Pages:
Author

Topic: Roger Ver and Jon Matonis pushed aside now that Bitcoin is becoming mainstream - page 18. (Read 46544 times)

hero member
Activity: 812
Merit: 1022
No Maps for These Territories
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.

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".
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.
hero member
Activity: 588
Merit: 500
Hero VIP ultra official trusted super staff puppet
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 see bitcoin.org registered as a namecoin domain.
legendary
Activity: 2142
Merit: 1010
Newbie
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.
legendary
Activity: 1498
Merit: 1000
Look at what just happened in Boston. We had federal troops in our streets, in our communities, where our kids play and learn - not just police - in full military gear. Boston and the areas surrounded - millions of people - forced to 'shelter in place', locked down. De facto Martial Law. The People didn't say a word. They agreed with it all and complied. Obeyed. All to find two guys. That is the mindset of the people we are trying to convert to Bitcoin. The less negative ammunition we give to entities disseminating information to them is all the better.

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?
sr. member
Activity: 476
Merit: 250
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".

The split is far more interesting than the Fluffy Bullshit Factory that is being setup by those bitcoiners with a tendency to centralization.
member
Activity: 94
Merit: 10
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".
legendary
Activity: 1764
Merit: 1002
I think the list should be abandoned.
member
Activity: 84
Merit: 10
Think we need an anarcoin where statists are banned from representing it.

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?
hero member
Activity: 686
Merit: 500
Wat
Think we need an anarcoin where statists are banned from representing it.
hero member
Activity: 588
Merit: 500
Hero VIP ultra official trusted super staff puppet
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!!!!"
hero member
Activity: 588
Merit: 500
Hero VIP ultra official trusted super staff puppet
If Roger Ver, Jon Matonis and Erik Voorhees are not listed as press contacts, that reflects very poorly on the judgment of those maintaing the list.

There would be no harm having several categories of press contact, e.g.:
"For a technical perspective..."
"For a legal perspective..."
"For a societal perspective..."
"For a business perspective..."

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.
sr. member
Activity: 476
Merit: 250
sr. member
Activity: 476
Merit: 250
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.

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.

legendary
Activity: 1498
Merit: 1000
Re: who ends up on the site. The initial criteria we used were to find people who would basically stay away from politics and stick to educating journalists about how the system works at a technical and financial level. That's it. Simple as that.

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.
member
Activity: 84
Merit: 10

We need spokespeople and educators with impeccable crime-free credentials and moderate political and religious views, if any at all.

We need people above reproach so that the media has absolutely no ammunition to attack the messengers of this amazing milestone in technology.


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:

Quote
Quote from: sunnankar on Today at 12:06:34
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.

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.
legendary
Activity: 1988
Merit: 1012
Beyond Imagination
Being a digital asset doesn't make it a tax evasion tool, those who buying houses actually get tax deduction  Wink
legendary
Activity: 1552
Merit: 1047
Quote
Roger Ver and Erik Voorhees, are the only people that can defend and show there passion for bitcoin at the same time. That is what we need in the press. They both kill it every interview, and really can explain bitcoin to the people that are techies correctly and to regular people. Yet both of them are not on the list. This is why the foundation is horrible, the best speakers aren't even ON THE PRESS LIST. Come on!!!! You have people that can't even speak on there but yet people who are amazing bitcoiners, they don't even make it. I am sorry but this is why the foundation is a useless, entity in the community and Gavin should be ashamed every time he get a pay check.
+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.
sr. member
Activity: 453
Merit: 250
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.
donator
Activity: 213
Merit: 100
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.

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.
legendary
Activity: 1031
Merit: 1000
The initial criteria we used were to find people who would basically stay away from politics and stick to educating journalists about how the system works at a technical and financial level. That's it. Simple as that.

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.
Pages:
Jump to: