Bitcoin Forum

https://decrypt.co/33703/bitcoin-orgs-secret-owner-kicks-out-the-sites-maintainer (https://decrypt.co/33703/bitcoin-orgs-secret-owner-kicks-out-the-sites-maintainer)


Apparently the guy was contacted by Mozilla and they did struck a deal of 75,000$ worth of investment in their stake in his company , but Apparently they were already warned beforehand by cobra that , this does not mean that they will somehow own the website.



Apparently Mr. Binns words are:



Not only that now Binns wants to set up a fund legally so that the sites ownership will be with a trusted third party because he believes that Cobra wants to give the ownership of the site to someone else without legal process and such .



I do think the guy is not taking into account how since years the site has been managed by Cobra , we never did have any problems regarding the same , it might be a simple case of de-faming the man but I do believe as long as the site is owned by someone good who does know the essence of cryptocurrencies as a whole , we are good to go .

This site is in no way owned by anyone , it's owned by every single person out there which helped create it , centralization is never the option when we are talking about Bitcoin.org specially , we have already seen other sites being taken down .

Is someone behind all this ?

But then again what Binn is asking is not wrong ??? He might be saying statements way over the top and accepting payment for the stakes might have alerted Cobra , because we all know how companies like these works , if Mozilla tries to own this , they will make sure at least there part is centralized.

It's not about money !

________________________________________________________________

What is your take on this ?

 

that's the whole drama here! the site is owned by someone and that is Cobra. everyone else who has contributed are just contributors and nothing more. and that (and being centralized) is not a bad thing as long as the owner is not malicious which Cobra has proven to not be that way for many years.
the claims Will made here are just outrageous: https://github.com/bitcoin-dot-org/bitcoin.org/issues/3398

This is not the first time that the bitcoin.org website has sparked controversy


For me, this is an inverted reflection of the Bitcoin movement as a whole: the authoritative view is that of the overall Bitcoin economy/"ecosystem", not of one website that has an easy-to-remember name


In short, bitcoin.org is not and never will be Bitcoin itself, so this latest soap-opera is big on drama, but low on substance

I don't think Binn has any right to claim partial ownership here since he was a kind of contributor like what pooya said. There are a lot of contributors in the development of Bitcoin itself, would they be able to claim ownership of bitcoin creator?
However, so far Cobra seems to be enough trusted and I think he will hand over the website to someone trusted, not whom who wants to be the honorable controller.

Every buck has to stop somewhere, and that somewhere is Cobra in this case.

I think he's a multi-personalitied weirdo but the site's integrity has been impressive and that's primarily down to his stewardship. That's all he has to point to when people make shrill claims. As ever, actions speak louder than words.

If I ran it I'd have a holding page saying 'Bitcoin is nice' and a blockchain download link and that would be that forever.

As long as Cobra doesn't suddenly "flip" to the bad side(like how his opinions on things on Twitter have been shifting left and right and everywhere), whatever. It's technically and legally his domain anyway.

I'm going to be completely honest here. If I owned that domain, I'd honestly make it a business lol. But I'd definitely strive to make it a far more moral and ethical version of bitcoin.org's evil .com counterpart.

I'd find the constant scrutiny and hysteria such a goddamn ball ache I wouldn't be able to tolerate it myself. It's always going to be a hot potato so I'd try to cool it off as much as possible. The fewer centralised points of contention the better in my eyes at least.

This is some weird drama.Some questions are popping up in my head:
Why is Cobra anonymous,while this guy (Will Binns) isn't anonymous?Why is Cobra hiding his identity?Is he hiding from someone?I know that Cobra is the undisputed owner of Bitcoin.org,but he is a controversial personality.Will Binns wants partial ownership,he isn't trying the steal the website and domain.Maybe he wasn't paid fairly based on the amount of his work as a contractor.I guess that those two will have to decide the conflict in court.

Cobra owns the domain and he can do whatever he wants with it.

There is nothing more to add.

(he used to own btt.org too, now the owner is theymos)


For the same reason satoshi hides his.

Everything apparently is about the money at some point. Unless the domain can be hosted completely decentralized and open-source and Cobra wants it to be that way, it's just going to always get to that point one day.

You cannot turn an ownership into a "everyone owns it" thing. We cannot have literally everything ran by everyone and anyone in this domain, although it would've been amazing if we could. When people fight for these things, you can see what it turns into by visiting bitcoin.com and checking out the big fuss that was made out of the @Bitcoin account on Twitter.

Why are you using a pseudonymous currency instead of fiat? Why are you not posting your ID here, is "davis" your real name? Are you hiding from someone? Now would you like it if I started questioning and looking for your real identity?

This "we need to know who that guy is!" thing that pops up with every anonymous person in the crypto sphere is so pathetic. Why do people even care? Let that guy be anonymous, he obviously wanted to maintain his privacy for a reason and some people are just pooping on it. All you'd really do by finding out who he is.. is just putting his identity in danger.

The news or FUD proves that theymos was right with his decision on Domain name update (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5241347.0).
The important part is separation of the two sites as it was announced by theymos.

Cobra shown his plan to sell the bitcoin.org and Roger Ver popped up to make a bid.  ::)

Bad news. It's not fun to read about disagreement. Cobra is mysterious person and I don't have big trust in him. Especially after these tweets mentioned above in past. It's bad that theymos don't have control of Bitcoin.org...
And it would be disaster. We already lost Bitcoin.com and it have very big roll in misleading people. What if Bitcoin.org would appear in Ver hands too? Now Bitcoin.org is one of first websites visited by people when they enter word "Bitcoin" in Google search and where they can get unbiased, non-commercial information about Bitcoin. It works almost like official website of Bitcoin.

Cobra is mysterious and Theymos is not?  ??? How about satoshi?  :D

Don't worry. There are thousands of coins on the market, and bitcoin is only one of them. If people have interests and good willings to find and learn what is real bitcoin, they will do find it and the forum.

From the bubbles of bitcoin cash, bitcoin sv, bitcoin gold, and so on we can see the facts that people knew they are forks from bitcoin and believe in statements on evolutional technologies. They know which one is a real bitcoin and now please tell me why do we should discuss which one is a real bitcoin.

Which one was launched first? Bitcoin BTC, that is all we have. Any other bitcoin a, b, c, sv, shit, forks after that is not real bitcoin.  ;D

just because someone has a different opinion than you, it is not a reason to not-trust them even if that opinion were wrong.
conversely having the same opinion as you doesn't make someone trustworthy (wolf in sheep clothing).

Which reason ?
I will tell you why: because he is nobody and has no skill, so he prefer stay anonymous (and he'd better, because he's uesless)


This is why cobra isn't trustable, he fired and "not-trust" someone just because this person had a different opinion on something that isn't relevant.
I would never believe or work with a person like that, he his full of pretention like his words on the Mozilla's intention which aren't even proved. What a dumb... and this little guy is the administrator of Bitcoin.org ?Well, it's just a little guy with a SSH access on a server and a bit of skill in programming ;) Cobra is litteraly nobody and bring nothing to the community. I will never share a "bitcoin.org" link on my future plateforms. I hate that kind of persons who are abusing their power by lying like that (can he prove what he said about Mozilla ?)


EDIT: The simple fact that he's pretentious about the intention of Mozilla Firefox, mean a lot about his real face and behavior in the real life. Even if he's the real owned of Bitcoin.org.

The thing though, is that it isn't. It doesn't matter whether Cobra or theymos has ownership, you can never write off the possibility that it becomes compromised. I get that it can suck to have no "official" Bitcoin resource, but that's probably for the best -- look at @Bitcoin on twitter and how much drama that used to cause (well it still does but on the opposite camp now lol).

And since it seems like you're lobbying for theymos, it may be relevant to show his insight on a similar matter:

Abuse which power? He owns the domain.


Again, He owns the domain. He can do whatever the fuck he wants with it. All you can do is bitching.

Please list the 'multiple facts'.

He can point to many years of successful operation and the, sometimes, grudging respect of many people who are respected themselves.

As for donations, no one is forced to donate and most Bitcoin fans are too mean anyway. There has always been a donation address on there.

'Successful operation' means the website has been up, visible and run for the right reasons from the moment it launched. That has been the case since 2009. There has never been any suggestion it has attempted to mislead people.

He's a bit of a weirdo and possibly several people but not a scammer.

If you're going to claim otherwise and claim something that no one else ever has then you'd better have some compelling factoids. Let's see them.

Well having a good website might really interest someone to own it. I do believe that this is all abouy how one could earn in that prestigious site. It could be diverted to treasure hunting when one with interest could own the website. Remember that we are not talking here an ordinary website. It is for bitcoin which is one of the website having a huge money with the bitcoins.

I do hope that bitcoin and the sites could not be influence with people having negative interest.

Why don't you tell us what he said about it? You seem to know.


Bitching.


And more bitching.

Bon voyage.

I don't see your arguments about Cobra though. You still didn't explain how he is a liar.



Why don't you come to my thread and explain how he is an angel then? I'd like to hear your super educated factoids.

Didn't you fuck off already?

Via our exchange you have proven yourself to be a man of conviction, diligence and generosity of spirit. You have a supercomputer for a mind, the body of Flo Jo, the wealth of a thousand Buffets yet you wear your superiority lightly as you walk amongst us like a God from Olympus.

I've never respected another human more in my entire life. I also fear you.

But the request to come up with something, anything still stands.

