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

[cypherdoc]

Jgarzik, you should open up the list to matonis and ver.

And change the title from spokesperson to contacts list.

[BCB]

How is it possible that Satoshi Nakamoto is a FOUNDING MEMBER of the THE BITCOIN FOUNDATION, INC??

(a) Founding Members. The Founding Members of the Corporation shall be:

...

vii. Satoshi Nakamoto, at satoshin@gmx.com, author of the white paper “Bitcoin: A Peer-to-Peer Electronic Cash System” published on http://bitcoin.org and owner of the PGP Public Key with fingerprint: 5EC948A1.

[theymos]

How is it possible that Satoshi Nakamoto is a FOUNDING MEMBER of the THE BITCOIN FOUNDATION, INC??

This has been discussed before. He's named in the bylaws, but he wasn't actually involved in the Foundation's creation.

I just noticed that they didn't use his full PGP fingerprint, though. What'll they do when someone creates a colliding KeyID? It isn't that difficult.

[charleshoskinson]

Satoshi will never come forward and anyone who claims to be him is a fraud. Satoshi is likely Wenbo Mao and the Chinese government will go after him if he is revealed

[joecooin]

Hi there!

I had joined the press team because I thought Bitcoin needed something like this and because it is quite a challenge to set up and operate a non-corporate communication department without hierarchical structures with some decider on top. But I have the feeling the experiment has already failed and we need to re-think how to run such a thing. It cannot work the way it does now with some two or three people determining political correctness and an according content strategy, believing they speak for the whole community, which they are not.

Maybe we need more than one press center, different press centers with different editorial boards and different approaches and communication goals. Just like the community has different motivations, visions and points of view on the world.

We could have a competition between these press centers and the press could choose where to go to find stories and interviewees.

The way it's running now is a ridiculous attempt of a few people to promote their own views and ideologies. And it is not going to stop. What if one of the 'accepted' interviewees says something that does not suit one of the censors?

The press center right now is not even a service to the press as it is totally biased and does not reflect the diversity of the community at all. Right now the press center is a huge lie actually . And the press people are not so stupid not to realise that.

I can imagine that a forked press center is on the way already.

Joe

[charleshoskinson]

Hi there!

I had joined the press team because I thought Bitcoin needed something like this and because it is quite a challenge to set up and operate a non-corporate communication department without hierarchical structures with some decider on top. But I have the feeling the experiment has already failed and we need to re-think how to run such a thing. It cannot work the way it does now with

some two or three people determining political correctness and an according content strategy, believing they speak for the whole community, which they are not.

Maybe we need more than one press center, different press centers with different editorial boards and different approaches and communication goals. Just like the community has different motivations, visions and points of view on the world.

We could have a competition between these press centers and the press could choose where to go to find stories and interviewees.

The way it's running now is a ridiculous attempt of a few people to promote their own views and ideologies. And it is not going to stop. What if one of the 'accepted' interviewees says something that does not suit one of the censors?

The press center right now is not even a service to the press as it is totally biased and does not reflect the diversity of the community at all. Right now the press center is a huge lie actually . And the press people are not so stupid not to realise that.

I can imagine that a forked press center is on the way already.

Joe

Very well said Joe.

[charleshoskinson]

Help if you are really serious about this forked press, then please contact me. I'd like to help you, but we also need to discuss the introduction of new people into the bitcoin community. This is essential for the future of bitcoin.

[Arto]

Looks like there are now pending pull requests for adding both Roger Ver (#145) and Jon Matonis (#162, following on from #161). Let's hope the powers that be make the right decision this time around.

[mikegogulski]

...and here's me doing media...


http://www.guardian.co.uk/technology/2013/apr/26/bitcoins-gain-currency-in-berlin

[cypherdoc]

Hi there!

I had joined the press team because I thought Bitcoin needed something like this and because it is quite a challenge to set up and operate a non-corporate communication department without hierarchical structures with some decider on top. But I have the feeling the experiment has already failed and we need to re-think how to run such a thing. It cannot work the way it does now with some two or three people determining political correctness and an according content strategy, believing they speak for the whole community, which they are not.

Maybe we need more than one press center, different press centers with different editorial boards and different approaches and communication goals. Just like the community has different motivations, visions and points of view on the world.

We could have a competition between these press centers and the press could choose where to go to find stories and interviewees.

The way it's running now is a ridiculous attempt of a few people to promote their own views and ideologies. And it is not going to stop. What if one of the 'accepted' interviewees says something that does not suit one of the censors?

The press center right now is not even a service to the press as it is totally biased and does not reflect the diversity of the community at all. Right now the press center is a huge lie actually . And the press people are not so stupid not to realise that.

I can imagine that a forked press center is on the way already.

Joe

Yes, just start a new one.

Submit a pull request?   That tells you  a lot.

And base it out of here and the other one will just fade away.

[aantonop]

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

[charleshoskinson]

I'm also a foundation member. They simply do not listen to us

[aantonop]

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/162

vote 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!

[charleshoskinson]

Got my ACK in right before they closed it. Sorry I couldn't be more help, but they simply won't listen.

[aantonop]

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)

[charleshoskinson]

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.

[aantonop]

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.

[aantonop]

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?

[Monster Tent]

This sort of thing happens to many "decentralized" organisations. People own the domains and the main sites and push everyone else out slowly but surely then declare the project "dead" when they get bored with it, even though there is still a community. It can also be used to sabotage projects effectively.

[charleshoskinson]

I totally support what help is trying to do and I'd recommend everyone visit his site