Roger Ver Endorses Trace Mayer For Bitcoin Foundation Board Seat

[sunnankar]

On September 16-23rd the Bitcoin Foundation will be holding the final elections for two seats on the board of directors for the Industry and Individual seats.

In this video, Bitcoin expert and enthusiast Roger Ver who is a founding member of the Bitcoin Foundation and major financial contributor endorses Trace Mayer for the Individual seat and they discuss the vision and future of the Foundation and how the financial capital should be allocated.

Reddit link - upvotes appreciated 

Article link

[1714943980]

1714943980

[1714943980]

1714943980

[1714943980]

1714943980

[Elwar]

Interesting...you should post this on the Bitcoin Foundation board so that the members of that foundation know about it.

[gmaxwell]

As a Bitcoin-QT core developer, foundation member, and Bitcoin enthusiast I am strongly opposed to Trace Mayer on the foundation seat.

In the past he has treated me in a manner which I found to be disrespectful and hostile, which is saying a lot considering that I can handle reading the mining subforum here.

Contact from him which was, in my opinion, threatening made me seriously consider discontinuing my involvement with Bitcoin.

In light of this, I do not believe that his approach or interpersonal skills are suited for the role.

[capa]

hmm Roger Ver didnt seem hugely enthusiastic to me.

I guess he lost a bet to Trace..

[sunnankar]

As a Bitcoin-QT core developer, foundation member, and Bitcoin enthusiast I am strongly opposed to Trace Mayer on the foundation seat.

In the past he has treated me with incredible disrespect and hostility.

His interactions made me fear for my safety and made me seriously consider discontinuing my involvement with Bitcoin.

In light of this, I do not believe that his approach or interpersonal skills are suited for the role.

I am not sure why you are asserting disrespect or hostility in the debate since all of my communications were drafted the same way I would draft pleadings for a judge; professionally and pointedly contentious on the issues. And your implication of physical threat from me is completely baseless and extremely unprofessional.

Additionally, because you and Jeff Garzik did not articulate soundly reasoned arguments I drafted, objectively, both sides of the arguments before you both retreated into your cave due to the mounting pressure from the vast majority of the Bitcoin community. Sure, the arguments were pointed and sharp on the issues but in no way were they aimed in a personal manner at either you or LukeJR.

For those unaware of the backstory when developing the Bitcoin.org Press Page with Saivann and Mike Hearn it was LukeJR, another candidate for this Foundation board seat, that led the charge on voting to exclude Jon Matonis, currently executive director of the Foundation and Founding Member and Roger Ver, a Founding Member of the Foundation and significant financial contributor, and it was Trace Mayer and Joerg Platzer, another candidate for this Foundation board seat, who argued for inclusion of both. Here are a few of the Github threads (139, 152, 162) and one of the Bitcointalk discussions (24 pages! - very hot topic and healthy debate in the community which seemed to settle on inclusion).

Some Bitcoin community members were so incensed at the behavior of LukeJR and Gregory Maxwell to exclude competent, professional and articulate speakers that they took significant action. For example, Andreas Antonopoulos created the Bitcoin Press Center.

[sunnankar]

hmm Roger Ver didnt seem hugely enthusiastic to me.

I guess he lost a bet to Trace..

There was no bet or any other type of financial incentive involved in anyway with this endorsement. He was extremely gracious and probably tired since it was around 2am in Tokyo at the time of the call.

[gmaxwell]

You may note that I revised my message to make abundantly clear that I am stating my personal opinion, for whatever worth people want to take it for.

I do not want to endure more legal threats from you. If you insist on making them, however, I am not afraid.

But after my interactions I with you I do not believe the Bitcoin community would be well served by your services in this role.

As an aside, I do not understand why you persist in referring to yourself in the third person. I am also mildly confused at your commentary regarding pleadings for a judge. Is this a reference to your prior legal threats? I did not believe you were licensed to practice law.

[genjix]

Hi Trace,

1. Should copyright exist?

2. How better can we allocate money/resources in the Bitcoin space?

3. Why do you support a central foundation?

4. Is Bitcoin guaranteed to happen (like internet or printing press)?

5. What do you think of Cody Wilson?

Thanks.

[greyhawk]

Hahahahaha, is this the dude?



He looks exactly like the guy in zombie movies who first is a douchebag to everyone he meets and then gets eaten and the whole audience goes: "YEAH! WOOT Fuck that asshole! GO ZOMBIES, YEAH!!!"

And then he comes back and the protagonist neatly chops off the dude's head with a shovel (or sometimes un-neatly with a chainsaw) prompting another round of applause from the audience.

That's my story and I'm sticking to it. Go Zombies!

[greyhawk]

As an aside, I do not understand why you persist in referring to yourself in the third person.

That's what crazypersons do. It's how you can identify them. Remember the finnish supernode? Same problem.

[sunnankar]

I do not want to endure more legal threats from you.

I am not sure why you are fabricating such aspersions. Your potential defamation of someone else, which I pointed out, would not give me a cause of action to drag you into court and most likely nor would I since it would be against my principles in that particular set of facts you are referring to.

But to move away from water under the bridge and focus on something more pressing you do point out a very important issue: Whether our Bitcoin developers are adequately protected legally?

With subpoenas, cease and desists, etc. already having been sent out I think this is an area of preemptive protection that needs more work done. In fact, one of my friends who only develops software pulled out the subpoena he received and I glanced over it.

