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

[charleshoskinson]

So Gweedo would you now like to record a lecture for my poorly researched course? We could use your knowledge and experience to bring things up to par.

[1715272846]

1715272846

[computerlamp]

This disturbs me.

Idea..
Can we get roger and matonis on the press thing and put a disclaimer on the top of the page that says something like

none of these people speak for bitcoin officially but you can evaluate each of their views and come to a conclusion of "what is bitcoin" yourself

Or something like that

Just like a disclaimer that these potential interviewees are just people voicing what they think of bitcoin and is in no way official.

So press people can interview Jeff or Roger or both and get the word out about bitcoin to their respective audiences?

If control of bitcoin.org is actually dominated by a small group of men who aren't open minded and won't include a spectrum of beliefs on "their" website then I just lost a lot of faith in bitcoin. I hope you developers know forking the website just doesn't work and if you can't see that then ... I'm slightly more bearish long term than before reading all of this..

Ill register for github later if someone wants to and agrees with my idea feel free to bring it over to the github thread or request a pull for a disclaimer  ...

or something
im not sure all the way how github works but if the future of openess and fairness depends on it then ill have to learn quick.

[gweedo]

So Gweedo would you now like to record a lecture for my poorly researched course? We could use your knowledge and experience to bring things up to par.

I told you to pm me and we can work something out.

[gmaxwell]

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.

[charleshoskinson]

Not to mention Mantonis writes for Forbes. Kinda of a nice press connection

[aantonop]

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.

[gmaxwell]

When I first heard about this and the description I thought Matonis where some kind of radicals looking to overthrow the government.

When I looked it up for myself I found that Jon matonis generally wrote commentaries based in a premise that is often interesting but I never saw anything where he advocated some radical this.

Really?

It has been speculated that blocking the money stream to governments would solve the regulation of the economy and unbridled spending problems too.

Bitcoin challenges the State as monetary sovereign and that has grave implications for their monetary authority and quasi-peaceful taxing authority

Almost simultaneously with the recent jihad against tax dodgers, decentralized cryptocurrencies such as bitcoin arrived on the scene in early 2009 and now provide an outlet for personal wealth that is beyond restriction and confiscation.

They probably were also not aware that bitcoin is a three-year-old decentralized bootstrapped currency with a $100 million plus monetary base that is immune from government regulation

The pro-gambling casino people would all of a sudden realize how play money bitcoin bypasses the ridiculous and religious anti-gambling laws.  [...] Which brings us to the giddy, pro-banking-integration spokespeople for Bitcoin that tend towards full compliance because it’s required or, worse, preemptive compliance because they believe it to be safe.

I mean— nothing wrong with being radical, I've certainly taken some rather radical positions too.  But I think that if you don't see Matonis' views as radical you've been desensitized by this forum, to the greater world that stuff is pretty darn radical, and moreover it puts us on in us a opposed-to-state position which will potentially get us crushed like bugs, as well as scaring away a good chunk of our untapped market potential.  As far as I can tell Maronis' radical positions are a big part of his value add.

Hopefully it wasn't overstated there, that why I only commented on it when someone demanded quotes— I don't think he's a bad guy or anything.

For some strange reason a lot of people assume that Bitcoin is _already_ illegal in the US, or at least that it soon will be. Arguments like the above do not help improve things there.

Mr. Ver was involved with using M-80 to exterminate mice when he was 22.  If someone saw the initial description and compared to the facts then I believe their conclusion would be the facts were misrepresented and/or exaggerated when they removed from the web site.

I never commented on Mr. Ver before— but the concern there wasn't that he's too radical (he's generally seemed pretty even keeled in public from what I've seen), it was just the general concern about the felony conviction,  as Luke put it: "you can see how the media would be able to easily spin your past as "Roger Ver, spokespreson for Bitcoin, holds a conviction for selling explosives to terrorists" or something along those lines?"   I think it's quite unfortunately, but especially since Roger's involved in a pretty acrimonious lawsuit with some other members of the community it seems unlikely to me that he can appear in the press without someone blasting the press with "you know that dudes a fellon, right?"  

 

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.

Names? perhaps not— you certainly weren't being especially civil to people who didn't agree with you. I assume that your unwillingness to correct you numbers means they were intentional?

[midnightmagic]

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.

So, what are you showing yourself as?

[aantonop]

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.html
https://plone.org/foundation/meetings/membership/2004/nominations

You 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.

[aantonop]

LOTS Of QUOTES

gmaxwell has previously posted several misattributed quotes and then failed to retract them or apologize. This somehow does not disqualify him from deciding who is a good press contact. Apparently journalistic practices are not his forte.

Treat any quotes he posts with extreme suspicion, especially if they are selective, short, out-of-context and attempting to slander - ie, his usual schtick.

He rationalizes his opinion as the only one that matters, somehow "neutral" opinion that we'd all accept if we weren't so dumb. Then he imposes it through his commit control and pretends to be the victim of... too much speech!

The only thing that mattered in this debate was the opinion of the 3-4 developers who did not want any process that actually resulted in anything but what they had already decided. They twisted, turned and rationalized, but in the end did exactly what they intended from the beginning: censorship of particular opinions by exclusion and decree.

All hail our new overlords. They're not just coders, they are press directors and OWN bitcoin. As they often say, if you don't like it... fork.

[charleshoskinson]

if you don't like it... fork.

I never thought I'd see the day that fork became the battle cry for liberty.

[aantonop]

if you don't like it... fork.

I never thought I'd see the day that fork became the battle cry for liberty.

It's the classic answer of cowards - especially in this case since they are not even talking about code, but about SPEECH, the press center no less.

It's a perfectly valid answer if there is no possible way to discuss. Forks are the last resort, not the first. The guys are throwing out "go fork" as a way to end debate, rather than as a last resort after debate has died.

It is exactly like those who shout "If you don't like this law, LEAVE the country".

They are so allergic to opposing views and any discussion, they use "go fork" as a way to dismiss the peons.

I for one, was not aware that several of the developers had very low tolerance for different opinions, a very defensive reaction to any critical view and a childish need to make everyone else bend to their decisions. I was expecting a higher level of maturity, but I have been shocked to find a schoolyard atmosphere. The worst part is they portray themselves simultaneously as heroes of bitcoin and victims of terrible oppression by anyone who disagrees. It's quite pathetic really.

Now of course, I think on the topic of press representation at least, the debate is very much over. They will not tolerate any process that has the possibility of an outcome they don't agree with.

Now it is indeed time to fork the press center. I'm starting with the organizational structure and the source of authority - the community of bitcoin users. Users are the source of authority as bitcoin becomes mainstream. Not 3-4 coders of one of the implementation.

[Arto]

A video clip just came out about the upcoming Bitcoin documentary. Trace Meyer says Silk Road will contribute to a more peaceful world. He is probably correct but that will be seen as extremely radical just like the things Matonis writes about. [...]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JW42PeZVzJc

Looks like Trace Mayer was absolved of his heresy this time around:

Nobody really cares what people say on little community-made documentaries that preach to the choir, but yes if Trace was going on BBC News and saying he thinks Silk Road is great because it'll make for a more peaceful world then I'd be quite disappointed and maybe be thinking he shouldn't be on the list either. That's exactly the kind of radical position we're trying NOT to have Bitcoin become permanently associated with because it will lead directly to problems growing the ecosystem. So far it seems he hasn't done that.

Perhaps in the coming weeks and months we'll learn how many slaps on the wrist it takes to excommunicate a Bitcoin.org "press representative".

[aantonop]

The rules do not apply to them, only to "new" candidates. The new candidates get quoted out of context. But for the existing people context matters.

Don't try to find logic or reason - they use those to distract you from the decisions that have already been made, entirely based on personal bias. There is no consistency or even an attempt to be fair and consistent. They have no shame and will contradict themselves every other post.  I believe this was rule change #18 - Existing Press Center members can say outrageous things and be held to a different standard.

[tvbcof]

Hey!  Why not just let people just categorize themselves on the press page as having some political or philosophical affiliation (and ask them to do it honestly.)  Those who opt to not to do this are simply under the obligation to leave their personal political opinions at the studio door.

Then if some rabid Libertarian/Atheist/Commie/whatever makes so startling statement it can be pointed out that they were potentially selected on the basis of their underlying belief system and it is not necessarily shared by all.

This would also demonstrate to the any observer who visited the press page that Bitcoin has at least a modicum of 'big tent' inclusion principles and is not dominated by one line of political thought or whatever.

[aantonop]

 

Hey!  Why not just let people just categorize themselves on the press page as having some political or philosophical affiliation (and ask them to do it honestly.)  Those who opt to not to do this are simply under the obligation to leave their personal political opinions at the studio door.

Then if some rabid Libertarian/Atheist/Commie/whatever makes so startling statement it can be pointed out that they were potentially selected on the basis of their underlying belief system and it is not necessarily shared by all.

This would also demonstrate to the any observer who visited the press page that Bitcoin has at least a modicum of 'big tent' inclusion principles and is not dominated by one line of political thought or whatever.

that would defeat the purpose, which is the exercise of unaccountable power by a few. There is no modicum of inclusion principles. They have expressed an explicitly exclusionary perspective that says that the views of three devs are the "moderate" mainstream and... shove it. I believe the dev kings hold court and the peasants can ask for favors, but don't ask for any process or consistency.

[n8rwJeTt8TrrLKPa55eU]

Well, guess what? I can do the same thing with Bitcoin only I can do it outside the purview of every single government. It’s being used everywhere you would think it would be used. Russia, Iran, Iraq, Egypt, Venezuela, Argenina. Everywhere you have currency pressure. Everywhere you want to basically shield your assets.

Yet another radical extremist with anti-government views.  Someone please tell this guy to shut up, he is undoubtedly a blabbermouth with no experience in public relations.  What unwashed anarchist squat did this unemployed idiot come from?  Clearly not a mainstream voice.  Oh, wait...

Chamath Palihapitiya is the Founder and Managing Partner of The Social+Capital Partnership (Social Capital) – a venture capital fund based in Palo Alto, CA that incubates and invests in breakthrough companies in healthcare, education, financial services, mobile and enterprise software.

Preceding his focus as an investor, Chamath was the longest tenured member of Facebook’s senior executive team and helped drive its ascension to one of the most important companies in the world. Prior to Facebook, Chamath had leading roles at The Mayfield Fund, AIM and ICQ, and Winamp. In addition to his focus at the fund, Chamath is Owner and Director of the NBA’s Golden State Warriors.

Chamath was born in Sri Lanka, grew up in Canada, and graduated with a degree in Electrical Engineering from the University of Waterloo.

Please do not put him on the PR page.  God forbid we have this type of megasuccessful, megasmart person with an impeccable CV representing Bitcoin, spreading the news to people living under economic dictatorships the extremist idea that Bitcoin can make their miserable lives better.  Too political!

[justusranvier]

God forbid we have this type of megasuccessful, megasmart person with an impeccable CV representing Bitcoin, spreading the news to people living under economic dictatorships the extremist idea that Bitcoin can make their miserable lives better.  Too political!

The illusion that the USA is not an economic dictatorship is becoming increasingly difficult to maintain and this makes some people uncomfortable. They have some reason for not wanting to deal with this reality so they choose to ignore it instead, as if not acknowledging it will help them somehow.

[cypherdoc]

Hey!  Why not just let people just categorize themselves on the press page as having some political or philosophical affiliation (and ask them to do it honestly.)  Those who opt to not to do this are simply under the obligation to leave their personal political opinions at the studio door.

Then if some rabid Libertarian/Atheist/Commie/whatever makes so startling statement it can be pointed out that they were potentially selected on the basis of their underlying belief system and it is not necessarily shared by all.

This would also demonstrate to the any observer who visited the press page that Bitcoin has at least a modicum of 'big tent' inclusion principles and is not dominated by one line of political thought or whatever.

that would defeat the purpose, which is the exercise of unaccountable power by a few. There is no modicum of inclusion principles. They have expressed an explicitly exclusionary perspective that says that the views of three devs are the "moderate" mainstream and... shove it. I believe the dev kings hold court and the peasants can ask for favors, but don't ask for any process or consistency.

yes, gmax's response to me yesterday was amazing; he said he will never let the majority dominate the minority as a guiding principle and gleefully is applying this to the press center vote.

this goes against the economic principles of majority rule that satoshi built into the code.

[darkmule]

All this really just demonstrates that it should be emphasized that entities with "Bitcoin" in their name do not speak for the majority of Bitcoin users, and may in fact speak for absolutely nobody but themselves.  Most of the media is too stupid to give a decent explanation of Bitcoin or anything else without assistance.  They will tend to seek out the biggest loudmouths in sight, just like on any other issue.

Search engine results are where it's at, because that is where anyone seriously considering Bitcoin will look.  Even if the "official" client is the first site, there should be effort put into making sure dissenting views are also available, preferably right below the people trying to set themselves up as "official."

(Even better above them, but just having "bitcoin" in the domain name is going to be big Google juice, not to mention on other search engines.)