, create a free account (https://github.com/users)

then go to this thread: https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin.org/pull/162

vote for expansion of the press center, by saying ACK. Stick around to defend your position.

They don't like publicity and they don't want you to vote (see rule 13 above). So go vote!

Got my ACK in right before they closed it. Sorry I couldn't be more help, but they simply won't listen.

At 17 for expanding the press center and 7 votes against, @saivann, the appointed webmaster closed the vote declaring it a loss (invalidating the 17 votes)

PM me we need to discuss a strategy moving forward. I'm getting sick of this stuff.

Thanks, but I'm not interested in engaging with these sycophants. I proved the emptiness of their "process" and the degree to which they'll go to ignore outside input.

Beyond that, the community needs to come to terms with the concentration of power, not over the code, but over the public face of bitcoin, in a few hands. Bitcoin.org needs to be boycotted by anyone who has a problem with issues of press relations being put to a github vote and then ignored when the outcome doesn't suit them.

I'll go back to work on my bitcoin projects and answering media requests. There is a public record of their power grab, anyone can go read their squirming slimy excuses.

The only outcome for me, is that I completely lost respect for a couple of the developers who I thought had integrity. Other than that, it's business as usual.

They won't get far with this attitude and behavior.

Just got a PM from gmaxwell with the following gem, just to double-down on the tone-deaf attitude. He didn't have the brass to post it publicly of course, he's a cowardly weasel through and through:

>counting?
>« Sent to: aantonop on: Today at 11:22:12 PM »
>« You have forwarded or responded to this message. »
>Quote  Reply  Delete 
>At the time you claimed 16/7 my count was:
>
>aantonop
>flix1
>pelle
>masterkrang
>simonk83
>sunnankar
>joecoin
>gbilley
>dgenr8
>cypherdoc   
>junisBell
>msngui


>luke
>gmaxwell
>midnightmagic
>saivann
>emansipater
>someoneweird
>jgarzik
>aardeem


>13 vs 8.

>Not that it matters, doubly so with you hitting multiple threads encouraging people to comment without reading the ?background, and promoting your position on the forum— in threads you didn't bother linking to (and so I'm just now finding) with deceptive statements (e.g. claiming that all of my matonis quotes were other people).


To which I responded:

Wait, so you lost the vote, cancelled the vote and are now telling me that you lost it but BY LESS THAN I CLAIMED?

The you accuse me from gathering community input (Wow!), which is what y'all said was needed.

Have you no shame?

This sort of thing happens to many "decentralized" organisations. People own the domains and the main sites and push everyone else out slowly but surely then declare the project "dead" when they get bored with it, even though there is still a community. It can also be used to sabotage projects effectively.

I totally support what help is trying to do and I'd recommend everyone visit his site

So Gweedo would you now like to record a lecture for my poorly researched course? We could use your knowledge and experience to bring things up to par.

This disturbs me.

Idea..
Can we get roger and matonis on the press thing and put a disclaimer on the top of the page that says something like

none of these people speak for bitcoin officially but you can evaluate each of their views and come to a conclusion of "what is bitcoin" yourself

Or something like that

Just like a disclaimer that these potential interviewees are just people voicing what they think of bitcoin and is in no way official.

So press people can interview Jeff or Roger or both and get the word out about bitcoin to their respective audiences?

If control of bitcoin.org is actually dominated by a small group of men who aren't open minded and won't include a spectrum of beliefs on "their" website then I just lost a lot of faith in bitcoin. I hope you developers know forking the website just doesn't work and if you can't see that then ... I'm slightly more bearish long term than before reading all of this..

Ill register for github later if someone wants to and agrees with my idea feel free to bring it over to the github thread or request a pull for a disclaimer  ...

or something
im not sure all the way how github works but if the future of openess and fairness depends on it then ill have to learn quick.

I told you to pm me and we can work something out.

In the interest of being a tough guy like you, here is the rest of our PM discussion which you must have missed in your posting:


to which you replied:



I honestly believed that if it were actually a vote the position I was recommending would have eventually won out, the vote-stacking you were conducting only goes so far— as I said in the discussion, the only criteria I've seen I've seen suggested that would have kept Bruce Wagner, Nefario, or even Pirate40 off is the one of not including people where there was genuine concern— all hard large basis of public support. That this has been an enormous time and emotion suck, and it had reached the point where aantonop was name calling (https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin.org/pull/162#issuecomment-17151432) people who didn't agree with him, along with threats and other embarrassing responses... it probably was best to kill it mercifully.

Not to mention Mantonis writes for Forbes. Kinda of a nice press connection

You will of course note that I only called names after the vote was cancelled. Both for gmaxwell and the quote he linked to prove his point.

You're weaseling requires a lack of publicity gmaxwell. I was not calling anyone names when you were making a mockery of the process. I waited for you to show yourself as a coward.

Really?


I mean— nothing wrong with being radical, I've certainly taken some rather radical positions too.  But I think that if you don't see Matonis' views as radical you've been desensitized by this forum, to the greater world that stuff is pretty darn radical, and moreover it puts us on in us a opposed-to-state position which will potentially get us crushed (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1735.msg26999#msg26999) like bugs, as well as scaring away a good chunk of our untapped market potential.  As far as I can tell Maronis' radical positions are a big part of his value add.

Hopefully it wasn't overstated there, that why I only commented on it when someone demanded quotes— I don't think he's a bad guy or anything.

For some strange reason a lot of people assume that Bitcoin is _already_ illegal in the US, or at least that it soon will be. Arguments like the above do not help improve things there.

I never commented on Mr. Ver before— but the concern there wasn't that he's too radical (he's generally seemed pretty even keeled in public from what I've seen), it was just the general concern about the felony conviction,  as Luke put it: "you can see how the media would be able to easily spin your past as "Roger Ver, spokespreson for Bitcoin, holds a conviction for selling explosives to terrorists" or something along those lines?"   I think it's quite unfortunately, but especially since Roger's involved in a pretty acrimonious lawsuit with some other members of the community it seems unlikely to me that he can appear in the press without someone blasting the press with "you know that dudes a fellon, right?"  :(

 Names? perhaps not— you certainly weren't being especially civil (https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin.org/pull/162#issuecomment-17150144) to people who didn't agree with you. I assume that your unwillingness to correct you numbers means they were intentional?

So, what are you showing yourself as?

I correct my count. I did not do the count again, but I assume I missed something the first time and can trust that your recount was accurate. I did not intentionally miscount or misstate the count. After all, I was ahead, not that the votes ever counted or mattered. Everything you said was a moving lie, nothing more. Anyone who wants can read it.

Pretending this was about code is just another lie.

You keep saying open source projects don't make change by vote. Of course they don't not to the code. But do they vote for the representatives they put forward? You bet they do:

http://opensourcematters.org/policies/board-member-guidelines.html
https://plone.org/foundation/meetings/membership/2004/nominations

You may notice they have one set of rules. My guess is they don't change them during the vote.

Open source projects govern their public representatives by open process, not github developer wankery.

gmaxwell has previously posted several misattributed quotes and then failed to retract them or apologize. This somehow does not disqualify him from deciding who is a good press contact. Apparently journalistic practices are not his forte.

Treat any quotes he posts with extreme suspicion, especially if they are selective, short, out-of-context and attempting to slander - ie, his usual schtick.

He rationalizes his opinion as the only one that matters, somehow "neutral" opinion that we'd all accept if we weren't so dumb. Then he imposes it through his commit control and pretends to be the victim of... too much speech!

The only thing that mattered in this debate was the opinion of the 3-4 developers who did not want any process that actually resulted in anything but what they had already decided. They twisted, turned and rationalized, but in the end did exactly what they intended from the beginning: censorship of particular opinions by exclusion and decree.

All hail our new overlords. They're not just coders, they are press directors and OWN bitcoin. As they often say, if you don't like it... fork.

I never thought I'd see the day that fork became the battle cry for liberty.

It's the classic answer of cowards - especially in this case since they are not even talking about code, but about SPEECH, the press center no less.

It's a perfectly valid answer if there is no possible way to discuss. Forks are the last resort, not the first. The guys are throwing out "go fork" as a way to end debate, rather than as a last resort after debate has died.