Before either the subpoenas or C&Ds went out I raised the issue of a Bitcoin legal defense fund with Patrick Murck at the June Conference. Patrick recommended Brian Klein as chairman of a committee so I traveled to Santa Monica to meet with him, brainstorm what could be done and then we setup the Bitcoin Legal Defense Committee.

And it is precisely contributors and developers like yourself, those who are contributing code pro-bono, that I would like to see primarily and directly protected by whatever legal shield we can fashion.

As an aside, I do not understand why you persist in referring to yourself in the third person. I am also mildly confused at your commentary regarding pleadings for a judge.

Mainly to make it easier for those not following the conversation to get a grasp on the facts.

I think our training results in approaching issues differently. I am referring to the style of presentation: professional, issue and fact focused, either presenting objectively or arguing persuasively depending on the circumstance. I have never slug barbs at your personally in an ad hominem attack but instead focused only on the ideas and arguments you have presented.

On another note, in many areas like the assertions you make regarding CoinJoin I find myself agreeing with your positions and consequently have to modify my own positions as a result.

[sunnankar]

1. Should copyright exist?

2. How better can we allocate money/resources in the Bitcoin space?

3. Why do you support a central foundation?

4. Is Bitcoin guaranteed to happen (like internet or printing press)?

5. What do you think of Cody Wilson?

1. No because I do not find any of the arguments I have read regarding the use of violence against someone merely for speech to be compelling and therefore it would violate the Non-Aggression Axiom but I remain minded to superior arguments. Additionally, copyright was invented as a tool for the State to suppress the free flow of ideas, is still being used as a tool to suppress ideas like with the raid on Kim Dotcom and is all done under color of law that is built on a very weak intellectual foundation for moral justification.

Consequently, I am against the use of violence to impede or prevent the spread of the Bitcoin protocol because it is speech.

2. I think developing the core protocol to be incredibly robust and tangential code and services around it which greatly increase the level of protection individuals can secure for the lowest cost possible.

3. I suppose the only thing more difficult than herding cats is herding honey badgers. Bitcoin is an incredibly complex and technical subject. Jon Matonis and I have been a long-time thought leaders in the space and worked very hard to spread the knowledge about Bitcoin. Consequently, I know how difficult of a job that is to do. As Bitcoin grows and the needs of the economy and community mature I think it will be increasingly important to have some vehicle or mechanism to distribute asymmetrical information so we can build what our customers want. And the Foundation is merely one of many vehicles which can help keep those lines of communication open. After all, with open source projects we can work in much more complex ways.

And I think it is important, and have incurred significant expenses personally and allocated time towards, to interact with law enforcement, regulators and governmental agents to educate them objectively on the protocol and persuasively on the features, advantages and benefits of this innovative technology to individuals. However, we should be frugal in the use of the Foundation's funds and consequently if they want to be educated or receive consulting about Bitcoin then we should expect them to pay for it with a check or perhaps even some Bitcoins.

4. Bitcoin is happening but I agree with Mr. Maxwell that there are still some technical weaknesses that could be exploited and thus the reason I think the underlying protocol's robustness should continue to be developed. But human action finds a way and if not Bitcoin then it will likely be some other tool that serves this particular market need and I do not think cryptocurrency as an idea is going away without absolute and complete totalitarian tactics by all of the States, which is pretty far outside of the current political reality, and even then it may likely survive. Ideas can only be overcome by other ideas and Bitcoin is an extremely superior idea to the others out there that greatly lowers the costs in terms of time, money and privacy when it comes to transferring value over distance so the economics will present a tailwind for its adoption.

5. He is another Cipherspace Innovator the likes of which Steve Jobs referred to and is pushing the limits of what we thought was possible with merely freedom of speech and ideas. Additionally, as the Second Amendment was written the word 'arms' referred to armaments or weapons of war. So under a strict construction view of the Founder's intent there should be little if any restrictions so that the People can be on equal footing as the State.

And these are very substantive questions and perhaps you can pose them to the other candidates to get their positions and how they apply to their platforms. Thanks for stirring up the debate.

[genjix]

Thanks for your prescient answers. I support your viewpoints.

[Carlton Banks]

Very strange thread, why is Trace Mayer taking such a laboured approach to informing us that Roger Ver supports his candidacy? Can Trace Mayer answer? 

As an aside, I do not understand why you persist in referring to yourself in the third person. I am also mildly confused at your commentary regarding pleadings for a judge.

Mainly to make it easier for those not following the conversation to get a grasp on the facts.

Unlike the rest of your opaque and meandering prose?

Consequently, I am against the use of violence to impede or prevent the spread of the Bitcoin protocol because it is speech.

No it's not. I'm not even going to give such a preposterous proposition the credence of arguing against it, suffice to say; no it's not.

2. I think developing the core protocol to be incredibly robust and tangential code and services around it which greatly increase the level of protection individuals can secure for the lowest cost possible.

This sentence is too vague to be meaningful. I could go on with this critique, but it looks like a lot of work, you've gone into all-out politician mode.


I would be concerned if this kind of candidate can actually appeal to foundation members with this sort of rhetoric, he sounds like he prepared for this campaign with Aristotle "...on Tyranny", Machiavelli's "The Prince" and an ounce of cocaine.

[drama247365]

Trace Mayer strikes me as a sociopath.

[GoldSilverBitcoin]

Trace Mayer is personally responsible for bringing me, while I was writing for the Silver Vigilante and Dollar Vigilante, into the Bitcoin space.

