Topic: Roger Ver and Jon Matonis pushed aside now that Bitcoin is becoming mainstream - page 10. (Read 46570 times)

(checks page count)  This is 14 pages of "silenced debate" and counting?  That excludes further silenced debate on reddit and github.

Matonis has a Forbes column.  Silenced and censored?  Posh.

Further, you will also note that I retweet @jonmatonis material, and happily review Ver-owned BitcoinStore purchases.  The world is not as simple as the critics would paint.

But bitcoin is growing up.  The number of non-anarchists in this world vastly outnumbers the anarchists, and a truly global, inclusive currency needs to appeal to all.

The fundamental nature of bitcoin is. It is what it is today, and nobody is trying to the change the engineering.  You want true monetary freedom?  Get bitcoin into as many peoples' hands on this planet as possible.

Uh. Right. We decline to list one of the Foundation founders and board members as a press contact, and this proves that there is no separation.  I think this is the point where I'm supposed insert one of those meme images.

As I new member of the Bitcoin Foundation, I will fight against censorship in any way, shape or form

The press are going to talk to them, and they are going to talk to the press, regardless of whether or not they have a name and a photo on the press list.

Everyone has their knickers in a twist over a tempest in a tea cup.

Many of the posts in this thread appear to be designed to be inflammatory. What difference does it really make whether or not someone's name is listed on some website? If the people on the website want calmness and neutrality, and they have control of said website, then so what?

The gnashing of teeth, the wailing, the gesticulation. All these things are irrelevant; when it comes down to it, think closely as to how many people in this thread, and elsewhere, will be keeping their heads up when actual attention is inevitably paid us by the authorities? The moderates. The rest are either socks, or people whose convictions almost always melt under scrutiny. Think about it: out of all the revolutionaries, who else but cosy armchair variety can even afford to participate meaningfully in Bitcoin right now?

Shouting into the seeming wind is a waste of time. Exit the discussion. There doesn't need to be one. You are granting these people the power to object just by engaging them. You are legitimizing their vitriolic attacks.

And for those people whose attacks may actually matter in the press-attention, public forum sense? Well now, they don't really have control of the website, now do they? And, we can safely assume that the people talking about replacing or removing the developers are part of a well-known, unfortunately well-funded echo-chamber. Keep that in mind.

Lol, ok delete my bold claim about Satoshi . But in all honesty we are getting really off topic. Any conclusion to Jon and Roger?

The more I read this, the more I believe Satoshi was smart to stay anonymous and vanish early and stay away from all of this, lest he will get all kinds of pleads like "Please, Satoshi, we need someone to make a decision for us, you should stand out..."blahblahblah

The structure of the foundation is described on the website and the bylaws are online. The foundation is a 501(c)(6) trade organization— like a chamber of commerce— not a charity, which is why they aren't listed on guidestar.  All of this information is readily available online.

Basically The Bitcoin Foundation is a Bitcoin "boosters club" created by businesses and individual members who cooperate to do whatever they like to help and promote Bitcoin.  It doesn't administer or run Bitcoin in any capacity, except to the extent that its participants are part of the Bitcoin ecosystem.  (The separation between Bitcoin.org and the foundation is, in fact, nicely illustrated by this thread).
 

Bad logic. Just because Gavin is a member of the Foundation's board doesn't mean that he's obligated to execute its orders in relation to Bitcoin development. (He's not.)

There are no good explanations. It is a decentralised project. You are asking the wrong questions, the framework you are anticipating with your questions just simply doesn't exist. You need to adjust your context to get sensible answers.

People contribute as, when, they like. If the developers like the code contributions they include it. If the users like the software the developers produce they use it.

Well then let's settle this theymos. Gavin have you been approached by the Foundation and do you feel like they value your input? I'm actually curious about the relationship between both orgs.

Ok I will try not to slander them anymore

True, but they are presumably bound by other agreement to do what Sirius says. It would be better for Sirius to have a corporation that's directly listed in the whois.


That's not what I said. The Bitcoin-Qt developers have control over the content. The Bitcoin Foundation is not the same as the Bitcoin dev group. They are two totally separate organizations.

I doubt the issue will be resolved easily because it is a hard fork in the press strategy. I doubt many, including you, think Saviann should be the one deciding the entire press strategy and I doubt he wants that role anyway. Based on his performance to date I do think he would do an adequate job being just, even though he lacks the training, in applying the strategy.

By analogy the press strategy is like a Statute and the role of applying the strategy is like that of a judge. It is very unfair to Saviann to throw him into the role of legislator or judge when he clearly lacks the authority and is not provided any standards or tests by which to craft legislation or judge based on that legislation; particularly when he does not really possess the jurisdiction to do so anyway.

Theymos has stated where the authority, both subject matter with regards to the strategy that is to be pursued and personal over the actual domain itself, is vested and that is with the Bitcoin-QT development team and Sirius. In my opinion, that authority should be used to clearly and concisely provide guidance on the strategy to be pursued. After the strategy is agreed upon then I think Saviann and the rest of us working on the Press Center can pretty easily develop the standards for inclusion. It is not that hard.

When it comes to strategy, what is at issue in this discussion is whether bitcoin.org should be used as a persuasive resource to convey a particular veneer for the Bitcoin developers who maintain the site OR an objective resource to assist journalists in finding competent and professional sources?

I think there is wide consensus that adequate standards for inclusion should include competency, professionalism and a generally good reputation in the Bitcoin community.

When it comes to a political ideology test then for a persuasive resource it would be essential but for an objective resource it would be irrelevant.

As for why one or the other should be chosen as a strategy; well, I think plenty of those arguments have been made earlier. This is merely an objective analysis of the situation.

Fix issues, submit contributions, and then Gavin will see how well you code and ask you to be a core developer. I seen him ask people in threads. They really can't be picky right now since they need all the help they can get.

Every open sourced project I've ever worked on has a cadre of people who decide who gets to be who. Look at the Ruby project with matz. This things generally work there way out and Gavin is doing a very good job.

I have a suspicion that a colleague of mine might be Satoshi, but its just speculation.

Do we really know if Satoshi isn't working anymore? He could be reading this message right now......

Mmm.  And I'm working hard to try to delegate that authority, so can y'all please just work it out?

Bitcoin.org's content is managed by the Bitcoin-Qt dev team. As such, Gavin is the ultimate authority of what stays in the GitHub repository. However, the domain is owned by Sirius, who is independent of the dev team and the Bitcoin Foundation. (He was given the domain by Satoshi.)