It is exactly like those who shout "If you don't like this law, LEAVE the country".

They are so allergic to opposing views and any discussion, they use "go fork" as a way to dismiss the peons.

I for one, was not aware that several of the developers had very low tolerance for different opinions, a very defensive reaction to any critical view and a childish need to make everyone else bend to their decisions. I was expecting a higher level of maturity, but I have been shocked to find a schoolyard atmosphere. The worst part is they portray themselves simultaneously as heroes of bitcoin and victims of terrible oppression by anyone who disagrees. It's quite pathetic really.

Now of course, I think on the topic of press representation at least, the debate is very much over. They will not tolerate any process that has the possibility of an outcome they don't agree with.

Now it is indeed time to fork the press center. I'm starting with the organizational structure and the source of authority - the community of bitcoin users. Users are the source of authority as bitcoin becomes mainstream. Not 3-4 coders of one of the implementation.

Looks like Trace Mayer was absolved of his heresy this time around:


Perhaps in the coming weeks and months we'll learn how many slaps on the wrist it takes to excommunicate a Bitcoin.org "press representative".

The rules do not apply to them, only to "new" candidates. The new candidates get quoted out of context. But for the existing people context matters.

Don't try to find logic or reason - they use those to distract you from the decisions that have already been made, entirely based on personal bias. There is no consistency or even an attempt to be fair and consistent. They have no shame and will contradict themselves every other post.  I believe this was rule change #18 - Existing Press Center members can say outrageous things and be held to a different standard.

Hey!  Why not just let people just categorize themselves on the press page as having some political or philosophical affiliation (and ask them to do it honestly.)  Those who opt to not to do this are simply under the obligation to leave their personal political opinions at the studio door.

Then if some rabid Libertarian/Atheist/Commie/whatever makes so startling statement it can be pointed out that they were potentially selected on the basis of their underlying belief system and it is not necessarily shared by all.

This would also demonstrate to the any observer who visited the press page that Bitcoin has at least a modicum of 'big tent' inclusion principles and is not dominated by one line of political thought or whatever.

 
that would defeat the purpose, which is the exercise of unaccountable power by a few. There is no modicum of inclusion principles. They have expressed an explicitly exclusionary perspective that says that the views of three devs are the "moderate" mainstream and... shove it. I believe the dev kings hold court and the peasants can ask for favors, but don't ask for any process or consistency.

Yet another radical extremist with anti-government views.  Someone please tell this guy to shut up, he is undoubtedly a blabbermouth with no experience in public relations.  What unwashed anarchist squat did this unemployed idiot come from?  Clearly not a mainstream voice.  Oh, wait...


Please do not put him on the PR page.  God forbid we have this type of megasuccessful, megasmart person with an impeccable CV representing Bitcoin, spreading the news to people living under economic dictatorships the extremist idea that Bitcoin can make their miserable lives better.  Too political!

The illusion that the USA is not an economic dictatorship is becoming increasingly difficult to maintain and this makes some people uncomfortable. They have some reason for not wanting to deal with this reality so they choose to ignore it instead, as if not acknowledging it will help them somehow.

yes, gmax's response to me yesterday was amazing; he said he will never let the majority dominate the minority as a guiding principle and gleefully is applying this to the press center vote.

this goes against the economic principles of majority rule that satoshi built into the code.

All this really just demonstrates that it should be emphasized that entities with "Bitcoin" in their name do not speak for the majority of Bitcoin users, and may in fact speak for absolutely nobody but themselves.  Most of the media is too stupid to give a decent explanation of Bitcoin or anything else without assistance.  They will tend to seek out the biggest loudmouths in sight, just like on any other issue.

Search engine results are where it's at, because that is where anyone seriously considering Bitcoin will look.  Even if the "official" client is the first site, there should be effort put into making sure dissenting views are also available, preferably right below the people trying to set themselves up as "official."

(Even better above them, but just having "bitcoin" in the domain name is going to be big Google juice, not to mention on other search engines.)

+1

Don't blame the foundation.

It's garzik, gmax, Luke, and saivann.

There is no one to blame just a fundamental difference in opinion. If it continues, then a fork will occur and we will let the market sort it out.

Don't you mean fork off?  JOKE PEOPLE.  For god's sake people stop this trollwar about press reps.

The real war about regulation will start when:
a few top bitcoin devs are quietly asked to make tools that track bitcoin users...
probably not that hard to do (heck, GPL it for all I care)...
and then those tools are used in the first litigations...

There might be some justifications: "because child porn"...
...but ultimately it could end in tears on either side of the fence.

Whose idea was it, for a start? Seriously, who thought that putting a small list of people on bitcoin.org as "press contacts" would be a good idea?

Just remove this damn list from bitcoin.org for fuck sake!

It should have never been created in the first place. Journalists seeking for information should keep doing what they used to do: contacting people like those in the Bitcoin Magazine, in the Bitcoin Foundation, or individuals like Voorhees, Ver and Matonis.

Bitcoin.org should be as neutral as possible. Just expose the technology, that's all. Matonis, Ver and Voorhees are obviously perfect for PR, have been doing it greatly so far. The simple fact that they are not on this list shows how biased the list is. And IMHO bicoin.org should do the most it can to be as unbiased as possible. So, just remove the damn list.


Actually, where is sirius? Is he really OK with this? Does he really believe that Satoshi left him the domain so it could be used like that?

And they have absolute control over it or what? Why can't all other developers simply "band up" and remove this trouble from bitcoin.org? Why can't sirius do it? I thought he controlled bitcoin.org.

I have not forgotten. In fact I see more Of Jon's work than ever.

Sirius (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=4) can be contacted via the forum's private messaging feature. Thus far, though, it appears that he remains unaware of the present situation.

Why would such hardened statists insert themselves into such an anarchistic project ?  They really dont like you nor understand the word NO just like every other agent of the beast. Why would you say no to your own enslavement they have cookies.

From Jon's latest article :

"The powerful Bitcoin open-source development funnel will begin to suck in greater and greater talent driving applications that will have the broadest overall impact in the payments sphere."

I think we need to be open to the fact that this could mean new core developers as well besides Gavin. Is it likely that we got the perfect set right off the bat?

http://www.americanbanker.com/bankthink/the-elephant-in-the-payments-room-bitcoin-1058703-1.html?zkPrintable=1&nopagination=1

This is an excellent point refuting the complete basis for excluding Matonis and Ver based on their "radical" postions and highlighting a source of a lot of the consternation on both sides.

The simple fact is BITCOIN IS A RADICAL TECHNOLOGY.

It is impossible to have any spokeperson representing bitcoin and NOT be radical. Excluding bitcoin experts because they were perceived as being radical under the old paradigm is to ignore that these people were leading the charge precisely because they were radical thinkers and therefore early adopters of the new technology. Who better than such people as the spokespersons since these guys are the leading thinkers by definition?

tl;dr

"When things get weird, the weird turn pro!" - Hunter S. Thompson

Unleash the the pros, please.

I LOLled hard :)

bitcoinpresscenter.org, a redesigned fork of the press center, inclusive policy, will launch before monday

I agree it's unjust to hand-pick a small group of "bitcoin representatives" for the press page. The bitcoin-press mailing list is not very democratic or transparent either. I vote for removing it.

How about replacing the interviewee list with a link to the wiki? A wiki page where we can add all volunteers who meet some notability requirements. There should be a short description of the contact's association with bitcoin and a couple links from previous interviews.

Linking the press page to https://bitcoinfoundation.org/contact seems reasonable too.

"Pictures" and "Quotes" sections could be moved to the wiki. "Press coverage" is rather harmless, but maybe unnecessary - reporters shouldn't need help finding bitcoin related news articles. Maybe add a Twitter link?

It doesn't matter much who's in the 'press section' on the official site. Anyone who wants media attention can start seeking out the media, and the more interviews and appearances anyone gets, the more interested the media will be.

Personally I think both Roger Ver and Jon Matonis are excellent speakers for Bitcoin. They may not be what we term 'politically correct', but it's refreshing to have people thinking outside the politically correct mainstream way of thinking.

Everyone in this community has to understand that 'politically correct' is always going to be impossible with a currency like bitcoin. It can't be controlled. It can't be regulated. Accounts can't be frozen. Unlimited funds can be loaded to a napkin and stored anywhere in the world for safe keeping. This isn't something any government will be comfortable with.

We should focus on education and evangelism. If we reach a critical mass, then bitcoin becomes like the internet and governments will just have to learn to accept it. I'm not comfortable with a foundation saying we need to beg regulators to write laws to control us. Governments do not make you legitimate, consensus always has.

thanks for showing up.  there is no more vote according to Saivann.  it's really up to you to enforce your ownership of bitcoin.org by taking down the Press Center.  you have our support for that.


that won't work either b/c Luke is the moderator who has demonstrated even less equanimity there as here for the Press Ctr.


those might work.

Max Keiser has done much for bitcoin and some people would say he's not politically correct or come to that mentally lol.

I'm afraid that the links to volunteers on the wiki will actually be the exact same problem, moved in another place. It will always seems unjust so some as long as there is any "notability requirements". And if there isn't, than you can imagine. The thing is that to some point, we can't add any links on bitcoin.org and remains just. It's just impossible. And if we don't, then we're missing a great opportunity to promote excellent Bitcoin speakers in this community. The same issue also happens with any pages that contains links, such as the choose-your-wallet page and resources page. Just to a lower level.

The list on bitcoin.org does not intend to be short and not Bitcoin representatives, there is a disclaimer to make this clear at the top. I planned to add more interviewees over time. And choosing who is on this list happens transparently on github, not in a closed press mailing list.

Multiple people agree that luke-jr is very heavy-handed with the wiki.

And I have no objection to any of Sirius' suggestions.

sirius, please reconsider what you've just been lured into doing. You're giving weight to venom, vitriol, and cruelty which is matched in its rhetorical slipperiness only by its sheer determination.

Perhaps true, but hey, pointing it to the Bitcoin Foundation seems reasonable.  If other press centers grow organically, maybe just a link.

That moves the press stuff off bitcoin.org at least, which doesn't seem unreasonable.  Many of us have been saying that bitcoin.org should focus more on the open source project and technical aspects.  Let's put those words to the test.  I certainly prefer a more apolitical bitcoin.org myself.

lured into what exactly?

upholding free speech, upholding the concept of a majority, upholding the right to a vote, upholding inclusivity vs. exclusivity?

supporting Roger Ver and Jon Matonis, probably close to the 2 most visible and hard working Bitcoin supporters of the last 4 yrs?

give me a break.

Supported. Doing that, we could also avoid all this controversy. (at least attempt!  ;D)

I've heard Gavin's suggested that the Foundation should control bitcoin.org as well. Very bad idea if you ask me, the more decentralized it is, the better. I would also not suggest linking to the Foundation website from the bitcoin.org site. As we can see from this thread (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=177679.0) representatives for the Foundation are largely uninterested in answering valid questions.

+1

the devs should stick to what they do best.  develop.  i would never expect to get a vote on dev matters since i'm not a developer.  but what happened the other nite on github was something entirely different, ie, a political matter.

Agreed.

bitcoin is an open source software project ...how many other OS project pages do you see with "Press Centers"? The thing was an interesting idea, if a little pretentious, and quickly got turned into a "big microphone" for political hobby horsing ... get rid of it.

Lets' keep bitcoin.org focussed on the s/ware, technical and even avoid financial. Linux.org doesn't have sections on how it is changing the world, yet linux does. bitcoin.org should be completely apolitical, like the s/ware tech. itself .... just covering the full range of clients and technical development in the space is a huge job for such a website already. I'm not even sure it should take upon itself the job of educating newcomers or any kind of public outreach of that nature, since it is easy to link to those efforts.

There is nowhere, except diverse wiki pages, that are concentrating on keeping a solid bank of documentation on the core technology ... this is correctly bitcoin.org mission imho. Provide a framework for development of the tech., everything else is fluffery and can be linked to outside groups.

Edit: if powerful groups start developing alternate clients, wanting to push s/ware changes into the core, etc, as has happened with linux kernel, bitcoin.org is going to have it's hands full just keeping up with that
e.g.
http://www.linux.org/ (http://www.linux.org/)

Like I said.

This thread is still going, huh.

All this is very similar to previous rounds of arguments. Let me recap two of them here.

The first dispute is the one that led to forum.bitcoin.org becoming bitcointalk.org. As a reminder, what happened there is that theymos and sirius had a moderation policy on this forum that was so lax it was virtually nonexistent. People were openly trading drugs, hacked servers and other things directly on the forum. This triggered what can only be described as a developer revolt, as none of the people who were working on Bitcoin-Qt at that time thought this was OK. The result was development talk which had previously been done all on the forum moved to a mailing list, the forums got moved off the bitcoin domain and rebranded as unofficial, and in the end a moderation policy was established anyway.

So sirius, your position on this isn't really surprising to me.

The second dispute was over the Bitcoin wiki. It has a trade page. You will notice at the top it says services illegal in the USA or Japan are not fit to be listed. That warning wasn't always there. Back in 2011 that wiki page was the subject of numerous edit wars by people who wanted links to online drug markets to be there. Someone would add Silk Road links (and other sites). Someone else would take them off. To nobodies surprise the anarchists have more time to waste on edit wars than people writing software or running companies did. I got in touch with Mark Karpeles who hosts the Bitcoin wiki, and he set the rules that links to drug trading sites were forbidden.

You can see these arguments as just a third round of the same dynamic. A bunch of anarchists turn up and want the project to explicitly support their viewpoints, often by promoting illegal activities. A bunch of other people who are actually forming businesses or writing software turn up and want the project to stay apolitical and certainly steer clear of illegal activity.

Very often these arguments are phrased as, "Bitcoin should be open and democratic and everyone should be able to put whatever they like into it because otherwise YOU ARE AGAINST FREEDOM!". We know what the result of that kind of approach is. It's that our common spaces get overrun by anarchists who spend all day engaging in edit wars and trying to spray-paint as much illegal activity over Bitcoin as they can, any way they can.

So that's why these days we have a website that tells people to pay their taxes, doesn't talk about the Silk Road, and has people listed as press contacts who have a track record of not encouraging illegal activity. That's actually as apolitical as it gets. What would NOT be apolitical, is to have a wiki page that would turn into the Trade page circa 2011 where agorists who want to overthrow their governments camp on the page and misrepresent the views of everyone else involved in the project.

Are Matonis and Ver encouraging illegal activity ? If so, I've never seen it.

that's pretty narrow minded. 

i'm probably old enough to be your father and have my own family.  i've been around here for a while now and encourage paying your taxes, avoiding illegal activity, and being a good citizen.

perhaps you're still living in the past.  personally, i've seen an evolution in Bitcoin in more ways than one.

Don't bother asking for rational and consistent rules. That's the problem. It's not about "anarchists" soiling the good name of bitcoin. It's about a misguided effort to control access, based on a naive and selectively applied litmus test. For all the reasons Mike Hearn covered above, I'd suggest that jgarzik doesn't belong on the list. However, that would be applying the rule consistently.

There is no solution here other than a fork.

I'm building bitcoinpresscenter.org to be inclusive and dedicated only to press contacts.

This debate ran its course because there is no recourse, no rules, no consistency. At the end of the day, this was an effort to dictate policy to the community, based on what Hearn and Garzik and a few other believe is "moderate" while they can't even meet the standard themselves. It's arbitrary and capricious, and that's what people object to, not the specific individuals.

Game's up. bitcoin.org is not your private playground where you can pretend to speak for others or to take "the high road" which happens to coincide with your beliefs and opinions.

I was responding to the suggestion of replacing the website with a wiki, not on the case of those two people. I don't think I've commented specifically on particular cases, just been pointing out why it's not implemented as a free-for-all.

For what it's worth, I actually read a lot of what Jon writes, I comment on his Google+ stream pretty often, I never met him but I hope I will at the conference and I think I'd probably like him. Heck I think I'd like Roger too. I don't think either has actually encouraged people to break the law though I don't follow everything they say closely.

Part of the reason this whole thing has blown up is that some people are projecting a grey-area decision on a couple of people as much bigger than it really is. I didn't take part in the discussion about Jon or Roger because I don't see it as very significant - they've both been big supporters of Bitcoin, they both have spent time talking to the media so those are very positive points, at the same time some other people who have done a lot of work on Bitcoin expressed concerns. There's no point in having hundreds of people up there, given the point is just to explain the project accurately. So if there is extended debate it seems a better use of time to just move on and find other people where there's no risk of upsetting key contributors. It's not personal (for me), it's not a statement about politics or democracy, it's just about the best way to use limited time and webpage space.

cypherdoc, I wasn't making a reference to you (or anyone in this thread). I was talking about the kind of people who were edit-warring the wiki in 2011 or spamming SR threads back then.

Yepp, I would think those people are the men in suits doing business...

Moving forum.bitcoin.org to bitcointalk.org was a good move that made bitcoin.org less political. I would say the same about moving the press stuff out.

Resources page (http://bitcoin.org/en/resources) is already useful for press, we don't need a separate press page. There we can add links to the interviewee wiki page and possibly other sources.

With all respect to Saivann and others who have worked with the site.

Thank you Sirius.

You should consider reading your rants before you click "Post."


Is it yours to determine this? Or are you just hoping that through rote, crowing, shrill repetition, eventually it will become so?

You're not exactly being fair in this assessment. Some people the community feel that decisions are being made about defining "legitimate" bitcoin versus "out of mainstream" bitcoin by a small cabal of individuals. No one should have such power or even believe they have a right to try. However, the media needs to have a singular head entity to discuss bitcoin and it is very clear the foundation is attempting to position itself for such a role.

If they are successful, then the foundation would gain the ability to exclude certain voices if they desired. While such voices can always blog, tweet, etc, they would not speak with the authority of the "official" bitcoin group and therefore be outside of the mainstream. Now, it is fair to point out the argument presupposes the foundation's intentions and media strategy, yet it is also fair to say the community should be sensitive to these issues.

I recall working for the Ron Paul campaign in 2007-8 and watching the tea party turn from a very tangible third party against the status quo into a proxy of the republican party after some incredibly well funded entities hijacked it. I really don't want to see the same thing happen to the Bitcoin movement.

I think an interesting solution to these arguments would be to find someone with totally extreme political views who can be absolutely trusted to talk about Bitcoin in a neutral light, and make it clear that it's a project which is made up of many people with different beliefs and backgrounds. Someone who is a hard core anarcho-capitalist but isn't going to claim Bitcoin is inherently anarchist if they're given a soapbox, or imply the point of Bitcoin is being able to evade the law, etc. Then maybe everyone can be equally annoyed together. Perhaps Mike G would take it on :)

Charles, I think the tea party analogy is an interesting one. Obviously I wasn't there. But perhaps you can see that your analogy is invertible. There are plenty of libertarians that are doing productive and useful stuff with Bitcoin, but there are also a people who are trying to essentially hijack Bitcoin and make it linked in peoples minds with their own agenda. You can see it in these endless threads where some of them claim Bitcoin is inherently anti-government and anyone who disagrees "doesn't get it". They just can't or won't mentally separate the two things.

This is the root cause of the desire to keep Bitcoin and bitcoin.org apolitical, which is something there's a lot of support for. The problem is how to actually do that. A wiki page won't work. Wiki pages on controversial topics just turn into exhausting edit wars in which the final result is decided by who has the most time and zealot-like dedication. That's not a way to achieve an apolitical result, as we learned the hard way with the Trade page.

We could just delete anything that some random forum poster finds controversial. That won't work either. Some people genuinely believe Bitcoin shouldn't have a website at all. Maybe one day that'll be the case (hopefully!), just like how the dollar doesn't have a website, but we're far from that state.

We can rename stuff so it seems less "official", but there's already a very obvious disclaimer on the website saying that the people there aren't official or spokespeople of any kind.

We could just abandon the entire concept of a press center, but there are reasons it was created (oddly, nobody found it controversial when I first proposed it here in this forum). Mostly that a lot of the coverage Bitcoin got was really clueless or riddled with basic errors, and could have benefited from people who knew what they were talking about being involved. It'd suck to give up on trying to fix that.

So we're left with the worst solution except for all the others - have some kind of process for submitting changes, and look for alternatives in cases where there's controversy or people who have a long track record of contribution would be uncomfortable. In this case there are plenty of people who nobody really disagrees on, so there are lots of alternatives available.

I disagree with the notion that it isn't a thorn for governments. The problem is that governments issue the money and regulate it as they see fit. Bitcoin both attacks the standard economic models they tend to use for monetary policy (hurting the intellectual integrity of central banks) and also removes almost all economic controls governments can enforce upon their people. For example, wallets can't be frozen. It is incredibly difficult to measure a person's income (hurting the integrity of the tax system). There is no central agency to regulate or dominate. No one to answer for the crimes of the system as a whole.

It's a unique and difficult animal to even properly define much less integrate into the existing legal structure of money. Therefore, it is very naive in my opinion to believe governments will look kindly if only we cleaned up our act enough. They will never accept something that removes power they currently have. Thus unless we capitulate and surrender things like anonymity and free commerce, they will actively fight to destroy Bitcoin.

In my humble opinion, we have to treat bitcoin like the Internet of the 1980s and focus on bringing as many actors as possible into the system. The more people who both understand and use bitcoin; the easier it will be to prevent governments from trying to destroy bitcoin. The best way of doing this is to adopt an inclusive system and crowdsource educational efforts. 

Hear Hear!

Bitcoin is neutral. The attempts to force certain agendas on it, through exclusion are well-meant but misguided. We've done this before for the Internet and for crypto. We didn't win the arguments against broad-based availability of crypto by hiding the fringe voices, we did it by adding more, and more and more voices ,until you couldn't but see it as a mainstream activity. Once 128-bit crypto was anarchist and terrorist anathema. Now it is weak protection for grandma's pot-pourri purchase. We did that through addition, not subtraction.

I was about to say "Hey! What are you trying to volunteer me for!?!" but now I'm thinking more along the lines of "What sort of salary do you have in mind?" :D

Sheriff Gogulski ?

Another thing I am confused about is why are you contributing to Bitcoin if your end goal is to have a collection of governments regulate and control it? You've effectively built a better paypal without stock options or founder credit? The whole point of having a system like bitcoin is to abstract commerce to the cloud and outside of any one government's hands. We can agree to reasonable regulation of exchanges, yet I'm getting the feeling the foundation has something broader and more government friendly in mind.

Yes I could be wrong, but why are you then using the very finite resources of the foundation to argue about media relations when you have ignored the single most important entity in this debate- the mainstream prospect. There are significant barriers to entry for normal people into our world. It makes a lot more sense to win the PR battle by focusing on removing those barriers instead of purging certain voices deem to be to extreme. Anyone can be extreme if someone doesn't understand what they are doing.

Moving interviewees elsewhere than bitcoin.org can help on one thing. In a space that is not perceived as being "authoritative", there is more room for diversity without controversy. Thus probably fixing the Matonis/Roger issue. But still, even if it mitigates the issue, Mike Hearn is right that it won't be fixed regardless of the approach, edit wars will happen. Choosing interviewees will always remains a challenge. And not everyone can speak of Bitcoin clearly and accurately, so a "anyone is a Bitcoin PR expert" press center doesn't make sense.

Personally, I like the idea of a dedicated community-driven press center, managed by an independant team, with transparent guidelines and discussions. And I think that as long as such a community press center is well organized, that it is clear that it is community-driven and that it has decent guidelines, we could link to it. And we could remove most interviewees from bitcoin.org and only keep a few "boring ultra-neutral technical ones" like developer, Patrick Murck for legal questions. And/or link to https://bitcoinfoundation.org/contact . I've encouraged such an idea since a few days.

That said, I would also like to point out that as Mike said, this drama appeared only after the project has been reviewed and published. Roger and Matonis were more civilized and calm themselves than most people on the forums and most moderate voices seems to be exausted. I would personally prefer to let enough time for a good solution to appear than to rush things and cause even more outcry. Because the current press center also have many supporters. And it is not arbitrary, even though the process is too selective to some.

Amen! +1

I would appreciate help and beta testers for the bitcoinpresscenter.org which I am building as the inclusive alternative to the existing site. It will have only one purpose: to provide a comprehensive list of resources, packaged for press consumption (short bios, multi-res photos, attribution text, etc).