He is the person who led to me buying the domain and starting GoldSilverBitcoin, and therefore was one of the reasons which ultimately led me to write Bitcoinomics: The Bitcoin Book. His effects have been palpable for bitcoiners, and who knows, maybe he is one of the numerous reasons you are here without you knowing it.  He has always been cordial to me and I believe Trace is capable of taking a major role in the Foundation's efforts or any Bitcoin endeavor

When it comes to Bitcoin's day-to-day, I have a feeling that Trace's positions differ quite a bit from my own.

Nonetheless, I support him in all he does.

And all of you should invest less in shit-talking.

[thezerg]

You may note that I revised my message to make abundantly clear that I am stating my personal opinion, for whatever worth people want to take it for.

I do not want to endure more legal threats from you. If you insist on making them, however, I am not afraid.

But after my interactions I with you I do not believe the Bitcoin community would be well served by your services in this role.

As an aside, I do not understand why you persist in referring to yourself in the third person. I am also mildly confused at your commentary regarding pleadings for a judge. Is this a reference to your prior legal threats? I did not believe you were licensed to practice law.

I would really prefer not to have to even read this kind of stuff.  But given that you brought up the issue it is not enough to speak in such broad terms. Nor do I want to wade through 24 pages and 3 github conversations of people bickering over what should have been a very positive development, guessing at what comments made you fear for your safety and feel legally threatened.

So I think you need to back up your assertions with some actual links.  Otherwise it just sounds like FUD.

[illpoet]

i for one am happy that this thread is on here.  It goes good with the popcorn i just made.

[GoldSilverBitcoin]

Trace Mayer is personally responsible for bringing me, while I was writing for the Silver Vigilante and Dollar Vigilante, into the Bitcoin space.

He is the person who led to me buying the domain and starting GoldSilverBitcoin, and therefore was one of the reasons which ultimately led me to write Bitcoinomics: The Bitcoin Book. His effects have been palpable for bitcoiners, and who knows, maybe he is one of the numerous reasons you are here without you knowing it.  He has always been cordial to me and I believe Trace is capable of taking a major role in the Foundation's efforts or any Bitcoin endeavor

When it comes to Bitcoin's day-to-day, I have a feeling that Trace's positions differ quite a bit from my own.

Nonetheless, I support him in all he does.

And all of you should invest less in shit-talking.

From your web page:  "Anarcho-Capitalist.  Libertarian.  Freedom fighter against mankind’s two biggest enemies, the State and the Central Banks."

While some of things you say are true most people don't go around saying "mankind's biggest enemy is ... "  These things will drive away casual users because it makes Bitcoin appear to be some kind of wacko fringe element system that they don't want to be associated with.  Just like most people are not looking to "vanish."

That is not my web-page. That is Jeff Berwick's web page. Interesting dude. Had great (and reserved) appearances on mainstream media for BitcoinATM. When Trace brought BTC to my attention, I wrote as Silver Vigilante and wrote for Dollar Vigilante. It was a casual conversation I had with him at FreedomFest that made me realize the oh-so obvious. I am not an anarcho-capitalist.  I think a communist might serve just as well as a libertarian for the foundation. It's really a question of base intentions more-so than overt political slants.

[smoothie]

As a Bitcoin-QT core developer, foundation member, and Bitcoin enthusiast I am strongly opposed to Trace Mayer on the foundation seat.

In the past he has treated me in a manner which I found to be disrespectful and hostile, which is saying a lot considering that I can handle reading the mining subforum here.

Contact from him which was, in my opinion, threatening made me seriously consider discontinuing my involvement with Bitcoin.

In light of this, I do not believe that his approach or interpersonal skills are suited for the role.

Links/quotes supporting your claim?

[malevolent]

1. Should copyright exist?
1. No because I do not find any of the arguments I have read regarding the use of violence against someone merely for speech to be compelling and therefore it would violate the Non-Aggression Axiom but I remain minded to superior arguments. Additionally, copyright was invented as a tool for the State to suppress the free flow of ideas, is still being used as a tool to suppress ideas like with the raid on Kim Dotcom and is all done under color of law that is built on a very weak intellectual foundation for moral justification.
Consequently, I am against the use of violence to impede or prevent the spread of the Bitcoin protocol because it is speech.

huh?  You went to law school and you don't understand the purpose of copyrights and intellectual property? 
"copyright was invented as a tool for the State to suppress the free flow of ideas"
Maybe the law has been taken too far but it was put into place at the request of artists to protect their work.  The rest of your lunatic rant in unintelligible to normal people.

Copyright law has its roots in censorship. Failure to realize this means being blind to the potential for abuse.

http://torrentfreak.com/the-copyright-monopoly-was-created-as-a-censorship-instrument-and-is-still-used-as-one-130901/
http://www.google.pl/books?id=BzLXGUxV4CkC&pg=PA15#v=onepage&q&f=false

[odolvlobo]

I do not want Trace Mayer on the board. I have met and talked with him and he seems like a decent person, but I don't want someone on the board that is there to promote themselves or their product.

[Ipsum]

I do not want Trace Mayer on the board. I have met and talked with him and he seems like a decent person, but I don't want someone on the board that is there to promote themselves or their product.

That would eliminate everyone.  That is the purpose of these types of organizations.

There's a difference between promoting the bitcoin ecosystem and promoting yourself/your product within that ecosystem.

I don't know Trace, but based on his statements here, I won't support him for a board seat. What the Foundation needs are serious people capable of interacting with the rest of the world in an acceptable way, not fringe political ideologues.

[jgarzik]

You should also be aware of the California Bar Associations requirements for attorney advertising.  http://rules.calbar.ca.gov/Rules/RulesofProfessionalConduct/CurrentRules/Rule1400.aspx

http://members.calbar.ca.gov/fal/MemberSearch/QuickSearch

[QuestionAuthority]

1. Should copyright exist?
1. No because I do not find any of the arguments I have read regarding the use of violence against someone merely for speech to be compelling and therefore it would violate the Non-Aggression Axiom but I remain minded to superior arguments. Additionally, copyright was invented as a tool for the State to suppress the free flow of ideas, is still being used as a tool to suppress ideas like with the raid on Kim Dotcom and is all done under color of law that is built on a very weak intellectual foundation for moral justification.
Consequently, I am against the use of violence to impede or prevent the spread of the Bitcoin protocol because it is speech.

huh?  You went to law school and you don't understand the purpose of copyrights and intellectual property? 
"copyright was invented as a tool for the State to suppress the free flow of ideas"
Maybe the law has been taken too far but it was put into place at the request of artists to protect their work.  The rest of your lunatic rant in unintelligible to normal people.

Copyright law has its roots in censorship. Failure to realize this means being blind to the potential for abuse.

http://torrentfreak.com/the-copyright-monopoly-was-created-as-a-censorship-instrument-and-is-still-used-as-one-130901/
http://www.google.pl/books?id=BzLXGUxV4CkC&pg=PA15#v=onepage&q&f=false

Well, don't let the Winklevoss twins know you think protecting intellectual property is a bad thing. I bet they'd like to censor Mark Zuckerberg with a 2x4 plank across the head. lol

[uyjulian]

1. Should copyright exist?


1. No because I do not find any of the arguments I have read regarding the use of violence against someone merely for speech to be compelling and therefore it would violate the Non-Aggression Axiom but I remain minded to superior arguments. Additionally, copyright was invented as a tool for the State to suppress the free flow of ideas, is still being used as a tool to suppress ideas like with the raid on Kim Dotcom and is all done under color of law that is built on a very weak intellectual foundation for moral justification.

Consequently, I am against the use of violence to impede or prevent the spread of the Bitcoin protocol because it is speech.

huh?  You went to law school and you don't understand the purpose of copyrights and intellectual property? 

"copyright was invented as a tool for the State to suppress the free flow of ideas"

Maybe the law has been taken too far but it was put into place at the request of artists to protect their work.  The rest of your lunatic rant in unintelligible to normal people.

copyright is for people who want to suck in money.
i do not support copyright, that's why I pirate non-open-source products and I donate to open-source projects.

[GoldSilverBitcoin]

Trace Mayer is personally responsible for bringing me, while I was writing for the Silver Vigilante and Dollar Vigilante, into the Bitcoin space.

He is the person who led to me buying the domain and starting GoldSilverBitcoin, and therefore was one of the reasons which ultimately led me to write Bitcoinomics: The Bitcoin Book. His effects have been palpable for bitcoiners, and who knows, maybe he is one of the numerous reasons you are here without you knowing it.  He has always been cordial to me and I believe Trace is capable of taking a major role in the Foundation's efforts or any Bitcoin endeavor

When it comes to Bitcoin's day-to-day, I have a feeling that Trace's positions differ quite a bit from my own.

Nonetheless, I support him in all he does.

And all of you should invest less in shit-talking.

From your web page:  "Anarcho-Capitalist.  Libertarian.  Freedom fighter against mankind’s two biggest enemies, the State and the Central Banks."

While some of things you say are true most people don't go around saying "mankind's biggest enemy is ... "  These things will drive away casual users because it makes Bitcoin appear to be some kind of wacko fringe element system that they don't want to be associated with.  Just like most people are not looking to "vanish."

That is not my web-page. That is Jeff Berwick's web page. Interesting dude. Had great (and reserved) appearances on mainstream media for BitcoinATM. When Trace brought BTC to my attention, I wrote as Silver Vigilante and wrote for Dollar Vigilante. It was a casual conversation I had with him at FreedomFest that made me realize the oh-so obvious. I am not an anarcho-capitalist.  I think a communist might serve just as well as a libertarian for the foundation. It's really a question of base intentions more-so than overt political slants.

OK, sorry, I didn't know who it was.  In any case most people are concerned about how to pay for their music download or tip someone a small amount, not some kind political ideology or axiom or anarcho-anything.  Putting that kind of face on Bitcoin makes it more difficult to get into mainstream use.

Agreed.

[franky1]

why is it that all the people that want to be the 'poster boys' (the main face media see's) of bitcoin, all have some social issue.

Max Keiser - great economist but goes off the rails with his analogies
Amir Taaki - well if you seen any of his interviews with media, you don't need me to explain it
Trace Mayor - UFO/Alien protection fund, space travel investments..

we need some level headed people on the frontline to be teaching the world about bitcoin. although the 3 named people above have put alot of their personal time and money into bitcoin, when it comes to public appearances, their personalities let them down and suddenly people start to think of what they are hearing should be taken with a pinch of salt.

although the guys from bitinstant are on the libertarian camps, they do seem to have a more level head and don't come off too eccentric with their delivery.

if i was to request a spokesmen to teach a government, financial body about bitcoin i would still choose the bitinstant crew over Trace Mayor.

it seems like Trace Mayor has a 'i am a rich snob' aura to him and he seems most interested in the financial spending/looking after of the foundation. and from what i can see of his projects which he request donations for thus far, the end results/accomplishments would never flourish.

there has to be someone better out there then the current line up of candidates.

