Bitcoin Forum

..

I have contacted jon and asked him to be part of my course. If he agrees, Jon will have an opportunity to be one of the economic faces of the mainstream's introduction to bitcoin. Every subscriber makes the foundation less relevant.

We are less than a week in and over 300 people. My goal is 10,000 by the end of the Summer and 100,000 by the end of the year. Until the foundation mentions and endorses my course, I will not mention them.

Let's see who blinks first :)

I'm doing a pull request now to add Jon now.

Aantonop, I'm glad you are here. I'm going to be doing a series on entrepreneurship in the bitcoin community. Would you mind doing a guest lecture?

I guess everyone got tired of looking at that ugly mug and decided to eat a bagel instead.

Pull request to add Jon Matonis to Press Center added.

https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin.org/pull/161

If you have a github account, you may participate in the ensuing discussion

Apparently the only reason the press center is decided in such a small group is the lack of pull requests. That claim will now be put to test.

Let's see...

It's a good old fashion takeover. We'll win in the end.

With pleasure. Please send me a PM with more details.

Thanks,

Andreas

It's a pretty transparent attempt to use the control over bitcoin.org and github expertise to completely shut out the entire community.

The attitude in the previous pull request and most of the discussions I've read has been entirely obnoxious, elitist and patronizing.

It's quite appalling to read grown men behaving like high-school bullies.

Ego much? He already is, he doesn't need your site to accomplish that.

The claim that nobody cares enough to make a pull request has been put to the test and show to be a lie.

Somehow, deciding on the representation of the community is dependent on knowing the full parameter and switch set for the git command and the pull-request mechanism of github.

As soon as someone overcomes that barrier, out come the slanderous accusations, cherry picked quotes and vague scenarios of doom. Matonis will destroy bitcoin if he's allowed to represent bitcoin.

I didn't much care about the issue. Until it became an issue of power, control and censorship.

See, there's a huge difference between using your power and control over the bitcoin.org domain to invite your buddies and favorite pundits, and using that control to exclude people because of your opinion.

Despite all the hand-waving and word games, it's a power grab, it's censorship, it's condescending and it makes me furious.

The conversation is exposing these excuses for the bullshit they are.

Whether you care about Matonis being on the press list or not, some of you might care about the fact that 2-3 people are arbitrarily making the decisions, based on personal animus and a purposefully convoluted opaque and capricious process that is being used as a cover for raw abuse of power. That's enough to pick a fight with me.

Join github.com use the free account and make your voice heard here:
https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin.org/pull/161

Based on previous experience on this topic, they will arbitrarily shutdown discussion in a few days at most. Do it now, or accept that bitcoin.org is the personal playground of a couple of people who don't care what the community thinks.

Like it or not, Bitcoin has a barrier to entry like the internet of the 1980s. My goal is to bring the veterans of this community together in an attempt to build a path for anyone who has the desire to enter much more smoothly than we did. Jon is a voice in a small passionate community. The foundation and I both know that as this community expands those who are omitted from the conversation will fade in relevance until only the pioneers remember them not any of the rank and file. My point was that Jon has earned a place in the mindscape of bitcoin and if my course turns into what I think it has the potential to do, then he is guaranteed it if he participates.

The Foundation is misguided. They are closing doors to make Bitcoin into something PC and regulatable. My goal is to just open a door for anyone who wants to come in and let them make their own decisions. That's the freedom, we deserve.


Aantonop is absolutely right. No one has the right to control bitcoin. We have allowed governments to usurp the internet, banks, money, speech and even life and death. We cannot let some group of people believe they can form a foundation and then suddenly control who represents "mainstream" bitcoin. It's offensive and the anathema to everything this community stands for. We should focus on making it easier for people to enter the world. To become entrepreneurs within it. To conduct commerce. And to participate in spreading the experiment to everyone. Not saying "this guy is way too extreme; let's ditch him".

I know a guy named dank who would love to join your group and take a leading role in the promotional work. He is very...creative. Will you let him do whatever he wants to prove you're different?  :)

Even that accusation is so flimsy as to be laughable. As "evidence" I got a dump of four quotes, one from Google+ (!), one from twitter, one from an article. Given the context, it basically amounts to "I disagree with Matonis".