There is a way to fix this constructively and put the mess behind us. The press center I envision will have dozens of spokespeople with varying areas of expertise, a variety of roles in the community, a variety of spoken languages and a broad array of opinions. Nominations will be open and public. Votes and endorsements will be open and public.

I will have the prototype ready by Friday or Saturday this week. I could use help in testing the UX and also proposals on how to manage the registration, nomination and voting process.

Wow... totally distinct sets, huh? Anarchists don't ever form business or write software. Brilliant.

I'm sorry Mike... I strongly admire your work, you're the source of a bunch of really bright ideas in Bitcoin world. And you work hard for its improvement. I thank you for that. But this post of yours was pathetic and filled with prejudice. Perhaps the worst of yours I've read so far.


Oh no no, that's not apolitical at all, and you know it very well. All this is already a political choice - that of being a state-lover and "law-abiding" person. That's obviously a political standpoint (and imho, a sort of religious belief too).

And by the way, about "always following the law", perhaps you should read what Falkvinge has to say about it (he's a socialist statist, by the way): http://falkvinge.net/2012/07/19/debunking-the-dangerous-nothing-to-hide-nothing-to-fear/ (it's item 3 if you're in a hurry)
(I can also quote Larken Rose, but I suppose you'll discredit him right away: )


I agree, pointing to a wiki page is probably not a good idea either. A true attempt of making bitcoin.org less biased would be to remove this Press Center entirely. Just remove the Press Center from bitocoin.org, and journalists will keep doing whatever they do to search for information.

http://www.reactiongifs.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/09/slow-clap-gif.gif

Do you see this, folks? Can you find somebody that writes better than this guy on this forum? And he's not even on the damn press list! :D

Please, just remove this pity attempt of "censorship of ideas" from bitcoin.org.

Just to clear up some confusion on this point, I don't have any direct influence over the Foundation or what it does. I'm just a member like many others. The Foundation exists was created to solve a few different problems like be able to pay Gavin, to have an umbrella org for Bitcoin supporters to chip in financially, to organise conferences and to handle cases where the system needs a central body (like owning the trademark). It doesn't have an Illuminati-like agenda or set of opinions on every possible topic.


Do I need write up an FAQ on my political and economic views, or something?

One of the reasons these debates are so tiring is the insistence people sometimes have on seeing everything as black or white. There's only "anti government freedom lovers" or "pro government snivelling permission seekers" and nothing in between. That's not how the world works.

I could write at length on my views around size of government, financial regulation and so on. You'd probably find it quite boring. Suffice it to say I think if Bitcoin were to take off, it'd place some much needed restrictions on government power. For instance, it'd prevent governments and central banks from inflating the currency to pay for short-term vote buying, which would be an improvement. It would resolve the problem of opaque government blacklists (like the US SDNL) which are merely abusive sidesteps of the judicial system. A lot of the ways government and banks are integrated is excessively bureaucratic and poses problems for civil liberties, I think Bitcoin will have impact on that too. At the same time, I don't think Bitcoin will (or should) bring about some kind of anarchist total collapse of the state. Taxes will still be collected. Judges will still judge. Police will still police.  Voters will still vote. Some people, somewhere, will have to engage in many challenging conversations with regulators and law enforcement to enable Bitcoin to thrive because these people aren't just going to go away and they cannot be "beaten" by just ignoring them.

I wrote this on the Foundation forum too, but I'll repeat it here. I think a lot of these excessively vitriolic debates boil down to a misunderstood geographical divide. Libertarianism hardly exists in Europe. Anarchism is what people do on May 1st when idiots dressed in black leather set bins on fire, it's not a political position. Agorism sounds like something people do with plants. I don't remember the last time I met someone who thought their government was oppressive or described taxation as theft. These positions are so far to the right that they're practically alien in large chunks of the world.

I grew up in the UK and now live in Switzerland, neither of which have oppressive governments. About the most oppressive thing the Swiss government does is organise street parties from time to time. Taxes are low. Business is good. The rule of law is strong. It's a pretty nice place. There's no need to overthrow any states. When people here learn about Bitcoin they tend to think, oh cool, a way to take the banks down a peg. Or maybe, great, I pay too much in credit card fees. They don't think "finally a way to bring about an anarcho-capitalist utopia!".

Unfortunately, I repeatedly see a failure to recognise this amongst some people who come to the Bitcoin community. Anyone who isn't on the extreme hard right politically "doesn't get it" or "isn't true to the cause" or whatever. This is especially ridiculous because the introduction to Satoshi's paper is not a political manifesto, it talks about the problems of accepting credit card payments online. To the extent that he cared about politics he was interested in the power of the banks and inflationary policies (one reason amongst several I suspect he might be a Brit). So it'd be nice if people chilled out and respected others views a little more.

you keep creating a strawman for the people who offer reasonable opposition to your political litmus test.

I'm a lefty liberal who grew up in Europe. I find anti-government AnCap philosophy to be very far from my experience or political leanings.

I still think Matonis is more mainstream that people on the press list, that the attempt to exclude him is odious, the criteria inconsistent and the desire to limit opinions misguided. That's even though I disagree 100% with anti-government libertarians.

You are not a moderate, sorry. Censorship by exclusion is a radical position, despite all the rationalizations we have heard.

That's my opinion, and I am non-anarchist, mainstream, tax-paying, business person who sees bitcoin as a mainstream, yet also radically disruptive technology, just like the Internet. I disagree with your attempt to exclude.

The Bitcoin community should ignore the Bitcoin "Foundation" just like it ignores other forms of government.  It is increasingly obvious that the "Foundation" is attempting to dictate.

Treat it as the Internet has always treated censorship, by routing around it.

That might involve making sure to denounce it at every opportunity, or at the very least, to ensure that it is obvious that this "Foundation" does not speak for the community, but merely speaks for itself and the vested interests of its corporate ownership.

Could you please pay attention to the people actually working on solutions?

aantonop at least is working, and not only complaining.

All these philosophical discussions are becoming off-topic. And this thread has been poisoning enough for a lot of contributors. We've got enough people trying only to accomodate their own personal opinion or to attack the reputation of each other. This is just creating division, and it is a harm to the Bitcoin community. If you are not willing to recognize the value of what has been done, identify existing problems, consider the opinion of others, search for a better compromise and explain your thoughts in a constructive way, then it's probably not worth complaining.

Bitcoin has nothing to do with taxation or what people choose to use it for its simply a protocol and to ostracise people because of the way they think is odious. In fact mentioning paying taxes at all is more political than you would think because of the division this will cause. The foundation shouldn't hold any personal viewpoints nor push them forward but should stay apolitical and focus on the technology solely.

Telling people to pay taxes or not isn't their job. Im sure if Matonis speaks as a member of the foundation he would make it clear the difference between personal opinions and official policy of the foundation.

That's how you solve these problems, you create a better alternative. :) You rock!

Of course that's how the world works.

When you strip away all the lies, euphemisms, and obfuscation, it all comes down to a basic moral question. Threatening violence in order to compel other people to obey is either morally justifiable or it isn't. There is no in between. Whether you're talking about threatening violence in order to compel someone to have sex, or threatening violence in order to compel them to surrender money, the underlying principle is the same.

Some people are willing to call the evil out for what it is. That's fine. Other people people are too afraid to speak up. That's fine too. The very worst sort of people are the ones who can see the evil, recognize it, and are afraid to speak up but instead of just remaining silent help give it intellectual and linguistic cover. They help to blur the lines by spreading lies, euphemisms and obfuscation.

Amen. As a member of the middle ground, I'm looking forward to meeting you and the other grown-ups at the conference.

I'm just sensitive to takeovers by a few. Forgive me if I'm seeming a bit extreme. I love bitcoin. I don't want to see bitcoin become paypal 2.0. It's a bigger idea.

+1 million

I understand, and it's not going to happen regardless of what people say or think about Bitcoin, all that matters for it to remains the same is in the code and all levels of decentralization. If you are thinking otherwise, I think you are not realizing that you are loosing faith on what Bitcoin really is. :-\

I think it's time for the community to enter in a maturity phase and realize a few things. Including that Bitcoin is in a decisive turning point right now. Journalism might sometime represent free speech, but mass medias are not free speech at all. It's a big strategic game. And any businesses that is confrounted to this world must have a good strategy or fail.