[Trader Steve]

For what it's worth I can personally vouch for Trace's integrity and I feel much better knowing that he, Jon Matonis and Roger Ver are involved in bitcoin at the levels that they are. Additionally, I greatly appreciate the technical solutions and ideas that Gregory Maxwell has created.

As an aside, it is a sad commentary when morality is considered by some to be a "fringe political belief".

[gmaxwell]

As an aside, it is a sad commentary when morality is considered by some to be a "fringe political belief".

I think it is is a sad commentary that we have a community which tolerates calling hardworking and generous people insulting terms like "statist" on the mere suspicion that their beliefs are different— as a quick out in in argument—, without even necessarily understanding their beliefs well enough to know if or how much their beliefs differ.

I think part of a good moral code is understanding that people have a diversity of views on what constitutes morality and that none of us are so wise and free of cognitive defect to know with absolute certainty the optimal path.  Moreover, if Bitcoin is to be a big tent that is adopted and supported by the whole world, we must be tolerate of people whos views are not identical to our own, so long as they are sufficiently compatible, and certainly not be intolerant of views which we merely _suspect_ to be different.

I think that if the Bitcoin foundation is to exist it ought to exist for the sake of Bitcoin not for the sake of advancing any broader political ideology, even ideologies that I support. Fortunately, because Bitcoin itself is a liberating technology there are many other laudable agendas which the success of Bitcoin will also advance without any special effort.  The support of Bitcoin by anarcho-capitalists is already assured by Bitcoin's very nature, but to include others we must have representatives which are tolerant enough to understand and accept that a diversity of views exist without their holders being evil. ... or at least tactful enough to express dissent without the name calling.

[cypherdoc]

As an aside, it is a sad commentary when morality is considered by some to be a "fringe political belief".

I think it is is a sad commentary that we have a community which tolerates calling hardworking and generous people insulting terms like "statist" on the mere suspicion that their beliefs are different— as a quick out in in argument—, without even necessarily understanding their beliefs well enough to know if or how much their beliefs differ.

I think part of a good moral code is understanding that people have a diversity of views on what constitutes morality and that none of us are so wise and free of cognitive defect to know with absolute certainty the optimal path.  Moreover, if Bitcoin is to be a big tent that is adopted and supported by the whole world, we must be tolerate of people whos views are not identical to our own, so long as they are sufficiently compatible, and certainly not be intolerant of views which we merely _suspect_ to be different.

I think that if the Bitcoin foundation is to exist it ought to exist for the sake of Bitcoin not for the sake of advancing any broader political ideology, even ideologies that I support. Fortunately, because Bitcoin itself is a liberating technology there are many other laudable agendas which the success of Bitcoin will also advance without any special effort.  The support of Bitcoin by anarcho-capitalists is already assured by Bitcoin's very nature, but to include others we must have representatives which are tolerant enough to understand and accept that a diversity of views exist without their holders being evil. ... or at least tactful enough to express dissent without the name calling.

gmax, i'm curious.  what do you think of me?

i was in those same tempestuous threads arguing against what you were advocating as much, if not more, than Trace.  i thought you were wrong then to exclude Matonis and Ver and i still think you were wrong.

[gmaxwell]

gmax, i'm curious.  what do you think of me?
i was in those same tempestuous threads arguing against what you were advocating as much, if not more, than Trace.  i thought you were wrong then to exclude Matonis and Ver and i still think you were wrong.

I don't know you well, but (without review) I think on the basis of our contact thus far I wouldn't advance you as a in a leadership or "representative" role,  I don't mean this as any kind of insult: I am not advancing myself in a press role either (although I'm not entirely without relevant experience, I generally deflect press contact).

Since you asked— In the 162 thread I believe you behaved at least somewhat at odds with the standard of ethical conduct that I would hold myself.  In the thread some (seemingly(?) sock-puppeted) participants were fairly clearly calling for violence and your followup contribution was to add additional insults, e.g. "the statists here".

Exactly where have I advanced a "statist" position which would have justified this insult?

You wrote, "i'm not about to stand aside" but you were happy to stand aside while people supporting your views threatened violence and you respond in agreement with their proposed economic (counter) attack, suggesting on your own: "all further funding related to anything they are associated with be withheld". I consider this kind of total warfare unethical: You'd deny my livelihood because I strongly argued that the Bitcoin project's "official" press contacts should use an approach which is politically tempered in order to avoid offending the broadest range of political background? really???

That particular proposed remedy was particularly insulting for reasons which were not apparent to you: I am not, and have never been, and have no interest in being, paid to work on Bitcoin... the grand total I've received for my hundreds of hours of contributions is a few Bitcoins here and there (usually in response to direct 1:1 tech support). It would have been laughable as there was simply nothing to take— a non-accidental situation, because I prefer to be free of vulnerability to exactly this kind of coercive response— but I've given so much effort and time, and because we'd disagree with the approach we should take in a public facing capacity as a representative of the project you'd seek that kind of revenge? Really? And yet you continue to benefit from my work. I can shield my economic security from this kind of attack, but shielding my self-respect is a little harder.

