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

[blockgenesis]

... 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.

[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.

[blockgenesis]

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.

I am looking at the world straightforward, just how any serious project are doing. And no, I feel pretty bad when lies are being told in the medias about Bitcoin and I keep straight with the reality. That's why I take time trying to help many inacurracies to stop spreading in the medias. Like "Bitcoin is anonymous" or "Bitcoin cannot be regulated".

Each time people buy a cell phone, use their car, or use the US dollar, it is a political choice. My argument is that Bitcoin is no exception to this rule. And many people are going to keep thinking that what they do is apolitical, no matter what we do.

[blockgenesis]

People are assuming that the media will care who is listed as approved Press Contacts. At best, a few journalists who are new to Bitcoin might use that list to get a soundbite or two.

But any journalist worth his salt will be able to find interesting people to interview about Bitcoin, without needing to consult a santized list.

I'm sure that Roger Ver and Jon Matonis will be approached for lots of interviews. And their interviews will be much more interesting because they won't need to "toe the party line". So I don't think there's anything to worry about.

Absolutely. Giving them choice is not censorship. And that is why bitcoinpresscenter.org is so interesting. Because as a "non-authoritative" website, it can have a longer list.. Making things easy for journalists doesn't mean they are forced to use our list. But it can help them to easily find people who know what they are talking about.

[blockgenesis]

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.

[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.

[blockgenesis]

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.

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. Everyone seemed happy 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.

[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.

[blockgenesis]

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.

Some people disagreed and remained civilized. Others disagreed and started to suggest solutions, and even work on them. That is great and helpful. I don't call that category "troll".

The press center is dividing people as long as people oppose to each other. Removing the press center won't change anything, so don't point at me. If you want this to stop dividing the community, it's up to you to help finding a good consensus. Because you are among the ones who keep making this a dividing issue.

[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')

[Severian]

All this weird hangup-type nonsense about 'violence' had me confused for a while. 

Government and its agents are the ones with the weird hang-up about violence. They keep employing it, like any organized criminal racket does.

[justusranvier]

All this weird hangup-type nonsense about 'violence' had me confused for a while. 

Government and its agents are the ones with the weird hang-up about violence. They keep employing it, like any organized criminal racket does.

The difference between a sadist and a run of the mill thug is the sadist is not content to cause harm merely on one level. The thug just steals your wallet, but the sadist will steal it and attempt to humiliate you as well. Perhaps by implying the victim is upset, not because he got robbed, but because he has some weird hangup about theft. That's sadism in a nutshell: inflict harm and then avoid responsibility by blaming the victim.

That's the team tvbcof is cheerleading for.

[Severian]

That's sadism in a nutshell: inflict harm and then avoid responsibility by blaming the victim.

Sadists also get their jollies by inflicting harm and humiliation. This also describes some of the publicly funded civil servants I've encountered in my life.

To balance this equation out, sadists are equally at home in the private sector. They just have an easier time finding a job in the public sector.

[aantonop]

The bitcoinpresscenter.org beta is 90% complete. I will be calling on those who volunteered to help to test run some of the functionality.

I would like to explain what I have been doing for the past three days. I have been building a platform, using a CMS (drupal, but the tech choice is not important) in order to implement a press center, the Internet way:

- Inclusive - the barrier to nominations is very low - if the person is interested in being on the list, and their information is filled in, they are on the list

- Highlighting, not filtering: A mechanism for positive endorsements, with qualitative comments allows the best to bubble to the top of the list.

- A minimal amount of moderation is applied only to the content of the endorsements to filter ad-hominem. Positive endorsements push people up the list. If people feel negatively, they can *not endorse*. That keeps less endorsed candidates at the bottom of the list - BUT they're on the list.

- A lot of metadata to help press choose: Languages spoken, timezone, area of expertise (HW, SW, crypto, economics, business etc.), Role in bitcoin community (miner, user, dev, media, author, merchant etc).

- A lot of press-relevant information that is missing from current efforts: Attribution, Large-res photos, one line bio, short bio, long bio, etc.

- A faceted search and filtering system (like the sidebar on Amazon.com). You want to see just Spanish speakers who are developers and in your own timezone? Easy!

All of the above is geared towards a press center with 500 contacts, not 8.

Beta testing starts late tonight or tomorrow, for functionality. First public preview with content by end of Monday as promised.

This announcement is posted in its own thread, for comments and discussion

[tvbcof]

All this weird hangup-type nonsense about 'violence' had me confused for a while.  

Government and its agents are the ones with the weird hang-up about violence. They keep employing it, like any organized criminal racket does.

The difference between a sadist and a run of the mill thug is the sadist is not content to cause harm merely on one level. The thug just steals your wallet, but the sadist will steal it and attempt to humiliate you as well. Perhaps by implying the victim is upset, not because he got robbed, but because he has some weird hangup about theft. That's sadism in a nutshell: inflict harm and then avoid responsibility by blaming the victim.

That's the team tvbcof is cheerleading for.

I see.  Since I find your bizarre assertion that everything which effect you negatively is 'violence' amusing, that means that I Love Big Brother.

Having some priorities in common, I've 'worked with' Libertarians enough over the years to understand how that makes perfect sense...to you...

edit: add word.

[justusranvier]

 Since I find your bizarre assertion that everything which effect you negatively is 'violence' amusing, that means that I Love Big Brother.

No, dipshit. This is violence:





Everything dictate that comes down from those who have declared themselves rulers carries with it the implicit threat that those who disobey will be subjected to violence. Everybody knows it, everybody is afraid of it, and that's who everybody strenuously avoids talking about it.

"Law is an opinion with a gun behind it" is not hyperbole - the guns are real, and they use them, and it takes a nearly superhuman devotion to ignorance not to see them.

Of course the rulers don't want to actually use those guns more often than necessary - it cuts into their profits - so it's far better for their subjects to police themselves into obedience out of fear. That doesn't mean the coercion is gone though. It's still coercion if the rapist successfully intimidates the victim into compliance so that he doesn't need to actually use force.

That where you and other apologists act as such very faithful servants.  The last thing they want is for people to openly acknowledge and talk about the gun in the room and fortunately they have an army of bootlickers ready and eager to help them conceal the gun, divert attention away from it, and attack anyone who tries to point it out.

[Luke-Jr]

If you require a threat/gun to be obedient, that is your problem.