Roger Ver and Jon Matonis pushed aside now that Bitcoin is becoming mainstream

[Matthew N. Wright]

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.

[wumpus]

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.

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".

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.

[Zeke_Vermillion]

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! 

[Matthew N. Wright]

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.

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".

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.

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

[Dusty]

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.

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.

[papa_snurf]

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.

Jeff Berwick is not too bad as well.

[Zeke_Vermillion]

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.)

[Matthew N. Wright]

(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!

[Zeke_Vermillion]

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

[BCB]

Bitfloor was the shot across the bow.

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

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.

Again,

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

[sunnankar]

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?

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.

[papa_snurf]

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.

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.

[BCB]

You be the judge

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)

[Severian]

But a decentralized and trust less system can't be a political project.

Anything involving money is political.

[Severian]

I think there is a lot of political debate that surrounds it, but it itself has nothing political about it.

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

[sunnankar]

I think there is a lot of political debate that surrounds it, but it itself has nothing political about it.

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.

[Severian]

It was born from it, but those views can't be imposed on anyone using the system.

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

[xDan]

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.

[sunnankar]

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.

[Luke-Jr]

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.

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.