Adding to the list capriciously is annoying, but whatever. Make no mistake: Keeping valid candidates off the list is censorship and it is odious.

I demanded "extraordinary evidence" for the extraordinary step of denying the pull request to add others (which has happened before).

This is not code, it will not break the build, it does not impose a single spokesperson. I'm not requesting that *only* Matonis is on the list. The burden to refuse such a request should be high. Instead it has been the opposite - capricious.

They are exercising an extremely powerful authority, by not pressing "Merge" and being able to simply cancel a pull request.

Ask yourself: What is the basis for that authority?

The goal of my course is to provide accurate, comprehensive and often updated material to allow a curious person who has little knowledge of bitcoin to effectively understand how our money works, why it has value, the technology the risks and entrepreneurial opportunities and finally the economics of a deflationary currency. Always free and crowdsourced with a preference for members who have been in the community long enough to fully understand at least one topic area.

Think of this like lifting the veil and thus allowing someone to just walk into the community. If you feel your friend can contribute in a positive way to this project, then tell him to send me a PM.

The same as the government-- people with money promoting it, people without money not caring enough to speak up?

No offense, but why would you need him to PM you, why can't you just agree to let him lead right now?

Is it because you want to vet the people involved to ensure that the quality is of the utmost and want to limit exposure of people who would otherwise make the project look bad? (A very sane argument)

By making that equivalence, you only show yourself to be biased.

No one said free for all. The made it plenty hard to apply, and once I put in the pull request they started showing their bias and how fake the "open process" was.

Yeah, they said no one cared enough to do a pull request. When I did one they moved the goal posts.

You're one specious argument behind, catch-up will you?

Because he has to make a commitment to serve. I see what you're trying to convey, but this isn't the same. I have outlined a very clear set of goals and a purpose that I think this community can embrace. If he wishes to help, then I will not say no. Out of respect for those who have already committed to serve, he must be proactive enough to contact me. There is plenty of work to go around and we could use him.

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

It appears to me that the foundation really doesn't care about our suggestions.

This not "the foundation", this is three or four developers who are so tone-def and insulated in the little authority they have through the commit flag that they've come to think they are press directors, not glorified webmasters.

A bit of sunshine and they will go scurrying away. All I have to do is quote their rules back to them and they tie themselves in knots trying to make it all appear less than capricious.

I think the problem is a bit more systemic than you'd like to admit. The foundation in my opinion really could care less about what we think. They have a plan and are executing it perfectly.

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)

It was a sham all along, trying to distract from the power grab underway.

bitcoin.org's press page is run by 3 unelected developers with not a clue about press relations. Rejoice!

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 is just me but, I trust the people on this list:

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



moreso than the opposite voters. Mostly because I have never heard of, or from, the opposing voters (except cypherdoc [I think]).


That is all. :)

Then why even have a vote at all? You don't get to say, let's vote and then reject it afterwards because it didn't end the way you want.


That is all. Smiley

Didn't you hear? they changed the rules. Only people who are recognized by their github ids get to vote. You must have missed rule change #17.

The vote was not my idea. I am simply stating I have more trust in the list of people I posted than the other voters.

It's ok grubles, you don't get a vote either...

I can't say I know much about the matter at hand except that I've been told it is a non-matter. I'll refrain from speaking further on the subject until I know more.

That list omitted at least me (https://github.com/bendiken), as well as many people who spoke up in favor of Matonis/Ver on the numerous earlier related issues and pull requests (at least #139 (http://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin.org/issues/139), #145 (http://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin.org/issues/145), #152 (http://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin.org/issues/152), and #161 (http://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin.org/issues/161), perhaps others) but gave up after it was clear that the process was broken. Not that it matters, as this was never going to be a vote.

Let's review the key facts of actual authority here, which are rather more fundamentally pertinent to this dispute than the dearly-held personal opinions of a couple of core developers:

• 1. The current delegation chain through which the website is maintained is Sirius (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=4) (who owns the domain) to Gavin (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=224) to the webmaster (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=73755), as previously described (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=188516.msg1955302#msg1955302). This structure does not directly include or involve the Foundation or the other core developers at all.
  
• 2. Sirius has not yet responded to this issue (he's reclusive these days) but has previous libertarian statements on record (http://sc5.io/blog/2013/02/sc5er-intro-the-bitcoin-guy/). It is hardly conceivable that he would himself censor Matonis or Ver, any more than Satoshi himself would have done so.
  
• 3. Gavin has explicitly expressed (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=181168.msg1897036#msg1897036) that he believes the process should be inclusive, not exclusive. It's very clear that he himself would not censor Matonis or Ver. (Particularly Matonis, who sits with him on the board of the Foundation.)
  
• 4. The webmaster, however, is at the moment choosing to ignore (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=181168.msg1915974#msg1915974) the views of the very people from whom his authority derives in the first place. The problem comes down him evidently (https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin.org/pull/162#issuecomment-17151279) placing more weight on the views of the core developers with whom he hangs out daily (http://bitcoinstats.com/irc/bitcoin-dev/logs/2013/04/26#l7115060) at the #bitcoin-dev (http://bitcoinstats.com/irc/bitcoin-dev/logs/2013/04) IRC channel. This is understandable, in a way: they are his peer group, and peer pressure will matter much more than the ad-hominems shouted at him by people he doesn't hang out with.
  
• 5. Gavin seems reluctant to directly countermand (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=181168.msg1916410#msg1916410) the webmaster. He'd like the webmastering to stay delegated, which is understandable since he's a busy guy and the website isn't his top priority.
  

Keeping all this in mind, there are a couple of important implications:

Firstly, debating those core developers hostile to Matonis and Ver is bound to be ineffective, since they will rationalize their opposition every which way to Sunday (as demonstrated); but it also actually doesn't matter, except in so far as it might or might not affect the webmaster's view of the situation. It was clearly ineffective, and perhaps counterproductive, in the way it proceeded (http://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin.org/issues/162) on GitHub lately, though it did at least serve to further illuminate the absurdity of the process.

Secondly, if what's needed is to overrule the webmaster instead of persuade him, that can only be done by Gavin or Sirius. (Satoshi would also carry enough authority, but he's unlikely to come out from well-deserved retirement.) Unfortunately, these gentlemen are not particularly assertive (as compared to, say, Linus Torvalds (http://arstechnica.com/information-technology/2013/02/linus-torvalds-i-will-not-change-linux-to-deep-throat-microsoft/)). Further, they are likely both at the moment "blissfully unaware" (http://bitcoinstats.com/irc/bitcoin-dev/logs/2013/04/26#l7121626) of the particulars of the dispute. So, barring a miracle, that's all she wrote.

That would seem to be a basic Whois information protection service such as e.g. Namecheap (http://www.namecheap.com/products/whoisguard.aspx) and GoDaddy also offer. Still, perhaps "controlled" is a more appropriate word than "owned". I trust theymos (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=35) to sufficiently know the pertinent history and facts when he says (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=181168.msg1916356#msg1916356) the domain is owned/controlled by Sirius.

That is precisely what I meant by the distinction of "owned by" versus "controlled by".


If you are referring to theymos (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=35), you do realize he is the administrator of the forum and one of the most knowledgeable people around when it comes to such matters.

sorry but what is the actual issue with jon? just that he has 'extreme' views, or did something happen behind the scenes?

luke-jr and jgarzik have deemed Jon Matonis and Roger Ver "too radical" ... they have persuaded their 'webmaster' puppet this is indeed the case ... subsequently they have slandered and mocked Matonis and Ver in regards to their political leanings on IRC #bitcoin-dev when challenged about their schemings to have them blocked from the bitcoin.org "Press Center" page.

Sirius has been kind enough to comment on the matter over on the original thread about Ver/Matonis getting censored (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=181168.0). Him weighing in, combined with Gavin's previous statement (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=181168.msg1897036#msg1897036), should be enough to once and for all resolve the dispute over the press representatives: