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

[aantonop]

I would appreciate help and beta testers for the bitcoinpresscenter.org which I am building as the inclusive alternative to the existing site. It will have only one purpose: to provide a comprehensive list of resources, packaged for press consumption (short bios, multi-res photos, attribution text, etc).

There is a way to fix this constructively and put the mess behind us. The press center I envision will have dozens of spokespeople with varying areas of expertise, a variety of roles in the community, a variety of spoken languages and a broad array of opinions. Nominations will be open and public. Votes and endorsements will be open and public.

I will have the prototype ready by Friday or Saturday this week. I could use help in testing the UX and also proposals on how to manage the registration, nomination and voting process.

[caveden]

You can see these arguments as just a third round of the same dynamic. A bunch of anarchists turn up and want the project to explicitly support their viewpoints, often by promoting illegal activities. A bunch of other people who are actually forming businesses or writing software turn up and want the project to stay apolitical and certainly steer clear of illegal activity.

Wow... totally distinct sets, huh? Anarchists don't ever form business or write software. Brilliant.

I'm sorry Mike... I strongly admire your work, you're the source of a bunch of really bright ideas in Bitcoin world. And you work hard for its improvement. I thank you for that. But this post of yours was pathetic and filled with prejudice. Perhaps the worst of yours I've read so far.

So that's why these days we have a website that tells people to pay their taxes, doesn't talk about the Silk Road, and has people listed as press contacts who have a track record of not encouraging illegal activity. That's actually as apolitical as it gets.

Oh no no, that's not apolitical at all, and you know it very well. All this is already a political choice - that of being a state-lover and "law-abiding" person. That's obviously a political standpoint (and imho, a sort of religious belief too).

And by the way, about "always following the law", perhaps you should read what Falkvinge has to say about it (he's a socialist statist, by the way): http://falkvinge.net/2012/07/19/debunking-the-dangerous-nothing-to-hide-nothing-to-fear/ (it's item 3 if you're in a hurry)
(I can also quote Larken Rose, but I suppose you'll discredit him right away:

The upstanding, church-going, law-abiding, tax-paying citizen who votes Democratic or Republican is far more despicable, and a bigger threat to humanity, than the most promiscuous, lazy, drug-snorting hippie. Why? Because the hippie is willing to let others be free, and the voter is not.

)

What would NOT be apolitical, is to have a wiki page that would turn into the Trade page circa 2011

I agree, pointing to a wiki page is probably not a good idea either. A true attempt of making bitcoin.org less biased would be to remove this Press Center entirely. Just remove the Press Center from bitocoin.org, and journalists will keep doing whatever they do to search for information.

[caveden]

It is embarrassing to see Bitcoin reduced to sniveling permission-seekers, too cowardly to speak about the real issues and the real reasons why this technology is so important. There is not a global, passion-driven community around Bitcoin because it offers lower money transfer fees. We do this because of what Bitcoin means on a philosophical and societal level, and Roger and Jon are two of the best at conveying this sentiment in a professional, non-confrontational, level-headed manner.

Do you see this, folks? Can you find somebody that writes better than this guy on this forum? And he's not even on the damn press list!

Please, just remove this pity attempt of "censorship of ideas" from bitcoin.org.

[Mike Hearn]

Just to clear up some confusion on this point, I don't have any direct influence over the Foundation or what it does. I'm just a member like many others. The Foundation exists was created to solve a few different problems like be able to pay Gavin, to have an umbrella org for Bitcoin supporters to chip in financially, to organise conferences and to handle cases where the system needs a central body (like owning the trademark). It doesn't have an Illuminati-like agenda or set of opinions on every possible topic.

Another thing I am confused about is why are you contributing to Bitcoin if your end goal is to have a collection of governments regulate and control it? You've effectively built a better paypal without stock options or founder credit? The whole point of having a system like bitcoin is to abstract commerce to the cloud and outside of any one government's hands. We can agree to reasonable regulation of exchanges, yet I'm getting the feeling the foundation has something broader and more government friendly in mind.

Do I need write up an FAQ on my political and economic views, or something?

One of the reasons these debates are so tiring is the insistence people sometimes have on seeing everything as black or white. There's only "anti government freedom lovers" or "pro government snivelling permission seekers" and nothing in between. That's not how the world works.

I could write at length on my views around size of government, financial regulation and so on. You'd probably find it quite boring. Suffice it to say I think if Bitcoin were to take off, it'd place some much needed restrictions on government power. For instance, it'd prevent governments and central banks from inflating the currency to pay for short-term vote buying, which would be an improvement. It would resolve the problem of opaque government blacklists (like the US SDNL) which are merely abusive sidesteps of the judicial system. A lot of the ways government and banks are integrated is excessively bureaucratic and poses problems for civil liberties, I think Bitcoin will have impact on that too. At the same time, I don't think Bitcoin will (or should) bring about some kind of anarchist total collapse of the state. Taxes will still be collected. Judges will still judge. Police will still police.  Voters will still vote. Some people, somewhere, will have to engage in many challenging conversations with regulators and law enforcement to enable Bitcoin to thrive because these people aren't just going to go away and they cannot be "beaten" by just ignoring them.

I wrote this on the Foundation forum too, but I'll repeat it here. I think a lot of these excessively vitriolic debates boil down to a misunderstood geographical divide. Libertarianism hardly exists in Europe. Anarchism is what people do on May 1st when idiots dressed in black leather set bins on fire, it's not a political position. Agorism sounds like something people do with plants. I don't remember the last time I met someone who thought their government was oppressive or described taxation as theft. These positions are so far to the right that they're practically alien in large chunks of the world.

I grew up in the UK and now live in Switzerland, neither of which have oppressive governments. About the most oppressive thing the Swiss government does is organise street parties from time to time. Taxes are low. Business is good. The rule of law is strong. It's a pretty nice place. There's no need to overthrow any states. When people here learn about Bitcoin they tend to think, oh cool, a way to take the banks down a peg. Or maybe, great, I pay too much in credit card fees. They don't think "finally a way to bring about an anarcho-capitalist utopia!".

Unfortunately, I repeatedly see a failure to recognise this amongst some people who come to the Bitcoin community. Anyone who isn't on the extreme hard right politically "doesn't get it" or "isn't true to the cause" or whatever. This is especially ridiculous because the introduction to Satoshi's paper is not a political manifesto, it talks about the problems of accepting credit card payments online. To the extent that he cared about politics he was interested in the power of the banks and inflationary policies (one reason amongst several I suspect he might be a Brit). So it'd be nice if people chilled out and respected others views a little more.

[aantonop]

Unfortunately, I repeatedly see a failure to recognise this amongst some people who come to the Bitcoin community. Anyone who isn't on the extreme hard right politically "doesn't get it" or "isn't true to the cause" or whatever. This is especially ridiculous because the introduction to Satoshi's paper is not a political manifesto, it talks about the problems of accepting credit card payments online. To the extent that he cared about politics he was interested in the power of the banks and inflationary policies (one reason amongst several I suspect he might be a Brit). So it'd be nice if people chilled out and respected others views a little more.

you keep creating a strawman for the people who offer reasonable opposition to your political litmus test.

I'm a lefty liberal who grew up in Europe. I find anti-government AnCap philosophy to be very far from my experience or political leanings.

I still think Matonis is more mainstream that people on the press list, that the attempt to exclude him is odious, the criteria inconsistent and the desire to limit opinions misguided. That's even though I disagree 100% with anti-government libertarians.

You are not a moderate, sorry. Censorship by exclusion is a radical position, despite all the rationalizations we have heard.

That's my opinion, and I am non-anarchist, mainstream, tax-paying, business person who sees bitcoin as a mainstream, yet also radically disruptive technology, just like the Internet. I disagree with your attempt to exclude.

[darkmule]

The Bitcoin community should ignore the Bitcoin "Foundation" just like it ignores other forms of government.  It is increasingly obvious that the "Foundation" is attempting to dictate.

Treat it as the Internet has always treated censorship, by routing around it.

That might involve making sure to denounce it at every opportunity, or at the very least, to ensure that it is obvious that this "Foundation" does not speak for the community, but merely speaks for itself and the vested interests of its corporate ownership.

[Bitcoin Oz]

Bitcoin has nothing to do with taxation or what people choose to use it for its simply a protocol and to ostracise people because of the way they think is odious. In fact mentioning paying taxes at all is more political than you would think because of the division this will cause. The foundation shouldn't hold any personal viewpoints nor push them forward but should stay apolitical and focus on the technology solely.

Telling people to pay taxes or not isn't their job. Im sure if Matonis speaks as a member of the foundation he would make it clear the difference between personal opinions and official policy of the foundation.

[RationalSpeculator]

I would appreciate help and beta testers for the bitcoinpresscenter.org which I am building as the inclusive alternative to the existing site. It will have only one purpose: to provide a comprehensive list of resources, packaged for press consumption (short bios, multi-res photos, attribution text, etc).

There is a way to fix this constructively and put the mess behind us. The press center I envision will have dozens of spokespeople with varying areas of expertise, a variety of roles in the community, a variety of spoken languages and a broad array of opinions. Nominations will be open and public. Votes and endorsements will be open and public.

I will have the prototype ready by Friday or Saturday this week. I could use help in testing the UX and also proposals on how to manage the registration, nomination and voting process.

That's how you solve these problems, you create a better alternative. You rock!

[justusranvier]

One of the reasons these debates are so tiring is the insistence people sometimes have on seeing everything as black or white. There's only "anti government freedom lovers" or "pro government snivelling permission seekers" and nothing in between. That's not how the world works.

Of course that's how the world works.

When you strip away all the lies, euphemisms, and obfuscation, it all comes down to a basic moral question. Threatening violence in order to compel other people to obey is either morally justifiable or it isn't. There is no in between. Whether you're talking about threatening violence in order to compel someone to have sex, or threatening violence in order to compel them to surrender money, the underlying principle is the same.

Some people are willing to call the evil out for what it is. That's fine. Other people people are too afraid to speak up. That's fine too. The very worst sort of people are the ones who can see the evil, recognize it, and are afraid to speak up but instead of just remaining silent help give it intellectual and linguistic cover. They help to blur the lines by spreading lies, euphemisms and obfuscation.

[RodeoX]

One of the reasons these debates are so tiring is the insistence people sometimes have on seeing everything as black or white. There's only "anti government freedom lovers" or "pro government snivelling permission seekers" and nothing in between. That's not how the world works.

Amen. As a member of the middle ground, I'm looking forward to meeting you and the other grown-ups at the conference.

[charleshoskinson]

I'm just sensitive to takeovers by a few. Forgive me if I'm seeming a bit extreme. I love bitcoin. I don't want to see bitcoin become paypal 2.0. It's a bigger idea.

[Herodes]

I'm just sensitive to takeovers by a few. Forgive me if I'm seeming a bit extreme. I love bitcoin. I don't want to see bitcoin become paypal 2.0. It's a bigger idea.

+1 million

[tvbcof]

... As simple and cruel as that. ...

My rough translation would be:

  "STFU and be happy.  There are things you don't need to know right now."

I'll go ahead an '+1' but neglect to explain my rational.

[marcus_of_augustus]

I'm just sensitive to takeovers by a few. Forgive me if I'm seeming a bit extreme. I love bitcoin. I don't want to see bitcoin become paypal 2.0. It's a bigger idea.

I understand, and it's not going to happen regardless of what people say or think about Bitcoin, all that matters for it to remains the same is in the code and all levels of decentralization. If you are thinking otherwise, I think you are not realizing that you are loosing faith on what Bitcoin really is.

I think it's time for the community to enter in a maturity phase and realize a few things. Including that Bitcoin is in a decisive turning point right now. Journalism might sometime represent free speech, but mass medias are not free speech at all. It's a big strategic game. And any businesses that is confrounted to this world must have a good strategy or fail.

The current press center has been developed not as an open recognition board for community members we all respect, but as a PR strategy. Like it or not, The overwhelming majority of the people are either not politicized, misguided or opposed to whatever you'll say. And about no business in this world is doing philantrophy. That means that associating Bitcoin to any ideology or "bad thing" in the mass medias equates to preventing Bitcoin to develop. As simple and cruel as that.

So if you care about Bitcoin to develop for ideological reasons, you most probably have no choice but to be wise enough to help Bitcoin to "win all battles in silence". It's much less exciting and it's more pragmatic and efficient. Most future Bitcoin users comfortably think they are not approving anything political when they are using money, and they want to do the same with Bitcoin. Even though we all know that is always false, that is how it works. Those people will actually indirectly endorse ideologies if they can pretend they're not. And be sure that I am the first to think it's absurd. Let's be aware of our environment and never under-estimate the power of representation.

Hopefully, in a few years, a press team will be fully obsolete and people associating Bitcoin to any political idea will not scare new users. But right now, it's different. Bitcoin is confusing for most people and it is about to become either a niche for activism, or a global innovation with no borders. We are so close. And what is going to be the turning point will be the public perception and adoption of Bitcoin. We are there right now. Just for the picture, Internet at its beginning was not labelled as a "political tool for free speech and individual freedom" but as a competitive technology. And that is how it became both.

So before you interfere with this process, please keep in mind that it is being done by involved people having a long-term strategic approach. Constructive work in order to improve things is always appreciated. And it starts with questionning what's being done before fighting it.

A lot of interesting issues has been raised and there is constructive work being done right now. Please learn to do some compromise and understand valid issues pointed by others. I've been doing this all days despite the hostile environment.

It seems you are quite comfortable with living and telling a lie, to the whole world ... you are probably the best person suited to operating a "Press Center" of the old paradigm.

I have now lost absolutely any remaining faith that you are the right person to be holding the keys to bitcoin.org.

[tvbcof]

... As simple and cruel as that. ...

My rough translation would be:

  "STFU and be happy.  There are things you don't need to know right now."

