Well 1 vote per person - how do you enforce that?
What keeps me from creating sock puppets?
Why would I donate to something with no clue how my money might get used?
Because I suggest a process to decide all funding decisions openly and with votes from all members. I'm open to suggestions on how to avoid sockpuppets. The obvious solution would be members have to tie to identities, at least once for verification. We can discard the records once verified. We can use an independent company to do the identity verification without giving us details. We can even outsource the membership management and vote management to an independent third party. I am proposing a 501(c)(3) or equivalent, with US registration, named directors and open accounts. Add to that independent yearly audits of the books. I'm open to more and better approached to develop transparency and accountability. PS. I am recusing myself from the board. I will pay by 1 bitcoin (or less) and get voting membership. Then we can all elect a board we trust, though they will not be able to spend the money without a member vote. In the US it is relatively simple to create a trust account under an independent executor, who follows rules set out in the bylaws. |
|
|
|
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.htmlhttps://plone.org/foundation/meetings/membership/2004/nominationsYou 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. |
|
|
|
Exactly what sort of 'power' would such a group have?
It speaks for bitcoin? Bitcoin is a thing, I don't think it has opinions that need to be spoken.
Direct democracy still equals 3 wolves and a sheep deciding whats for diner.
How many votes can I buy for 100 BTC? (either bribes or multiple accounts, take your pick)
It has the power to distributed funds from donations, and to express the votes of the members. No more power than that. You only get one vote, one person. Who would you bribe? The board doesn't vote. |
|
|
|
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... |
|
|
|
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]). 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. |
|
|
|
He didn't have the brass to post it publicly of course, he's a cowardly weasel through and through 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: Wait, so you lost the vote, cancelled the vote and are now telling me that you lost it but BY LESS THAN I CLAIMED?
Do you believe that everyone in the world who doesn't agree with you is just one person? I'm getting that impression. No. I'm saying that you either can't count or you were outright lying. And I'm letting you know in private because I'm kind enough to not point our your innumeracy-or-dishonesty in public even though you've been rather uncivil towards me. The you accuse me from gathering community input (Wow!), which is what y'all said was needed.
Have you no shame?
Gathering input is good— but what you posted wasn't a genuine effort to get opinions it was a heavily biased rabel-rousing rant which has had the effect of causing people to make threats of violence against me. And if I'm uncharitable I might conclude from the fact that you never mentioned it in the main discussion that you intended to keep it hidden so that your incorrect claims would go unchallenged... or perhaps you just didn't think to mention it, it happens... but still stinks. to which you replied: GO fuck yourself you little weasel. You have no shame, no integrity and no balls. You can't even handle a public discussion without getting some sycophant to shut it down when you're losing.
FUCK YOU and suck on a cactus.
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 people who didn't agree with him, along with threats and other embarrassing responses... it probably was best to kill it mercifully. 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. |
|
|
|
|
I would like to propose creating a bitcoin user's group, which will be incorpoated in the US as a non-profit foundation, with a board and members.
The bitcoin user group will promote the common interest (bitcoin) as expressed by the members resolutions, discussions and votes.
To that end I propose the Open Bitcoin User Group be formed as follows:
- A nominal membership fee of 0.01 BTC or $1 USD, whichever is less. It should be open to a very broad user group.
Fees, donations and expenditures are managed openly and audited once yearly by independent audit.
- An elected board of directors who are responsible ONLY for fiduciary control, and do not represent the will of the community. Membership funds are used for maintenance and operations only. Donated funds are controlled by member votes.
- A direct representation system that allows any member to propose resolutions, in a way that all members can see them
- Upon achieving a certain percentage of membership approval (1% or 0.1%, something feasible), the proposal is put to a member-wide vote.
- All vote results are recorded publicly. They will represent the "will of the open bitcoin user group".
- No one gets veto, no one is excluded
- One member, one vote. No one is asked "what did you do for bitcoin lately".
- Board members DO NOT GET TO VOTE on member proposals. If you have de-facto power, you don't get to vote.
No bosses, no petty tyrants. Representative boards are a relic of scarce-communications. Direct democracy is both feasible and efficient, on a mass scale.
Please do not bash. This is not a move "against" any person or organization. There is clearly a deficiency in the current systems of representation and communication for the community.
Offer help, ideas, support, etc. All are welcome.
|
|
|
|
|
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?
|
|
|
|
|
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?
|
|
|
|
|
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?
|
|
|
|
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. |
|
|
|
|
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!
|
|
|
|
|
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!
|
|
|
|
|
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)
|
|
|
|
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/162vote 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! |
|
|
|
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. |
|
|
|
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 |
|
|
|
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 |
|
|
|
|
New rule: Vetos for existing Press Center members require a pull request
I am about to open one, at which time I expect it will be up for majority vote (not really a veto)..
Seems like anyone who agrees with the three/four devs in control gets a veto. That's what they meant by "everyone gets a veto"
So now I will do a pull request to show how they were lying AGAIN
|
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
