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

[Severian]

The problem is that they project their political ideas on Bitcoin

So do you.

So what's the problem?

[mikegogulski]

Matonis, at least, seems to be encouraging people to break the law almost every time he talks about Bitcoin.

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

[TheKoziTwo]

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.

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.

[Frozenlock]

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.
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.s.

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!

[Gavin Andresen]

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.

[acoindr]

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.
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.s.

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!

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.

[BCB]

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.

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

[BCB]

Bitcoin 2013 conference request:

CAGE MATCH

Luke-JR vs Erik Voorhees

[blockgenesis]

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.

[charleshoskinson]

So as I pointed out that there is no great quality content from the people you have chosen.


Also why do you have a google group, why not create a thread on the forum for this. I hate when people need secret meeting places to discuss bitcoins, this goes against an open community.

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.youtube.com/watch?v=0UKC7iaBKvs

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

[Luke-Jr]

The problem is that they project their political ideas on Bitcoin

So do you.

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.

Matonis, at least, seems to be encouraging people to break the law almost every time he talks about Bitcoin.

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

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 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.

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.

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.

[charleshoskinson]

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.

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. 

[Luke-Jr]

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.

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.

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.

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

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.

[TheKoziTwo]

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.

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.

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.

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.

[TheKoziTwo]

For an inherent change in government, you need political innovation - that's not Bitcoin.

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

[Luke-Jr]

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

[charleshoskinson]

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.

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

[Luke-Jr]

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)

[Frozenlock]

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.

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

[charleshoskinson]

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)

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.