I'll go ahead an '+1' but neglect to explain my rational.

My rough translation would be : work together, not against each other.

Maybe with the following modification:

  "Work (for me) together, not against each other.

I anticipate that it is almost inevitable that alternate crypto-currencies will be issued by different organizations to further different goals.  This unless free communications are clamped down on to an extent that I don't believe is probably possible.  This process will take some time however, and it will likely be possible to milk the shit out of Bitcoin in the interim.  That's why "I agree with this message."

I only spout off on this forums (and usually do so with a high degree of honesty) because I believe that it ultimately has little influence on anything.

[tvbcof]

Maybe with the following modification:

  "Work (for me) together, not against each other.

Funny. To work together, the opinion of everyone must be taken into account. Both yours, and mine. I already don't 100% agree with everything myself and I defend others opinions, but searching the best compromise for everyone is my goal. Not just a few. As said before, I also like the idea of an more open press center. I'm just respecting the reasons why bitcoin.org might not be the right place for this.

I think whoever was manipulating bitcoin.org fucked up and dropped the ball on this one.  Now it's time to pay the piper.  That means to me either:

 1) drop the entire page (and move toward a tech-only posture.)

 2) re-instate name from those of 'all stripes' with some reasonable construct which would mitigate against foot-in-mouth semi-accidents.

I happen to end up being somewhere between repulsed and horrified when many of the Libertarian stripe pull stuff from deep within their minds, but I

 - always felt that Ver and Matonis have exercised a reasonable degree of restraint in public and have served 'the cause' well, and

 - plenty of those who are more naturally on 'my side' have equally horrific thought patterns bottled up inside and waiting to get out.  Myself included.

I'd hope that option #1 is chosen and worked towards.

[marcus_of_augustus]

This is mostly what is suggested by moving most interviewees to an external website. That is a good example of what would probably have a good consensus and be a good compromise for everyone.

I also love Ver and Matonis BTW. And exchanged briefly with them. Roger Ver was not postponed because of his presentation but for his criminal record. Everyone seemed happy otherwise about how he was presenting Bitcoin. And because of all the noise on this forum, we could not discuss about them. I was about to recommand myself to open discussion about Roger inclusion a few days ago just before trolls started back to disrupt everything. So this thread actually played against himself.

Nice one, you have been found to be wrong and now you go on again labelling people who disagree with you "trolls".

You got sucked in by luke-jr's games and jgarzik machiavellian scheming to try and fly bitcoin under the mainstream radar ... and so you did nothing, which was worse than doing something, further prolonging the divisive nature of having the Press Center in place.

Basically, you have proven yourself unworthy to be webmaster of what is becoming an important piece of webspace ... have some integrity and resign already, please.

And whoever takes over, please take bitcoin.org back to its techie roots and away from the cheerleader PR fuzzy graphic goofest it is becoming ... dumbing it down for mainstream was a poor decision and direction for bitcoin.org. Bitcoin is a technology, not a kids toy.

[caveden]

One of the reasons these debates are so tiring is the insistence people sometimes have on seeing everything as black or white.

Mike, you complain about viewing things as "black and white", but look at yourself:

A bunch of anarchists turn up and want the project to explicitly support their viewpoints, often by promoting illegal activities. A bunch of other people who are actually forming businesses or writing software turn up and want the project to stay apolitical and certainly steer clear of illegal activity.
...
It's that our common spaces get overrun by anarchists who spend all day engaging in edit wars and trying to spray-paint as much illegal activity over Bitcoin as they can, any way they can.

[Dusty]

When you strip away all the lies, euphemisms, and obfuscation, it all comes down to a basic moral question. Threatening violence in order to compel other people to obey is either morally justifiable or it isn't. There is no in between. Whether you're talking about threatening violence in order to compel someone to have sex, or threatening violence in order to compel them to surrender money, the underlying principle is the same.

Some people are willing to call the evil out for what it is. That's fine. Other people people are too afraid to speak up. That's fine too. The very worst sort of people are the ones who can see the evil, recognize it, and are afraid to speak up but instead of just remaining silent help give it intellectual and linguistic cover. They help to blur the lines by spreading lies, euphemisms and obfuscation.

+1

Very well said

[tvbcof]

When you strip away all the lies, euphemisms, and obfuscation, it all comes down to a basic moral question. Threatening violence in order to compel other people to obey is either morally justifiable or it isn't. There is no in between. Whether you're talking about threatening violence in order to compel someone to have sex, or threatening violence in order to compel them to surrender money, the underlying principle is the same.

All this weird hangup-type nonsense about 'violence' had me confused for a while.  Now I get it!

  Q:  What is a Libertarian?
  A:  An Anarchist who got picked on in school.

(c'mon...I'm only at '7-11 ignores')