The current press center has been developed not as an open recognition board for community members we all respect, but as a PR strategy. Like it or not, the overwhelming majority of the people are either not really politicized or have diverse views opposed to whatever you'll say. And about no business in this world is doing philantrophy. That means that associating Bitcoin to any ideology or "bad thing" in the mass medias most likely equates to prevent Bitcoin to develop. As simple and cruel as that. There is a lot of room to speak about politic, but there is a difference between that and making Bitcoin "an ideological battle" not every Bitcoin user agrees on.

So if you care about Bitcoin to develop for ideological reasons, you most probably have no choice but to be wise enough to help Bitcoin to "change the world peacefully". It's much less exciting and it's more pragmatic and efficient. Most future Bitcoin users don't want to approve anything political when they are using fiat money, and they want to use Bitcoin the same way. Even though we all know that every choice we do in life has political consequences, that is how most people and businesses work. If Bitcoin is perceived as "the money of criminals", or then again "the money of anarchists" or "libertarians" every people using it will feel like they will be perceived either as criminals, or as anarchists or as libertarians. Those are a very restrictive part of the world population, and it remains inaccurate to say Bitcoin is exclusive to any of these ideology.

Hopefully, in a few years, a press team will be fully obsolete and people associating Bitcoin to any political idea will not scare new users. But right now, it's different. Bitcoin is confusing for most people and it is about to become either a niche for activism, or a global innovation with no borders. What is going to be the turning point will be the public perception and adoption of Bitcoin. Just for the picture, Internet at its beginning was not labelled as a "political tool for free speech and individual freedom" but as a competitive technology. And that is how it became both.

So before you interfere with this process, please keep in mind that it is being done by involved people having a long-term view. Constructive work in order to improve or change things is always appreciated. And it starts with questionning what's being done before fighting it.

A lot of interesting issues has been raised and there is constructive work being done right now. Please learn to do some compromise and understand valid issues pointed by others. I've been doing this all days despite the hostile environment during weeks.

My rough translation would be:

  "STFU and be happy.  There are things you don't need to know right now."

I'll go ahead an '+1' but neglect to explain my rational.

My rough translation would be : work together, not against each other.

It seems you are quite comfortable with living and telling a lie, to the whole world ... you are probably the best person suited to operating a "Press Center" of the old paradigm.

I have now lost absolutely any remaining faith that you are the right person to be holding the keys to bitcoin.org.

Maybe with the following modification:

  "Work (for me) together, not against each other.

I anticipate that it is almost inevitable that alternate crypto-currencies will be issued by different organizations to further different goals.  This unless free communications are clamped down on to an extent that I don't believe is probably possible.  This process will take some time however, and it will likely be possible to milk the shit out of Bitcoin in the interim.  That's why "I agree with this message."

I only spout off on this forums (and usually do so with a high degree of honesty) because I believe that it ultimately has little influence on anything.

I am looking at the world straightforward, just how any serious project are doing. And no, I feel pretty bad when lies are being told in the medias about Bitcoin and I keep straight with the reality. That's why I take time trying to help many inacurracies to stop spreading in the medias. Like "Bitcoin is anonymous" or "Bitcoin cannot be regulated".

Each time people buy a cell phone, use their car, or use the US dollar, it is a political choice. My argument is that Bitcoin is no exception to this rule. And many people are going to keep thinking that what they do is apolitical, no matter what we do.

Absolutely. Giving them choice is not censorship. And that is why bitcoinpresscenter.org is so interesting. Because as a "non-authoritative" website, it can have a longer list.. Making things easy for journalists doesn't mean they are forced to use our list. But it can help them to easily find people who know what they are talking about.

:) Funny. To work together, the opinion of everyone must be taken into account. Both yours, and mine. I already don't 100% agree with everything myself and I defend others opinions, but searching the best compromise for everyone is my goal. Not just a few. As said before, I also like the idea of an more open press center. I'm just respecting the reasons why bitcoin.org might not be the right place for this.

I think whoever was manipulating bitcoin.org fucked up and dropped the ball on this one.  Now it's time to pay the piper.  That means to me either:

 1) drop the entire page (and move toward a tech-only posture.)

 2) re-instate name from those of 'all stripes' with some reasonable construct which would mitigate against foot-in-mouth semi-accidents.

I happen to end up being somewhere between repulsed and horrified when many of the Libertarian stripe pull stuff from deep within their minds, but I

 - always felt that Ver and Matonis have exercised a reasonable degree of restraint in public and have served 'the cause' well, and

 - plenty of those who are more naturally on 'my side' have equally horrific thought patterns bottled up inside and waiting to get out.  Myself included.

I'd hope that option #1 is chosen and worked towards.

This is mostly what is suggested by moving most interviewees to an external website. That is a good example of what would probably have a good consensus and be a good compromise for everyone.

I also love Ver and Matonis BTW. And exchanged briefly with them. Roger Ver was not postponed because of his presentation. Everyone seemed happy about how he was presenting Bitcoin. And because of all the noise on this forum, we could not discuss about them. I was about to recommand myself to open discussion about Roger inclusion a few days ago just before trolls started back to disrupt everything. So this thread actually played against himself.

Nice one, you have been found to be wrong and now you go on again labelling people who disagree with you "trolls".

You got sucked in by luke-jr's games and jgarzik machiavellian scheming to try and fly bitcoin under the mainstream radar ... and so you did nothing, which was worse than doing something, further prolonging the divisive nature of having the Press Center in place.

Basically, you have proven yourself unworthy to be webmaster of what is becoming an important piece of webspace ... have some integrity and resign already, please.

And whoever takes over, please take bitcoin.org back to its techie roots and away from the cheerleader PR fuzzy graphic goofest it is becoming ... dumbing it down for mainstream was a poor decision and direction for bitcoin.org. Bitcoin is a technology, not a kids toy.

Some people disagreed and remained civilized. Others disagreed and started to suggest solutions, and even work on them. That is great and helpful. I don't call that category "troll".

The press center is dividing people as long as people oppose to each other. Removing the press center won't change anything, so don't point at me. If you want this to stop dividing the community, it's up to you to help finding a good consensus. Because you are among the ones who keep making this a dividing issue.

Mike, you complain about viewing things as "black and white", but look at yourself:

+1

Very well said

All this weird hangup-type nonsense about 'violence' had me confused for a while.  Now I get it!

  Q:  What is a Libertarian?
  A:  An Anarchist who got picked on in school.

(c'mon...I'm only at '7-11 ignores')

Government and its agents are the ones with the weird hang-up about violence. They keep employing it, like any organized criminal racket does.

The difference between a sadist and a run of the mill thug is the sadist is not content to cause harm merely on one level. The thug just steals your wallet, but the sadist will steal it and attempt to humiliate you as well. Perhaps by implying the victim is upset, not because he got robbed, but because he has some weird hangup about theft. That's sadism in a nutshell: inflict harm and then avoid responsibility by blaming the victim.

That's the team tvbcof is cheerleading for.

Sadists also get their jollies by inflicting harm and humiliation. This also describes some of the publicly funded civil servants I've encountered in my life.

To balance this equation out, sadists are equally at home in the private sector. They just have an easier time finding a job in the public sector.

The bitcoinpresscenter.org beta is 90% complete. I will be calling on those who volunteered to help to test run some of the functionality.

I would like to explain what I have been doing for the past three days. I have been building a platform, using a CMS (drupal, but the tech choice is not important) in order to implement a press center, the Internet way:

- Inclusive - the barrier to nominations is very low - if the person is interested in being on the list, and their information is filled in, they are on the list

- Highlighting, not filtering: A mechanism for positive endorsements, with qualitative comments allows the best to bubble to the top of the list.

- A minimal amount of moderation is applied only to the content of the endorsements to filter ad-hominem. Positive endorsements push people up the list. If people feel negatively, they can *not endorse*. That keeps less endorsed candidates at the bottom of the list - BUT they're on the list.