2 members of this forum are trolling me because there is written "Legendary" below their pseudonymes, so they think that they are real legends  ::)

Fortunately they have no life and no skill, they are not even useful on this planet not even to bring the cryptocurrencies to the large public :) (so they have the time to troll)

Thankfully it also increases a bit my activity/messages counter (and like that i'll become another kind of legendary, on a forum...  )  otherwise it would be useless to reply, and it improves a bit my english skill since i'm always trying to make my best.... All that while they are improving their trolling skill. In this world, everybody should be satisfied.


Anyway i have some real work to do, like a real legend.....

Whoever owns the domain owns it all the contents may not matter anymore including that forum they were about to close. There is just not decentralization of owning a website especially because a domain has to be registered by someone. The word "decentralization" had always been tricking everyone.  :D

no, he fired him because he was overstepping his position to the point that it was turning into abuse. i don't know why you suddenly came here to bash Cobra so much though. and sure his actions could be considered rash. but what about the actions of the other party?
speaking of donations why in the world was Binns trying to raise funds from centralized companies using bitcoin.org name? bitcoin.org has always been running on donations and the wallet seemed to have $80000 in it already, so what was the need?
and what's up with the childish FUD after he was fired?

I am much sadder from Bitcoin.com website. When I was there for the first time I was really upset, that they are mostly prioritizing Bitcoin Cash and I think, that at Bitcoin.com they are using Bitcoin's name for casino or exchange which is not nice.

Bitcoin.org is mostly community made website and they are also having donation wallet so they can even have profit from that site.

What are the chances of a malicious version of Bitcoin Core to ever be on there? I think my worst nightmare is upgrading my node/wallet to the latest version of Bitcoin Core & upon opening Core my balance is 0BTC

Well, yeah, theymos is mysterious too, but at least we know his stance and that he is pro-Bitcoin, while there is more questions about Cobra.
just because someone has a different opinion than you, it is not a reason to not-trust them even if that opinion were wrong.
conversely having the same opinion as you doesn't make someone trustworthy (wolf in sheep clothing).
[/quote]
You're right. But when owner of Bitcoin.org website makes pro BCH tweets, it gives some doubts about that personality
Very good point! Words "official" and "Bitcoin" probably shouldn't be used in same sentence. There is no thing like official Bitcoin website, forum, wallet or Twitter account. Such things is just impossible when we talk about decentralized currency. The problem is that people consider these resources as official websites and they 100% trust in information that they found there.
And I wouldn't call it as lobbying. I just used theymos as example, who would be more suitable to run Bitcoin.org in my opinion in hypotetical situation

then you should learn how to build clients from their source codes that are already available on GitHub and can be reviewed. or at the very least you should learn how to verify digital signatures of binaries you download.
this has nothing to do with who controls bitcoin.org though!

That's why they say with big game comes the big challenges and greed of hunting the stuff. With today's date bitcoin has gone very far from initial stages and website like bitcoin.org is now most hit by crypto users. May be this has led the owners (real, pseudo) anyone to have cold wars over this ownership stuff.

They know very its value is huge and being owner of such domain means a lot to them. These things can happen over ownership when something is getting way to popular.

It feels like Beatles separating because they were getting more or less huge popularity and had disputes over who will be the owner of band.

Nothing new with this drama.

People like to point out that Cobra has been doing flip-flops recently. In his defense, he has only had a bit of occasional falling out with the maximalist crowd. In some of his tweets, he expressed a kind of desire to have healthy competition between the two communities rather than constant trolling. Yet, he loves bitcoin and its legacy too much to not be able to judge someone like Roger Ver for what that twat is.

Like everyone pointed out, Bitcoin.org is as clean and trustworthy as can be. The stuff is ONLY about bitcoin. He could have long went for a more commercial look but he hasn't. That alone speaks of his credibility. Yet, we can all agree that times are changing. Nobody knows who Cobra is. Maybe he is just another young man undergoing change of circumstances and evolving his own ideologies. Or he is an old man who wants to handover the reins (https://github.com/bitcoin-dot-org/bitcoin.org/issues/3332). He is graceful enough to accept in that post that he wants the successor to not be as drama prone as he someone was. In my opinion, any man who has that level of self-reflection is a trustworthy person. Unlike some of the psychos out here who just can never be wrong. (People arguing with StonerStanley, this guy is Techy level convinced, no use engaging).

Even if the ownership passes on, it'll always have to be another bunch of people who run it with certain basic tenets of not compromising on Bitcoin's values. Rest depends on a lot of other dynamics.

The site is originally being maintained by Cobra, and that puts in the position of being the leader over the site and he’s in the rightful position to remove Binns if he thinks that he’s not doing something right. I don’t really see the reason why Binns will be trying to take legal actions against him lolz, when it’s clear that he was just contracted to be maintaining the website.

Since, the original person in charge has said he doesn’t want him to be involved any longer, then he should pack his things and leave for good. There is really no reason here to be taking legal actions against Cobra. And moreover I don’t see why Binns would try to involve Mozilla and claim ownership in something that doesn’t belong to him just because of money.

The post by Cobra where he showed all the DM screenshots convincingly show that Binns assumed he had right over the domain as he had been working on the site for sometime. He is the one who mentioned at one point, "Maybe we should talk about this with an attorney?".

It may have come to him as a rude shock that Cobra was not willing to let him play the role of bitcoin.org representatives to Mozilla and other organisations. Cobra clearly told him that he can accept the grant in his own name as "Mozilla supports Will Binn's work on bitcoin.org". He did not want the media spin to be "Mozilla invests in bitcoin.org". That is in line with his repeatedly shown desire to not corporatize bitcoin.org.

He devotedly stuck to his stand and explained it to Binns. At the end of which, Binn seem to have shown a desire to assert his ownership by talking about bringing attorneys. On his rights being revoked, he took over the treasury funds which, seemingly, was a coercive measure. To Binn's credit, he realized that it'll only harm his image and Cobra still has community's trust on this. He sent back the 9.8 BTC on the treasury and for the moment, all seems to have settled.

That doesn't change the fact that Cobra was and is still looking to handover the reins to someone trustworthy. (He talked about a developer which i think could be Greg.) Nothing is compromised and Cobra may have in fact, just warded off another takeover attempt.

Cobra was 100% correct to act in the way he did, you cannot be a site admin and claim to have ownership in the site.  ::)  A site like that is also very valuable and it has historical significance.  ;)

There must also be a lot more behind this, I do not think Cobra will just fire him for one incident. The aftermath of this will most probably generate a lot more controversy, with both sides "washing dirty clothes" in public and possibly a competitor site popping up in the future that are owned by Binns.  ;D

Let's pop the popcorn and sit back to watch the show.  ;)

Exactly mate,and how can He claim such thing when there are million of people that already Know His position and he cannot even prove this in long run.
And this claim is very valuable for Him to take part.
Cobra will do it of course because this is a clear violation of being a site manager to get involved in this kind of issue.
Watching as well here with Big Popcorn on my lap.

I think it is unnecessary and even counter-productive to assign any kind of "controversy" to this topic. The whole thing was quite maturely and amicably settled by Cobra as well as Binns. If you read their discussion, cobra had no intention of trying to portray bitcoin.org as some sort of "sole source on bitcoin", so the question of a competitive site does not arise.

Plus, the way Bitcoin functions, nobody should need to trust the site anyways. You simply verify it for yourself. It is just that despite there no being a single central authority, there will always be some sort of trustworthy figures that bitcoin community will look up to. Legacy and continuity of commitment is what matters then. Cobra has that and that is the reason he had the last word in this despite Binn being pretty confident that he can represent the site by himself.

 ::)


...

Kasabian - eez-eh ...
- https://youtu.be/ST6nEvIEY4s

posting this comment multiple places on this forum doesn't help anyone. you should open an issue here if you want it to be seen by those who can change this: https://github.com/bitcoin-dot-org/bitcoin.org/issues

also i am curious whether this is even needed for a site like bitcoin.org. the current certificate is already secure and good enough. not to mention that there is no sensitive data being communicated between the user and the site to want encryption in first place.
the most important thing is downloading bitcoin core which doesn't matter even if you download it over http (without SSL) because you have to verify its signature anyways.

It helps everyone, it helps to ascertain who really cares ...

Strong encryption is strong. Weak encryption is weak.

*All* SSL is extremely weak, on the borderline of snake oil.

Anyone who can MITM a HTTP request coming from almost any public CA to the target domain in question can obtain a valid certificate.  The only thing SSL provides meaningful protection against is MITM who are near the end user (e.g. their ISP or open hotspot, etc).

I haven't looked into detail of the above report, but generally you need to be careful with these auditing tools, because they often ding fairly harmless settings differences which are necessary for compatibility with older browsers and which don't make a practical difference for security. Sometimes following them too aggressively can actually lower the security in practice by forcing some users off HTTPS.

Given the generally low security of HTTPS, stuff like 4096 bit RSA vs 2048 bit is mostly security theatre.  Sure, why not, google doesn't ding sites as much anymore for having a slower connection due to HTTPS.  ... but it's not something that is worth basically any attention.

I agree with Amishmanish. The issue here is that we have no idea what is stated in the contract between involved parties (if there is any sort of contract at all). Also, we dont have enough information to figure out what is Cobra`s intention here. Right?

What would hackers benefit from hacking that site? There is no use of that bitcoin.org except more information about bitcoin, which can be done using many platforms.
Bitcoin does not need an official page or account documentation.
Bitcoin.org and bitcoin.com has no difference between them? Its words can be used by scammers, but everyone will still trust bitcoin with red logo.
it is a waste of 70000 dollar