Topic: Roger Ver and Jon Matonis pushed aside now that Bitcoin is becoming mainstream - page 18. (Read 46570 times)

The developers are only interested in creating a useful international payment solution, without color or ideology. Specific ideologies make very little sense when you look at adoption from a global perspective. Why would people in Africa care, for example, who want to adopt something for their mobile payment solution? If anything it's just noise that may blind them to the advantages of the technology.

That may be best that way. Why not start a libertarian-bitcoin.org or so? With its own foundation and press contacts? I suppose it will be really big in the US.

I don't see bitcoin.org registered as a namecoin domain.

Pushing Jon Matonis aside will lead to half-measures and to the fail of Bitcoin in the nearest future. It seems to me bitcoin.org guys prefer to lick political asses than to fight for freedom.

I don't get what Boston has to do with Bitcoin? People agreed with it cause two people were running around with military style tactics, homemade bombs, and assault weapons, causing terror. I don't get how that is a bad thing?

The split is far more interesting than the Fluffy Bullshit Factory that is being setup by those bitcoiners with a tendency to centralization.

If you're not careful, this stupid controversy will become the story instead of the actual technology and its implications. Headlines: "bitcoiners split between libertarian and 'mainstream' factions".

I think the list should be abandoned.

Yes!

You'd have to institute some governing body to consider the circumstances for the ban, and then all you'd need would be an enforcement arm of that body to deal with miscreants.  Oh yeah, also some kind of incarceration format to...

This is perfect!  When do we start?

Think we need an anarcoin where statists are banned from representing it.

If you want *everyone* in the world to love Bitcoin, you need a way to explain it that everyone can love. If that explanation can be given by everyone, then everyone can give the same explanation. It's as simple as that.

I wouldn't feel like I would be the right person to explain Linux for any group of Linux developers to the general public, because I would obviously miss some things (I don't use Linux regularly). I also don't feel that Linus Torvalds is the right person to explain Linux to the average person. Someone like James Rolph (Angry Video Game Nerd) is probably more suitable for that. Fuck it, I elect James Rolph as the publicity contact for Bitcoin.

"Fiat fucking sucks, it sucking fucks, it fucking fucks, it's shit..and I don't like it.....ASSSS!!!!"

I was thinking the same thing:

"The bitcoin project has widely ranging views and beliefs but they all converge on one single point-- the furthering of the Bitcoin proejct. If you'd like more information on bitcoin from a certain perspective, we recommend the following people based on their knowledge of specific aspects of it.

• Libertarian contact
• Technical contact
• Economics contact
• Technology contact
• Community development contact
• Pattaya Cruise contact (No misleading statements, please)

etc.

Repeated for emphasis.

This decreases my trust in jgarzik, gmaxwell and Luke Jr. A shame, as they're otherwise brilliant people.

Bitcoin itself is a political tool developed by someone with an obvious bias against censorship and narrow mindedness. It's too bad the heirs of Bitcoin's first developer aren't capable of displaying some of the same large mindedness and backbone.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/business/2013/mar/04/bitcoin-currency-of-vice << You better look over the initial criteria and the people you have on the press page. This was linked from the http://bitcoin.org/en/bitcoin-for-press page.

I believe you're mistaken.  I prefer to be attacked - it's the only way we will learn to defend ourselves effectively.

Trace is right:


This is an important and interesting thread - and quite revealing.

The only thing I have to add to it is this old piece of wisdom, not of my devising; which I would urge everyone to consider well:

We become what we hate.

Being a digital asset doesn't make it a tax evasion tool, those who buying houses actually get tax deduction 

+1 Roger Ver and Erik Voorhees are definitely the best speakers for bitcoin. Jon Matonis does great articles, I have only seen one interview with him, but from what I can remember he did a great job. Looking at that press center list, there are people I wouldn't mind replacing, like Jeff Garzik who seems very pro government and Arwa Mahdawi who I honestly have not even heard of. Also, in addition to Roger, Erik & Jon, I would like to see Jeff Berwick on that list.

I typed a whole spiel about the importance of guests not only handling themselves well, but crucially being invited back by the media; but after watching the clip again I just want to leave this here:

Katherine Mangu-Ward of Reason magazine on Fox.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L6kRZo63IPE

Katherine's composure and answers were even better than I remembered them; and should remind everyone that it is possible to have a sensible MSM discussion between adults on the politics of bitcoin and its effect on the scope of government.

Having said that, it's better to keep bitcoin.org focused on a new and interesting payment protocol and currency. The politics and implications can be handled elsewhere (Bitcoin Political Action Comittee: BitPAC??), by passionate people like Roger, Erik, Jeff B, Katherine and others.

It's incredibly tangled right now, but we do need at some point to draw a line between the steel and the weapon. Leaving one set of people to get on with (and help explain) the technical stuff, and another group to convince the world that bitcoin can help construct a future you might actually enjoy living in. With each making a concerted effort not to step on each others turf. Gavin already has done a pretty good job of remaining apolitical in media interviews. People can contribute to one or both groups as they so choose but bitcoin.org should be a useful informational resource, not an ideological one IMHO.

PR is hard, and for bitcoin it could be going a lot worse than it currently is. Let's at least be thankful for that.

Indeed. As someone who was persuaded to adopt Bitcoin by Jon Matonis's voluminous and eloquent output on the subject, and as someone who holds Roger Ver in the highest esteem for his integrity and significant contributions to the project, I think any effort to censor these two eminent gentlemen based on political views can be considered nothing short of shameful.

Both Matonis and Ver are excellent and effective spokesmen for the project and, self-evidently, ought to be featured in any press section on Bitcoin.org.

This is the issue; the standard for inclusion and it is likely determined based on the strategy for the Press Center.

Trace Mayer pushed for the standard for inclusion to be competence, professionalism and generally good reputation in the Bitcoin community. This would be to further the strategy that the Press Center should assist journalists in finding competent and professional individuals for whatever stories or segments they are producing.

Jeff Garzik, gmaxwell and Lukejr turned this into an issue by moving to strike Jon Matonis and Roger Ver, two established Bitcoin community members who present themselves competently and articulately, based solely on their political ideas. Now, instead of discussing the topic of strategy and purpose for the Press Center, jgarzik wants to silence any debate. I think that determining the press strategy is very important.

I think the goal of this Press center should be to make the press's job easier and the standard used for inclusion should be competence and professionalism along with established reputations in the Bitcoin community. I do not see why political ideology is relevant or should be used for any type of test or standard for inclusion.

It appears, implicitly in their argument, that they want to politicize the Press center by making political ideology relevant as a test for inclusion. As a professional journalist myself I think that using political ideology as a test or standard for inclusion will be a disservice to the other journalists who visit this page seeking guests or commentators for pieces they are writing or segments they are producing.

Since the argument against inclusion is politically motivated, using political ideas as a standard for inclusion, therefore I doubt this issue will just go away after a 'cool-down period' and therefore needs to be addressed by logic and reason. Consequently, if Jeff Garzik, gmaxwell and LukeJR could please present the reasoning for their argument I think it would go a long way.