Topic: Roger Ver and Jon Matonis pushed aside now that Bitcoin is becoming mainstream - page 4. (Read 46570 times)

Some people disagreed and remained civilized. Others disagreed and started to suggest solutions, and even work on them. That is great and helpful. I don't call that category "troll".

The press center is dividing people as long as people oppose to each other. Removing the press center won't change anything, so don't point at me. If you want this to stop dividing the community, it's up to you to help finding a good consensus. Because you are among the ones who keep making this a dividing issue.

Nice one, you have been found to be wrong and now you go on again labelling people who disagree with you "trolls".

You got sucked in by luke-jr's games and jgarzik machiavellian scheming to try and fly bitcoin under the mainstream radar ... and so you did nothing, which was worse than doing something, further prolonging the divisive nature of having the Press Center in place.

Basically, you have proven yourself unworthy to be webmaster of what is becoming an important piece of webspace ... have some integrity and resign already, please.

And whoever takes over, please take bitcoin.org back to its techie roots and away from the cheerleader PR fuzzy graphic goofest it is becoming ... dumbing it down for mainstream was a poor decision and direction for bitcoin.org. Bitcoin is a technology, not a kids toy.

This is mostly what is suggested by moving most interviewees to an external website. That is a good example of what would probably have a good consensus and be a good compromise for everyone.

I also love Ver and Matonis BTW. And exchanged briefly with them. Roger Ver was not postponed because of his presentation. Everyone seemed happy about how he was presenting Bitcoin. And because of all the noise on this forum, we could not discuss about them. I was about to recommand myself to open discussion about Roger inclusion a few days ago just before trolls started back to disrupt everything. So this thread actually played against himself.

I think whoever was manipulating bitcoin.org fucked up and dropped the ball on this one.  Now it's time to pay the piper.  That means to me either:

 1) drop the entire page (and move toward a tech-only posture.)

 2) re-instate name from those of 'all stripes' with some reasonable construct which would mitigate against foot-in-mouth semi-accidents.

I happen to end up being somewhere between repulsed and horrified when many of the Libertarian stripe pull stuff from deep within their minds, but I

 - always felt that Ver and Matonis have exercised a reasonable degree of restraint in public and have served 'the cause' well, and

 - plenty of those who are more naturally on 'my side' have equally horrific thought patterns bottled up inside and waiting to get out.  Myself included.

I'd hope that option #1 is chosen and worked towards.

Funny. To work together, the opinion of everyone must be taken into account. Both yours, and mine. I already don't 100% agree with everything myself and I defend others opinions, but searching the best compromise for everyone is my goal. Not just a few. As said before, I also like the idea of an more open press center. I'm just respecting the reasons why bitcoin.org might not be the right place for this.

Absolutely. Giving them choice is not censorship. And that is why bitcoinpresscenter.org is so interesting. Because as a "non-authoritative" website, it can have a longer list.. Making things easy for journalists doesn't mean they are forced to use our list. But it can help them to easily find people who know what they are talking about.

I am looking at the world straightforward, just how any serious project are doing. And no, I feel pretty bad when lies are being told in the medias about Bitcoin and I keep straight with the reality. That's why I take time trying to help many inacurracies to stop spreading in the medias. Like "Bitcoin is anonymous" or "Bitcoin cannot be regulated".

Each time people buy a cell phone, use their car, or use the US dollar, it is a political choice. My argument is that Bitcoin is no exception to this rule. And many people are going to keep thinking that what they do is apolitical, no matter what we do.

Maybe with the following modification:

  "Work (for me) together, not against each other.

I anticipate that it is almost inevitable that alternate crypto-currencies will be issued by different organizations to further different goals.  This unless free communications are clamped down on to an extent that I don't believe is probably possible.  This process will take some time however, and it will likely be possible to milk the shit out of Bitcoin in the interim.  That's why "I agree with this message."

I only spout off on this forums (and usually do so with a high degree of honesty) because I believe that it ultimately has little influence on anything.

It seems you are quite comfortable with living and telling a lie, to the whole world ... you are probably the best person suited to operating a "Press Center" of the old paradigm.

I have now lost absolutely any remaining faith that you are the right person to be holding the keys to bitcoin.org.

My rough translation would be : work together, not against each other.

My rough translation would be:

  "STFU and be happy.  There are things you don't need to know right now."

I'll go ahead an '+1' but neglect to explain my rational.

I understand, and it's not going to happen regardless of what people say or think about Bitcoin, all that matters for it to remains the same is in the code and all levels of decentralization. If you are thinking otherwise, I think you are not realizing that you are loosing faith on what Bitcoin really is.