People say stupid things and miss opportunities to behave optimally in the heat of an argument and that is easily enough forgiven, but it's also not a shining qualification for a position of leadership in an organization who's primary goal should be to build a bigger tent. I believe that someone with good leadership or press skills could have managed to avoid stepping on those rakes and could have made their preferences known without the insults. In your interaction you appeared to prioritize anti-statist politics to such an extent that you risked offending other community members (e.g. myself) without any deep exploration into if their views were even pro-statist to begin with ... at the potential expense to the Bitcoin project.

I am happy when any kind of person, even one whos politics I disagree with, adopts Bitcoin. I think that we should be careful that we do not advance non-bitcoin-critical politics at the risk of alienating adopters or contributors. I believe these views are a self-consistent and logical approach to maximizing the freedom that Bitcoin will provide for the world in the long term, and I would hope that the foundation is adopting a similar approach.  Perhaps you disagree, and if so my opinion on who shouldn't be a part of the foundation leadership is unlikely to be of value to you.

[lonelyminer (Peter Šurda)]

... insulting terms like "statist" ...

Why do you perceive the term "statist" as insulting? Cognitive dissonance?

Just look at Wikipedia. Statism is a belief system and a statist is one who has that belief system. It is the opposite of anarchism and anarchist. If someone calls me an anarchist, I don't view it as insulting, on the contrary that is an accurate terminology. If someone calls me a statist, I don't view it insulting either, rather inaccurate.

If you think that the term "statist" is insulting, maybe that is actually a hint that you subconsciously want to be an anarchist. Assuming you are not one already, but then it makes no sense to become agitated about the term "statist" either.

if Bitcoin is to be a big tent that is adopted and supported by the whole world, we must be tolerate of people whos views are not identical to our own, so long as they are sufficiently compatible, and certainly not be intolerant of views which we merely _suspect_ to be different.

A lot of the goals of different people are mutually exclusive. Bitcoin is a very powerful tool that may change who will reach their goal and who won't. This also affects people who do not use Bitcoin. Eventually, the Bitcoin Foundation may be in a position to influence the outcome and will have to make a decision, because, I repeat, some options are mutually exclusive. And I think that there is nothing strange when members of the foundation expect answers from board candidates about what the decision would be.

[gmaxwell]

Why do you perceive the term "statist" as insulting? Cognitive dissonance?

For one, because the speaker clearly intends it as such, especially when they're using it in the context of arguing to dismiss a person's views. Moreover, political sterotyping is almost always insulting. It over simplifies to the point of insult, as the sterotype name embodies all the negative connotations and few of the positive, or it's just outright misplaced.

You wouldn't find it insulting if someone called you a racist or a religious zealot or any of a thousand other stereotyping terms as part of an argument as to why you're wrong and should be ignored?

the Bitcoin Foundation may be in a position to influence the outcome

If the Bitcoin foundation can control Bitcoin itself then Bitcoin has already failed. Its design and purpose was to be free of that kind of influence because no one can be trusted with it. Evenutally any organization of people will drift in its purpose of character and seek to ensure its own survival or advance its own purposes, to compromise principles for sufficiently compelling excuses, even at the expense of its original purpose. A diverse foundation not only has the benefit of potentially being able to go out and advance Bitcoin to a broader audience but would also preserve the healthy distrust that would remind the user community to not hand over too much authority.

[cypherdoc]

gmax, why did you delete this portion of what you said in this part of our github exchange?  if i'm wrong in not finding this please let me know.
https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin.org/pull/162


"gmaxwell:    Whats there to suspect? I'll state it right out: I will not make changes to the software that trod over the consent of a minority of its users simply because a majority wills it. The majority can go start some other software that I can't edit if it wants to impose its will or politics on a minority, if the minority chooses to use it then at least is by their consent.

cypherdoc:   hmmm. i don't get this line of thought. if satoshi agreed with your general line of thinking, then why did he design the whole mining process to depend on a MAJORITY of miners, as in >50%, determining which is the correct blockchain in the case of a fork?"

[cypherdoc]

theymos deleting your own posts?

i was just preparing a heavy handed response.

[cypherdoc]

cypherdoc:   hmmm. i don't get this line of thought. if satoshi agreed with your general line of thinking, then why did he design the whole mining process to depend on a MAJORITY of miners, as in >50%, determining which is the correct blockchain in the case of a fork?"

The majority of miners determine the correct ordering of transactions to prevent double-spending because this is the only known way of achieving such consensus in a secure and decentralized way. Miners do not decide which chain is correct if the fork is due to some rule violation. Every individual must decide for himself in that case. Bitcoin isn't a democracy.

i asked HIM why he deleted it.

let's review the context in which the whole github brew haha occurred:

1.  there is a thread here that clearly demonstrated the community's outrage at excluding Ver and Matonis from what was at the time the self appointed Bitcoin.org Press Center controlled by Savann and the developers including gmaxwell.
2.  despite consensus sentiment here there was an unannounced "vote" over at github as to whether to include them or not.  the "majority" apparently said no.  not surprising b/c they (jgarzik, luke-jr, gmaxwell, Savann) were the one's who unilaterally decided to exclude them.
3.  members of this forum were outraged b/c none of us ever heard about this supposed open vote and thus never had a chance to vote.  valid complaints were that github is never frequented by non-developers.  go look at it for yourself for those who doubt.  it's not non-developer friendly and there is no reason for non-devs to go there.
4.  upon hearing of the exclusion, a bunch of us went over to github and asked for a re-vote.  informal re-voting poll by Andreas showed that Ver and Matonis would have been included into the Press Center.
5.  our pleas were summarily dismissed.

in retrospect, Andreas went off and developed a new website which has been tremendously successful and supported by the community.  obviously, Matonis and Ver were included.  Matonis subsequently was elected BF Chairman and rightfully so despite gmaxwell's portrayal of him as some sort of out of control radical.  and Ver retains a seat on the Board.

they were wrong.  we were right.  the majority should determine the direction of Bitcoin.