- A lot of metadata to help press choose: Languages spoken, timezone, area of expertise (HW, SW, crypto, economics, business etc.), Role in bitcoin community (miner, user, dev, media, author, merchant etc).

- A lot of press-relevant information that is missing from current efforts: Attribution, Large-res photos, one line bio, short bio, long bio, etc.

- A faceted search and filtering system (like the sidebar on Amazon.com). You want to see just Spanish speakers who are developers and in your own timezone? Easy!

All of the above is geared towards a press center with 500 contacts, not 8.

Beta testing starts late tonight or tomorrow, for functionality. First public preview with content by end of Monday as promised.

This announcement is posted in its own thread, for comments and discussion (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=194404.0)

I see.  Since I find your bizarre assertion that everything which effect you negatively is 'violence' amusing, that means that I Love Big Brother.

Having some priorities in common, I've 'worked with' Libertarians enough over the years to understand how that makes perfect sense...to you...

edit: add word.

No, dipshit. This is violence:

http://freethoughtblogs.com/entequilaesverdad/files/2011/11/Police-Brutality.jpg

http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-2c6yN7hVBRU/T7l2Z_TtmrI/AAAAAAAAAHI/1GilId4bvIk/s1600/police-brutality.jpg

Everything dictate that comes down from those who have declared themselves rulers carries with it the implicit threat that those who disobey will be subjected to violence. Everybody knows it, everybody is afraid of it, and that's who everybody strenuously avoids talking about it.

"Law is an opinion with a gun behind it" is not hyperbole - the guns are real, and they use them, and it takes a nearly superhuman devotion to ignorance not to see them.

Of course the rulers don't want to actually use those guns more often than necessary - it cuts into their profits - so it's far better for their subjects to police themselves into obedience out of fear. That doesn't mean the coercion is gone though. It's still coercion if the rapist successfully intimidates the victim into compliance so that he doesn't need to actually use force.

That where you and other apologists act as such very faithful servants.  The last thing they want is for people to openly acknowledge and talk about the gun in the room and fortunately they have an army of bootlickers ready and eager to help them conceal the gun, divert attention away from it, and attack anyone who tries to point it out.

If you require a threat/gun to be obedient, that is your problem.

Luke, you are just being trolly now.
Even a caricature of a dictator wouldn't say that.

That's actually how people like that think. If you really want to see how deep the evil goes, just ask him about that enormous implied assumption in his statement. Try to get a straight answer as to precisely why anyone should obey in the first place, and even if that can be demonstrated, what's the exact difference between the people who should be obeyed and those who should not be obeyed.

Funny how you are now embracing the OWS people.  Libertarians had nothing but scorn and derision for these folks when they would not, en mass, move to you favorite crypto-currency solution.  (I don't remember you in particular, but that was my strong sense from the more hard-core Libertarians when this stuff was going down.)

BTW, you think that somehow BTC holders and not going to use 'violence' against the poor saps who didn't get them some back in the day?  I fail to see a particularly big distinction between Bitcoin and any other form of wealth in this respect frankly.  The only real distinction I can see is that Bitcoin has (and will probably lose) the potential for the 'have not's to use 'violence' right back.

If you're obedient just because you like to be, that's your problem.

I hear you're a Christian. You do know that when Jesus said "Render unto Caesar...", what he was actually saying was the nothing is Caesar's and we don't owe anything to the government.

I say that only because some Christians get confused and think the suggestion was that Caesar should get taxes. Far from it.

Your misinterpretation is crazy, and contrary to the infallible teaching magisterium of the Church:

(bold mine)

Pardon me for not taking the Church seriously.

Jesus said "Render unto Caesar what is Caesar's and unto God what is God's." The logical implication is that nothing is Caesar's because all is God's. Since the Church has seen fit to divvy up the world with Caesar, trusting the Church is as foolish as trusting Caesar.

Please recall that it was a combination of the Church and the State of the day that killed Jesus. Institutional Christians gloss over that salient point.

Back on topic...

http://www.wired.com/dangerroom/2012/12/most-dangerous-people/?utm_source=dlvr.it&utm_medium=twitter&pid=1696

"The Wiki Weapon project is not the work of a dispassionate techie seeking to push the outer limits of modern technology. Instead it is a blatant, undisguised attempt to radically alter our system of government."

This is a perfect example of exactly why Bitcoin would be harmed by listing people like Matonis on anything portrayed as official.

Bitcoin is the work of "passionate techies seeking to push the outer limits of modern technology", but having radicals as "spokespersons" would be an "undisguised attempt to radically alter our system of government."

That's a hoot coming from a scamming fruitcake.

Best laugh I've had all week! Horrible analogy and an even worse article!
This guy is about as dangerous as a grandma running you down with her electric wheelchair...

It is an incredibly stupid article.  The flabbergasting hypocrisy of attacking this guy as some kind of menace is ridiculous.  All he is doing is distributing information.

Who is dangerous is the gun manufacturers of the United States selling deadly weapons to anyone and everyone, even enemies of the United States, to both sides of civil wars, to genocidal warlords, etc.  Or the National Rifle Association, which poses as a civil rights group but which is, in actuality, nothing more than an industry lobby. 

Distributed Defense presents no such threat.  They aren't seeking out and stoking wars in other countries to make a profit on them.  What they empower is the individual, by making information available.  The only thing this guy is dangerous to, other than a government regulatory scheme that was already broken before he came along, is corporate profits. 

You can fully expect the gun industry to hate this guy as much as the government.  After all, if the average Joe can provide for the means of his own defense, who needs them?

Are you making "a blatant, undisguised attempt to radically alter our system of government"?  Because if you are... /sarc

Wow.... and this is the individual picking who gets to be on the "Press Center"... indeed, not even Hugo Chavez would be so explicit.

Please, sirius, just shut this damn Press Center down. It's impossible to have any other consensus with people like this one I'm quoting. It's better to just delete this page from bitcoin.org.

Can someone with wiki permissions create a page "Press contacts"?

Anyone can create pages on the wiki... just need to go through the antispam stuff.
Someone else is already working on a bitcoinpresscenter.org or such, though, so probably a good idea to see how that works out first?

bitcoinpresscenter.org is done, from an engine and content management perspective. I'm working on the visual layout and design (a CSS designer is working on it for me).

If you can look beyond the very simple and naked "look" , please visit bitcoinpresscenter.org and propose new press contacts directly. Anyone can propose a new contact and provide all the relevant details (which is a lot more information that the current press center).

Feedback is very welcome so that bitcoinpresscenter.org can be improved and launched...

Are you referring to this wiki (https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/Main_Page) ?

You are aware that wiki's are community projects where everyone can contribute ? So in reality, 1 person actively editing it and making a best effort to keep it up to date is worth more than 1000 people complaining it is bad.

Hey! ... why aren't Roger Ver and Jon Matonis on bitcoinpresscenter.org ?? ... is this some kind of political censorship or something? :D  ;)

PS: good work btw.

It's also heavily biased and plagued with edit warring by, among others, Puke-Jr.

For example:  https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/Litecoin (https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/Litecoin)


So after a bold-faced subject heading, the article cites "According to some," classic weasel words (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Weasel_word) completely inappropriate for a reference work, especially for a serious accusation.

Then, after accusing it of being a pump and dump scam, the article goes on:


So it's not a pump and dump scheme, but we're going to call it that anyway in an article with a bold-faced subject heading "Pump and Dump Scheme."

"These critics," of course, are the authors of the very text where they're citing themselves as sources.  Including Puke-Jr.  Try to change it and they'll go to edit war on you.

Signup, create a user and add whoever you want.

I won't nominate anyone yet...

Bitcoinpresscenter.org, the new design is ready and will go live in the next 24hrs. I would love to hear feedback. It looks like this:

https://i.imgur.com/uEKxK9A.png

Whoa, that looks great.  Thank you!

+10 - this site kicks ass!

Looks great man! I signed up and filled out the some of the bio stuff. What do I do now? I can't seem to get back to the bio and edit it. If I understand correctly, you will email me next after review. Then I can edit my info and post it as a pundit?
Thanks for this service.

way to go Andreas.

one thing; you should require the experts to list their pseudonyms here on BitTalk so we can recognize their posts thoughout this Forum.

for instance, i know nothing about George Burke or his thinking based on his formal name.