I think it's time for the community to enter in a maturity phase and realize a few things. Including that Bitcoin is in a decisive turning point right now. Journalism might sometime represent free speech, but mass medias are not free speech at all. It's a big strategic game. And any businesses that is confrounted to this world must have a good strategy or fail.

The current press center has been developed not as an open recognition board for community members we all respect, but as a PR strategy. Like it or not, the overwhelming majority of the people are either not really politicized or have diverse views opposed to whatever you'll say. And about no business in this world is doing philantrophy. That means that associating Bitcoin to any ideology or "bad thing" in the mass medias most likely equates to prevent Bitcoin to develop. As simple and cruel as that. There is a lot of room to speak about politic, but there is a difference between that and making Bitcoin "an ideological battle" not every Bitcoin user agrees on.

So if you care about Bitcoin to develop for ideological reasons, you most probably have no choice but to be wise enough to help Bitcoin to "change the world peacefully". It's much less exciting and it's more pragmatic and efficient. Most future Bitcoin users don't want to approve anything political when they are using fiat money, and they want to use Bitcoin the same way. Even though we all know that every choice we do in life has political consequences, that is how most people and businesses work. If Bitcoin is perceived as "the money of criminals", or then again "the money of anarchists" or "libertarians" every people using it will feel like they will be perceived either as criminals, or as anarchists or as libertarians. Those are a very restrictive part of the world population, and it remains inaccurate to say Bitcoin is exclusive to any of these ideology.

Hopefully, in a few years, a press team will be fully obsolete and people associating Bitcoin to any political idea will not scare new users. But right now, it's different. Bitcoin is confusing for most people and it is about to become either a niche for activism, or a global innovation with no borders. What is going to be the turning point will be the public perception and adoption of Bitcoin. Just for the picture, Internet at its beginning was not labelled as a "political tool for free speech and individual freedom" but as a competitive technology. And that is how it became both.

So before you interfere with this process, please keep in mind that it is being done by involved people having a long-term view. Constructive work in order to improve or change things is always appreciated. And it starts with questionning what's being done before fighting it.

A lot of interesting issues has been raised and there is constructive work being done right now. Please learn to do some compromise and understand valid issues pointed by others. I've been doing this all days despite the hostile environment during weeks.

+1 million

I'm just sensitive to takeovers by a few. Forgive me if I'm seeming a bit extreme. I love bitcoin. I don't want to see bitcoin become paypal 2.0. It's a bigger idea.

Amen. As a member of the middle ground, I'm looking forward to meeting you and the other grown-ups at the conference.

Of course that's how the world works.

When you strip away all the lies, euphemisms, and obfuscation, it all comes down to a basic moral question. Threatening violence in order to compel other people to obey is either morally justifiable or it isn't. There is no in between. Whether you're talking about threatening violence in order to compel someone to have sex, or threatening violence in order to compel them to surrender money, the underlying principle is the same.

Some people are willing to call the evil out for what it is. That's fine. Other people people are too afraid to speak up. That's fine too. The very worst sort of people are the ones who can see the evil, recognize it, and are afraid to speak up but instead of just remaining silent help give it intellectual and linguistic cover. They help to blur the lines by spreading lies, euphemisms and obfuscation.

That's how you solve these problems, you create a better alternative. You rock!

Bitcoin has nothing to do with taxation or what people choose to use it for its simply a protocol and to ostracise people because of the way they think is odious. In fact mentioning paying taxes at all is more political than you would think because of the division this will cause. The foundation shouldn't hold any personal viewpoints nor push them forward but should stay apolitical and focus on the technology solely.

Telling people to pay taxes or not isn't their job. Im sure if Matonis speaks as a member of the foundation he would make it clear the difference between personal opinions and official policy of the foundation.

Could you please pay attention to the people actually working on solutions?

aantonop at least is working, and not only complaining.

All these philosophical discussions are becoming off-topic. And this thread has been poisoning enough for a lot of contributors. We've got enough people trying only to accomodate their own personal opinion or to attack the reputation of each other. This is just creating division, and it is a harm to the Bitcoin community. If you are not willing to recognize the value of what has been done, identify existing problems, consider the opinion of others, search for a better compromise and explain your thoughts in a constructive way, then it's probably not worth complaining.

The Bitcoin community should ignore the Bitcoin "Foundation" just like it ignores other forms of government.  It is increasingly obvious that the "Foundation" is attempting to dictate.

Treat it as the Internet has always treated censorship, by routing around it.

That might involve making sure to denounce it at every opportunity, or at the very least, to ensure that it is obvious that this "Foundation" does not speak for the community, but merely speaks for itself and the vested interests of its corporate ownership.