Topic: Roger Ver and Jon Matonis pushed aside now that Bitcoin is becoming mainstream - page 13. (Read 46570 times)

The head of core development has stated that you're not crucial to Bitcoin's core development. You're hurting Bitcoin by pushing for bitcoiners to be excluded because you don't like their politics. This is the exact opposite of the philosophy behind Bitcoin, which allows dirty statists and filthy anarchists alike to use Bitcoin itself no matter one's beliefs.

Perhaps sticking to code instead of politics might help to serve Bitcoin better. Just a thought.

Everyone need to calm down. Roger and Jon will always have a place in the Bitcoin community. The Foundation amongst others are just trying to mainstream the Bitcoin and they are taking a very conservative approach. Remember there is no official bitcoin resource. It is a decentralized community. If someone is interested in the Bitcoin, then Jon will eventually come up and it's up to the individual to decide.

Our biggest issue right now is that no one in the media legitimately understands the Bitcoin.
http://video.cnbc.com/gallery/?video=3000160877

It's clear they don't get it "it's capped at 22 million..' Lol

So you prioritise two people (excluding Roger Ver here) who are clearly harmful to Bitcoin's viability, one of whom (Erik Voorhees) goes so far as to operate a technological attack on the Bitcoin network.. over three competent developers who actually contribute toward making Bitcoin better and hopefully successful.

Great logic there...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5a_jHGdGXxk Lol. I love these guys

jeff garzik's attitude towards Bitcoin has always bothered me.  listen to him here:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zhj1zeisqWY

i know alot of ppl thought Garzik was just posturing towards gov't in this interview to allow Bitcoin to grow but in light of what's just happened, i'm not so sure.

If it ever came to pass that the Bitcoin community was forced to choose between excluding Roger Ver, Jon Matonis, and Erik Voorhees or excluding Jeff Garzik, Luke Dashjr, and Gregory Maxwell, I'd be willing to contribute bitcoins for attracting new programmers to replace the latter three. Rather not go down that road, though. I'm willing to refrain from campaigning to oust them as developers if they are willing to refrain from campaigning to oust Ver and Matonis as public faces of Bitcoin.

Thanks for weighing in Erik. There was a bit of a void in the thread until now.

+1

When I heard about this yesterday, I thought it was a joke.

It is appalling that Roger Ver and Jon Matonis, two of the most professional and eloquent public proponents of Bitcoin, would be removed from a press list, merely because they don't cater their discussion to the lowest common denominator of public perception.

Yes, some out there would be turned off by their ideology.
Yes, some press might try to target them personally and thus tarnish Bitcoin's reputation.

So what.

Bitcoin is not so weak and pathetic that it requires only tacit, cowed spokesmen who are more like politicians than real individuals with passion and ideology and, importantly, the character to stand up for that in which they believe. Bitcoin is not so fragile that it can only be advanced by grovelling to the very people who built the terrible systems it seeks to replace.

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.

And now they've been censored.

Bitcoin is a movement, and those trying to distil it into nothing more than a cute new technology are kidding themselves and doing a terrible disservice to this community. If you want to sell pre-packaged, politically correct PR, go work for Dwolla.

+1

Matonis's blog on Forbes has the best insights on the economic aspects of bitcoin that I've found anywhere:
http://www.forbes.com/sites/jonmatonis/

Hiding from politics won't work for much longer - you'd better believe the US feds are mounting a massive assault
on Bitcoin. Based on prior scenarios, I'd assume that there will be a mainstream media FUD campaign, a legal
attack on bitcoin users, and probably an underground attack on the infrastructure...

Sucking up to the feign stream media whores or even becoming one.  Yeah, that's ticket.  Roger Ver has my utmost respect.  He's a man who says what he means and means what he says.  Bitcoin doesn't need the media or the sheep.  It will destroy the power of the Federal Reserve and capital controls all on it's own.  The printing press stopped the murderous RCC dead in its tracks.  Bitcoin will stop the NWO.  Watch and see :-)

Happily anonymous

The Bitcoin Channel

"At any rate, the spook spoke the truth: cryptology represents the future of privacy, and more. By implication cryptology also represents the future of money, and the future of banking and finance. (By "money" I mean the medium of exchange, the institutional mechanisms for making transactions, whether by cash, check, debit card or other electronic transfer.) Given the choice between intersecting with a monetary system that leaves a detailed electronic trail of all one's financial activities, and a parallel system that ensures anonymity and privacy, people will opt for the latter. Moreover, they will demand the latter, because the current monetary system is being turned into the principal instrument of surveillance and control by tyrannical elements in Western governments." - J. Orlin Grabbe. The End of Ordinary Money. 1995

"First they ignore you, then they ridicule you, then they fight you, then you win."
-- Mahatma Gandhi

First of all, Bitcoin is not just a technological revolution. Satoshi mentioned himself, numerous times, that this project was inspired by a political ideology. I understand the point of trying to keep it as neutral as possible, but Bitcoin's foundation wasn't built on purely neutral grounds, so it would seem forced and disingenuous to the public in trying to do so. It goes against the nature of what Bitcoin was founded on, to try and subdue that ideology. Not to mention a waste of time, since all of the media can realize that Bitcoin has great potential to change politics.


I think this opinion is too picky. We are wasting excellent talent over the lack of being flawless.


Based off the evidence presented in this thread, Roger Ver hasn't done anything in his past that would make me feel uncomfortable being another representative of Bitcoin to the press. He seems like an outstanding guy to me, and very intelligent. He always provides a good interview.

On the other hand, Jon Matonis has an impressive ability to form exactly the right response. Truthfully, I believe he is not only excellent at taking interviews about Bitcoin, but of all the people I've seen, he is the very best. Every time I listen to an interview with him, I find myself shouting at my computer "YES. THAT IS EXACTLY THE WAY THAT SHOULD HAVE BEEN PHRASED."

I support having them on our list of press contacts. Not to do so would be such a waste of talented resources.

This week's Ed and Ethan's Bitcoin cast is related.

Enjoy! 

I've thought his presentations have been good to excelent, yes.  And I believe that his efforts with the retail outlet are doing Bitcoin a good service...at least in regard to guiding the solution in a way which makes me rich(*).

*: I believe that developing Bitcoin with an 'exchange currency' focus, that is, used for buying trinkets, will ultimately kill it, but it will take years and make me rich in the process though.

So he was stupid. He wasn't ten months in a Federal prison stupid.

Ver was a political prisoner, like it or not. He's a great spokesman for Bitcoin.

Did you miss the 'in quantity' part?

Or the part the 'apartment' and 'that he was renting' in the original text?

It could be the case the Ver told his landlord that he would be using his apartment room to store the devices and told all his neighbors.  Also told the local fire department such that if there were a fire the firefighters would know to avoid his apartment room as they were attempting to fight it.  And that they all said, 'Sure.  No problem.'  Somehow I find it doubtful that this is how things went down.

I would not rule out that the guy was a victim of retribution for various of his activities.  Off hand I would find some combination of retribution and punishment for being irresponsible the most probably.  But again I've not looked at the case.  And I believe that at this time information about who engages in 'thoughtcrime' is likely cataloged but the info tends not to filter down into the various arms of our justice department very much...though this is likely to change drastically and quickly at some point.  Given the timeframe I'd tend to guess that Ver's case was likely driven largely by his own lack of common sense and it sounds (admittedly through docs that the government has written) as though there is a fair degree of legitimacy to his treatment.

They're glorified firecrackers containing 1 gram of powder or about 1/3 of the size of what I used to call an M80 when I was a kid. It was a bullshit case brought by a bullshit government because some employees of said government have very thin skins and didn't like the criticism being thrown their way.

It totally is, except the stone will fall apart if you don't constantly polish it! 

A little off topic but I've come to view Bitcoin as digital Yap money.

I've not studied the case as it is unimportant to me, but...

If that is true, it is what I would consider probably criminally negligent behavior in most circumstances.  Storing any sort if incendiary or explosive devices in quantity is serious business and putting the lives and property of others in danger is very wrong.  Unfortunately is is completely appropriate that some of my tax dollars get burnt up in an effort to protect society against people who lack common sense and will subject others to undesired risk without their knowledge.