It is published now.

Great idea. I'm adding a bitcointalk ID and link, as well as reddit ID, as optional fields.

Thanks for the feedback!

Thank you. And again, well done!

Wait, I'm confused. Didn't Erik use Bitcoin for transactions while some others filled the blockchain with bitdust spam in the form of bible verses?

Luke-Jr I think

The debate over who *should* be added or not is over. The bitcoinpresscenter.org is open and inclusive. If you think someone should be added, you can register and add them. No need to ask anyone's permission or pass any litmus test.

That applies to both sides of this silly debate over who is a good for the community and who is not.

The Internet does not need prior-restraint filters because it can do rating, ranking and filtering on output. Surely by 2013 this is obvious?

Could you please add "Mike Hunt"?

I do not add contacts myself, I only manage the site.

ANY person can register an account, and then click "Add Contact" to add a contact. It takes a bit of work to put in the information, biography etc, so it is best if it is done by the person themselves or by someone who knows them and can offer the correct biographical information.

In summary, please register on the site and add Mike Hunt yourself, the site is self-service. I cannot research and add the contacts, I don't know them and I'm very busy handling the workload of administering the site and content right now!

Thank you

"Mike Hunt" is the guy who is often directed to the white paging telephone at the airport.


OK.  I'll add him and his cohort "I.P. Freely" when I get a chance.  If someone does not beat me to it :)


Thank You!

As of today, will Jon Matonis still be verboten on the press list at bitcoin.org...?

I think it needs a refresh actually. I'd like to see both Jon and Roger there, speaking personally, but the same arguments as before would apply - there are lots of people who can do a good job and it's not worth big arguments over it. I have talking to the developers who objected last time on my TODO list, then of course, Jon/Roger would actually have to want to be there. At least last time Jon didn't seem bothered either way, he spends plenty of time engaged in public speaking already.

Anyway, I'm more interested in refreshing the artwork, videos and making a link to bitcoinpresscenter.org more prominent (maybe some kind of overlay sticker thing so it's not just text but also graphical). Right now it's maybe a bit hard to spot the link. Anton did a great job with that site, it deserves a bigger advert.

Despite all the controversy over how the list of people there is managed, with the benefit of several months of hindsight I think the press center has been a very useful thing. I have no regrets about starting it. The press do use it and we've been able to improve the quality of a lot of Bitcoin stories. The one I'm happiest about was a CNN story that started out as "Bitcoin block chain used for hosting child porn" and we successfully worked with the journalist involved such that when it finally went out, the reference to child porn was buried in the last paragraphs and the overall story was a lot more neutral and balanced. Just last week Jeff and I were teaching a journalist who works for the Financial Times about proof of work and why Bitcoin is designed the way it is. We've come a long way from the bad old 2011 days.

roger ver kicks ass.

LOL

https://bitcoinpresscenter.org/presscontact/matthew-n-wright (https://bitcoinpresscenter.org/presscontact/matthew-n-wright)

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Afraid to show his face.

https://bitcoinpresscenter.org/presscontact/ron-gross (https://bitcoinpresscenter.org/presscontact/ron-gross)

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

MIA

Mark Karpeles

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

rofl

Oh yeah. This thread happened once. So much for being pushed aside...

 ::)

nice and interesting site, good work!

Bitcoinpresscenter.org

Great job Mike. That really helped mitigate a lot of potentially negative press. A story like that could have really gone viral pretty easily among the major media outlets and caused us all kinds of problems in the Bitcoin community and ecosystem.

There is no question the Bitcoin Jesus is the real deal.

IMHO the protocol speaks for it's self, the fact that the vast majority of journalist's haven't taken the time to even learn the basics speaks volumes about the desperation of the average sensationalist media hack. 

Many of the regulators who will soon be issuing regulation and even new law don't fully understand the potential of the protocol and you know where they are getting their info:  From the press whose main mission is selling enough eyeballs to their advertisers ( with sensational 'link-baiting' headlines)  in an effort to keep their operations afloat.

The community needs to reach out and EDUCATE or as we have seen it will be done for us!  Write a letter to your state legislator, write a letter your federal legislator.  Explain to them simply how the protocol works, explain to them the benefits it can offer to society,  explain to them how you use it.  Then explain to them how we as a community are being criminalized by the illicit activity of the bad actors.

The fact is decentralized virtual currency like bitcoin with an open, public ledger is the LAST place a criminal would want to launder money - which is the MAIN concern of government.  

Refer them to the many academics like Sarah Meiklejohn and her team who are doing studies of the blockchain: "A Fistful of Bitcoins: Characterizing Payments Among Men with No Names" http://cseweb.ucsd.edu/~smeiklejohn/files/login13.pdf

This is a DECENTRALIZED community. You can't rely on the bitcoin foundation or the bitcoin center or the bitcoin embassy etc to do it for you.  

We must each do our part and make an effort engage the decision makes to help then allay their fears and increase their understanding of this truly revolutionary technology.

Couldn't agree more with this.

The government is, I'm sure, largely worried about the ability to 'launder money', but that is a function of ensuring that they maintain control and visibility into the affairs of potential adversaries.  They have already arranged methods for their sponsors to 'launder money' for the purposes of economic gain (tax shelter loopholes and such) and another one of these in the form of Bitcoin is uninteresting.

But you are 100% right.  Bitcoin, as visualized by the Bitcoin Foundation at least, is a sucky way to try to achieve financial privacy for the reasons you outline.

People who share the Bitcoin Foundation's vision of a further water down, centralized, and pretty much useless 'PayPal 2.0' Bitcoin would do well to contact their congressmen and tell them how much it sucks for anything disruptive and how great a rope-a-dope spy system it can be with the able assistance of the Bitcoin Foundation trade group.  Especially when Coin Validation is ready for prime time.

ROFL - spot on. Bitcoin is already becoming all about control/profit and very little about financial privacy. Maybe during his next presentation to some three letter agency Gavin can get some tips to help him finalize his client into a completely useless tool of government. At least it won't be in beta anymore. This is already rivaling the longest beta period of any software I can remember that has already been distributed world wide.

Very good point.  However, we also can't afford to ignore when something that seems (to the world) to represent Bitcoin itself is actually becoming a potential threat to us.

I frankly do not think, as some do, that the Bitcoin Foundation has reached this level.  It still seems, on net, to be a beneficial thing.

But suppose it does cross over entirely to the dark side.  What then?  Doesn't the BCF essentially run this site?  What happens then?

My best understanding of things is that Thermos has pretty much full control after taking it over from Sirius who was out of his league from a technical point of view as demonstrated by one of the many hacks.  The guy (Theymos) also has some tid-bit given to him by Satoshi, but I forgot what that is.  Perhaps just a domain name, but I though it had something to do with the genesis block as well.

At some point along the line I thought that Karpeles owned something.  Perhaps just the machines upon which the site is/was hosted.  Remember that this used to be a forum hosted on 'bitcoin.org' proper (hence my username), but not long after I joined up it got so stinky that it was separated out.  (I'm sure these two events were unrelated.)

Theymos was one of the few who publicly voiced concerns/objections to the creation of the Bitcoin Foundation in the first place.  I remember because I did as well.  I've seen nothing of his which indicates to me that Theymos has changed his mind on whether such a trade organization is good for Bitcoin.  I suspect that he and I both recognize that it's good for our respective pocket-books if nothing else.  At least in the short term.

I'm always happy to have any of my misunderstandings corrected or clarified.  These relationships are likely to be as important as the code itself to the trajectory of the Bitcoin project.

Me too, actually.  I can't have many strong opinions on these issues, because I have too little knowledge.  I'd like to have more, and to have any mistaken impressions I have cleared up, or if I'm not mistaken, have enough knowledge to be more confident in my opinions.

Otherwise, I'll just tend to get more paranoid, probably.

No, this forum is unaffiliated with the Foundation. Same for bitcoin.org.

I think that the Foundation has done good things in the past, and they'll probably do good things in the future. But over time, there will be a growing desire to centralize via the Foundation. Centralization is an easy way to solve problems, and the Foundation is the obvious recipient of centralized control. We must all diligently watch out for this and act to stop it if necessary.