[gmaxwell]

gmax, why did you delete this portion of what you said in this part of our github exchange?

Hm? I don't have a specific recollection of it, whenever it was it was a long time ago since that string doesn't show up elsewhere in any google result. Are you sure it was even a quote from that pull (check your email, github doesn't send-to-sender so I can't see it).

In any case, I've said the similar things many times, in fact there is a quote of mine (paraphrasing Satoshi) in the forums standard rotation on that subject matter.  If it was deleted it may have been because I'd already said basically the same thing:

Bitcoin is absolutely not a voting system. There is some computational-voting in Bitcoin where there was no other choice, but everywhere else the system operates by autonomously imposed rules— so that every participant consents to the operation of the system and can't be victimized by a majority who chooses to harm them. If you want a currency operated by votes— go use the official money of any democratic nation.

And perhaps I removed it because I was just repeating myself non-productively (You may note that I made no further comments in that thread after that point). (Uh, This has veered way off-topic. Perhaps we should move to PM?)

Edit:I didn't see theymos' response except in your quote, but I assume he removed it because it was offtopic. What you're quoting from him there is exactly my view, and I think both Satoshi and the design of the Bitcoin system is abundantly clear on this point.  You could easily build a majority of miner's system, but it would not be a valuable one because the 'wolves could vote to have the sheep for supper', just like the resource-weighed-majority of today's democracies do not reliably rule with the consent of the governed. It would, however, be a lot simpler and easier to work on that Bitcoin is... Bitcoin is based not on trust, but on mathematical proof.  Not perfectly, since we are not yet skilled enough to design systems so perfect that they can operate completely without intervention but to the extent that we can make a reality of that vision Bitcoin can be immune to the folly of man. (A point you can see, e.g. the winklevossen making in their PR and SEC filings, for example). ... Even if all the miners agree they can't just steal your Bitcoin and assign it to themselves.

If a minority ruling over people is a tyranny, a majority ruling over other people is only a difference in magnitude. Freedom comes from autonomy, from not being ruled over by any master, not even the most popular one. Perfect autonomy is not possible, but we can certainly maximize it by adopting systems with clear rules at their outset which are not subject to and are designed to resist coercive change, like Bitcoin.

(Of course, on matters of preference where people's freedom isn't at stake, majorities can be useful modes to pick between options... though diversity is often even better: To each his own.)

Matonis subsequently was elected BF Chairman [...] and Ver retains a seat on the Board

Huh? This is, I think it to be totally irrelevant— but since we're already in recursive offtopic land—, neither of these things are true as far as I know.

[theymos]

the majority should determine the direction of Bitcoin.

No. Individuals should decide what they do with their own stuff. bitcoin.org is owned by one person who decides to use it in certain ways. The developers own their own time and skills. You don't have any right to influence how these things are used. I'm certainly not going to allow any majority to force me into doing things that I know are wrong with the assets under my control. Just because a majority of people (or a loud minority of people...) believe something doesn't mean that it's true. (Of course, I'm always willing to read and carefully consider reasonable arguments.)

[cypherdoc]

the majority should determine the direction of Bitcoin.

No. Individuals should decide what they do with their own stuff. bitcoin.org is owned by one person who decides to use it in certain ways. The developers own their own time and skills. You don't have any right to influence how these things are used. I'm certainly not going to allow any majority to force me into doing things that I know are wrong with the assets under my control. Just because a majority of people (or a loud minority of people...) believe something doesn't mean that it's true. (Of course, I'm always willing to read and carefully consider reasonable arguments.)

well you know, that is exactly what happened.

the majority of us, feeling ignored by the minority controlling the bitcoin.org press center, made a plea to Sirius (the owner of bitcoin.org) who upon finding out what happened to Matonis and Ver promptly disagreed with their exclusion and as far as i know forced a resolution.  kudos to Sirius who listened to us and made a fair determination.

thanx to Andreas for setting up an alternative Press Center which diffused the situation and allowed inclusion of Matonis and Ver to all (or most of) our satisfaction.

[cypherdoc]

gmax, why did you delete this portion of what you said in this part of our github exchange?

Hm? I don't have a specific recollection of it, whenever it was it was a long time ago since that string doesn't show up elsewhere in any google result. Are you sure it was even a quote from that pull (check your email, github doesn't send-to-sender so I can't see it).

it's right here and it was you for sure:  

https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin.org/pull/162#issuecomment-17148851

come on Greg.  you're a smart guy with a good enough memory to pull out all those quotes of me in that same thread.  furthermore, this isn't the first time i've referenced that quote of yours to your face. it's the second time; the first being in another thread here on the forum a month or so later.  if you insist i'm sure i can dig it out with some effort.  you deleted it for a reason.

In any case, I've said the similar things many times, in fact there is a quote of mine (paraphrasing Satoshi) in the forums standard rotation on that subject matter.  If it was deleted it may have been because I'd already said basically the same thing:

Bitcoin is absolutely not a voting system. There is some computational-voting in Bitcoin where there was no other choice, but everywhere else the system operates by autonomously imposed rules— so that every participant consents to the operation of the system and can't be victimized by a majority who chooses to harm them. If you want a currency operated by votes— go use the official money of any democratic nation.

And perhaps I removed it because I was just repeating myself non-productively (You may note that I made no further comments in that thread after that point). (Uh, This has veered way off-topic. Perhaps we should move to PM?)

Edit:I didn't see theymos' response except in your quote, but I assume he removed it because it was offtopic. What you're quoting from him there is exactly my view, and I think both Satoshi and the design of the Bitcoin system is abundantly clear on this point.  You could easily build a majority of miner's system, but it would not be a valuable one because the 'wolves could vote to have the sheep for supper', just like the resource-weighed-majority of today's democracies do not reliably rule with the consent of the governed. It would, however, be a lot simpler and easier to work on that Bitcoin is... Bitcoin is based not on trust, but on mathematical proof.  Not perfectly, since we are not yet skilled enough to design systems so perfect that they can operate completely without intervention but to the extent that we can make a reality of that vision Bitcoin can be immune to the folly of man. (A point you can see, e.g. the winklevossen making in their PR and SEC filings, for example). ... Even if all the miners agree they can't just steal your Bitcoin and assign it to themselves.

If a minority ruling over people is a tyranny, a majority ruling over other people is only a difference in magnitude. Freedom comes from autonomy, from not being ruled over by any master, not even the most popular one. Perfect autonomy is not possible, but we can certainly maximize it by adopting systems with clear rules at their outset which are not subject to and are designed to resist coercive change, like Bitcoin.

(Of course, on matters of preference where people's freedom isn't at stake, majorities can be useful modes to pick between options... though diversity is often even better: To each his own.)

Matonis subsequently was elected BF Chairman [...] and Ver retains a seat on the Board

Huh? This is, I think it to be totally irrelevant— but since we're already in recursive offtopic land—, neither of these things are true as far as I know.

my problem with that situation is that you were willing to hold a vote amongst yourselves in a non-representative situation over in github when the vast majority of non-devs had no idea a vote was in progress.  when we found out about it and asked for a re-vote, we were dismissed.  i understand that the devs need to make decisions based on their best judgment in situations reliant on coding.  but when it came down to a simple situation like Ver and Matonis, the rest of the community has every right to have a say in who and who was not to be allowed into the press center.

[gmaxwell]

it's right here and it was you for sure:  
https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin.org/pull/162#issuecomment-17148851

No no, I wasn't saying that you weren't quoting me, and as I said— and linked to, I have consistently said the same stuff, and said as much in the thread. It's absolutely my view.

Here I was saying that I wasn't sure if the quote came from github or someplace else. I can't find any reference to the text on google beyond your comment. You can tell if it's from github if you search your email, it'll be in your email if it was originally on github (but wouldn't be in mine).

furthermore, this isn't the first time i've referenced that quote of yours to your face. it's the second time; the first being in another thread here on the forum a month or so later.  if you insist i'm sure i can dig it out with some effort.

Please do, forum search turns up nothing for me. Perhaps that was the original origin of it? I have no clue. My ability to turn up things in the thread to quote is limited by whats actually in the thread at this time.

I'm not sure why you think you've found some kind of zinger there: Its a position which I've consistently held, repeated many times, and which many people would repeat more or less exactly if asked what I thought about that kind of subject. (I note that Theymos advanced similar sentiment above— while I haven't consulted a market research firm, I don't believe it to be a rare one).

you were willing to hold a vote

Its my experience and belief that voting is not a particularly effective decision method, at least not when there are alternatives and certainly not in an environment where it's so trivial to employ sock or meatpuppets. Basically the only positive qualities voting has is that its decisive and its sometimes available when all better alternatives are unworkable, but it loses its decisiveness when its trivial to cheat. I have no idea where you think I was willing to hold a vote, but I think it's unlikely that I've ever wanted to hold a vote on github or over some subject on github. (I can't help but find a little amusement in the notion of someone who claims to be opposed to state control advancing voting to control other people's activities against their consent as a go-to first choice tool for social involvement)

[cypherdoc]

for anyone new who's wondering what we're talking about look here:  https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=188516.msg1970655#msg1970655

here:  https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=181168.msg1983304#msg1983304

and here:  https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin.org/pull/162#commits-pushed-ee74e00

you'll get a good sense of how incensed the community was about the devs attempting to control an issue and outcome.

gmax, my concern is that when someone like you feels they have a moral authority despite being in the minority you tend to dismiss a potential majority prudent authority.  such as in the Press Center debate.  that was a political issue in which you could not declare any superior knowledge unlike in development.  yet you did anyway.  

here's where i brought the issue of ignoring the majority opinion came up again later on:  

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=192924.msg2087876#msg2087876

[lonelyminer (Peter Šurda)]

gmaxwell,

you made a persuasive argument. I will have to think about it.

[theymos]

Yes, except for one problem.  The Bitcoin Foundation says they are doing things for the benefit of all Bitcoin users (see their tax returns that were recently posted on their blog), not just their members.  So they are trying to influence nonmembers without giving them representation.

The Foundation doesn't have any control over bitcoin.org or Bitcoin development, so that's somewhat irrelevant here. In any case, I don't see a problem in trying to help people without asking them first as long as property rights, etc. are respected. That's what many charitable organizations do.

[sunnankar]

Individuals should decide what they do with their own stuff. bitcoin.org is owned by one person who decides to use it in certain ways. The developers own their own time and skills. You don't have any right to influence how these things are used.

Theymos, do you mean 'You don't have any right to force how these things are used.'?