Topic: Roger Ver and Jon Matonis pushed aside now that Bitcoin is becoming mainstream - page 8. (Read 46570 times)

It's the classic answer of cowards - especially in this case since they are not even talking about code, but about SPEECH, the press center no less.

It's a perfectly valid answer if there is no possible way to discuss. Forks are the last resort, not the first. The guys are throwing out "go fork" as a way to end debate, rather than as a last resort after debate has died.

It is exactly like those who shout "If you don't like this law, LEAVE the country".

They are so allergic to opposing views and any discussion, they use "go fork" as a way to dismiss the peons.

I for one, was not aware that several of the developers had very low tolerance for different opinions, a very defensive reaction to any critical view and a childish need to make everyone else bend to their decisions. I was expecting a higher level of maturity, but I have been shocked to find a schoolyard atmosphere. The worst part is they portray themselves simultaneously as heroes of bitcoin and victims of terrible oppression by anyone who disagrees. It's quite pathetic really.

Now of course, I think on the topic of press representation at least, the debate is very much over. They will not tolerate any process that has the possibility of an outcome they don't agree with.

Now it is indeed time to fork the press center. I'm starting with the organizational structure and the source of authority - the community of bitcoin users. Users are the source of authority as bitcoin becomes mainstream. Not 3-4 coders of one of the implementation.

I never thought I'd see the day that fork became the battle cry for liberty.

gmaxwell has previously posted several misattributed quotes and then failed to retract them or apologize. This somehow does not disqualify him from deciding who is a good press contact. Apparently journalistic practices are not his forte.

Treat any quotes he posts with extreme suspicion, especially if they are selective, short, out-of-context and attempting to slander - ie, his usual schtick.

He rationalizes his opinion as the only one that matters, somehow "neutral" opinion that we'd all accept if we weren't so dumb. Then he imposes it through his commit control and pretends to be the victim of... too much speech!

The only thing that mattered in this debate was the opinion of the 3-4 developers who did not want any process that actually resulted in anything but what they had already decided. They twisted, turned and rationalized, but in the end did exactly what they intended from the beginning: censorship of particular opinions by exclusion and decree.

All hail our new overlords. They're not just coders, they are press directors and OWN bitcoin. As they often say, if you don't like it... fork.

I correct my count. I did not do the count again, but I assume I missed something the first time and can trust that your recount was accurate. I did not intentionally miscount or misstate the count. After all, I was ahead, not that the votes ever counted or mattered. Everything you said was a moving lie, nothing more. Anyone who wants can read it.

Pretending this was about code is just another lie.

You keep saying open source projects don't make change by vote. Of course they don't not to the code. But do they vote for the representatives they put forward? You bet they do:

http://opensourcematters.org/policies/board-member-guidelines.html
https://plone.org/foundation/meetings/membership/2004/nominations

You may notice they have one set of rules. My guess is they don't change them during the vote.

Open source projects govern their public representatives by open process, not github developer wankery.

So, what are you showing yourself as?

Really?

I never commented on Mr. Ver before— but the concern there wasn't that he's too radical (he's generally seemed pretty even keeled in public from what I've seen), it was just the general concern about the felony conviction,  as Luke put it: "you can see how the media would be able to easily spin your past as "Roger Ver, spokespreson for Bitcoin, holds a conviction for selling explosives to terrorists" or something along those lines?"   I think it's quite unfortunately, but especially since Roger's involved in a pretty acrimonious lawsuit with some other members of the community it seems unlikely to me that he can appear in the press without someone blasting the press with "you know that dudes a fellon, right?"  

 Names? perhaps not— you certainly weren't being especially civil to people who didn't agree with you. I assume that your unwillingness to correct you numbers means they were intentional?

You will of course note that I only called names after the vote was cancelled. Both for gmaxwell and the quote he linked to prove his point.

You're weaseling requires a lack of publicity gmaxwell. I was not calling anyone names when you were making a mockery of the process. I waited for you to show yourself as a coward.

Not to mention Mantonis writes for Forbes. Kinda of a nice press connection

In the interest of being a tough guy like you, here is the rest of our PM discussion which you must have missed in your posting:


to which you replied:



I honestly believed that if it were actually a vote the position I was recommending would have eventually won out, the vote-stacking you were conducting only goes so far— as I said in the discussion, the only criteria I've seen I've seen suggested that would have kept Bruce Wagner, Nefario, or even Pirate40 off is the one of not including people where there was genuine concern— all hard large basis of public support. That this has been an enormous time and emotion suck, and it had reached the point where aantonop was name calling people who didn't agree with him, along with threats and other embarrassing responses... it probably was best to kill it mercifully.

I told you to pm me and we can work something out.

This disturbs me.

Idea..
Can we get roger and matonis on the press thing and put a disclaimer on the top of the page that says something like

none of these people speak for bitcoin officially but you can evaluate each of their views and come to a conclusion of "what is bitcoin" yourself

Or something like that

Just like a disclaimer that these potential interviewees are just people voicing what they think of bitcoin and is in no way official.

So press people can interview Jeff or Roger or both and get the word out about bitcoin to their respective audiences?

If control of bitcoin.org is actually dominated by a small group of men who aren't open minded and won't include a spectrum of beliefs on "their" website then I just lost a lot of faith in bitcoin. I hope you developers know forking the website just doesn't work and if you can't see that then ... I'm slightly more bearish long term than before reading all of this..

Ill register for github later if someone wants to and agrees with my idea feel free to bring it over to the github thread or request a pull for a disclaimer  ...

or something
im not sure all the way how github works but if the future of openess and fairness depends on it then ill have to learn quick.

So Gweedo would you now like to record a lecture for my poorly researched course? We could use your knowledge and experience to bring things up to par.

I totally support what help is trying to do and I'd recommend everyone visit his site

This sort of thing happens to many "decentralized" organisations. People own the domains and the main sites and push everyone else out slowly but surely then declare the project "dead" when they get bored with it, even though there is still a community. It can also be used to sabotage projects effectively.

Just got a PM from gmaxwell with the following gem, just to double-down on the tone-deaf attitude. He didn't have the brass to post it publicly of course, he's a cowardly weasel through and through:

>counting?
>« Sent to: aantonop on: Today at 11:22:12 PM »
>« You have forwarded or responded to this message. »
>Quote  Reply  Delete 
>At the time you claimed 16/7 my count was:
>
>aantonop
>flix1
>pelle
>masterkrang
>simonk83
>sunnankar
>joecoin
>gbilley
>dgenr8
>cypherdoc   
>junisBell
>msngui


>luke
>gmaxwell
>midnightmagic
>saivann
>emansipater
>someoneweird
>jgarzik
>aardeem


>13 vs 8.

>Not that it matters, doubly so with you hitting multiple threads encouraging people to comment without reading the ?background, and promoting your position on the forum— in threads you didn't bother linking to (and so I'm just now finding) with deceptive statements (e.g. claiming that all of my matonis quotes were other people).


To which I responded:

Wait, so you lost the vote, cancelled the vote and are now telling me that you lost it but BY LESS THAN I CLAIMED?

The you accuse me from gathering community input (Wow!), which is what y'all said was needed.

Have you no shame?

Thanks, but I'm not interested in engaging with these sycophants. I proved the emptiness of their "process" and the degree to which they'll go to ignore outside input.

Beyond that, the community needs to come to terms with the concentration of power, not over the code, but over the public face of bitcoin, in a few hands. Bitcoin.org needs to be boycotted by anyone who has a problem with issues of press relations being put to a github vote and then ignored when the outcome doesn't suit them.

I'll go back to work on my bitcoin projects and answering media requests. There is a public record of their power grab, anyone can go read their squirming slimy excuses.

The only outcome for me, is that I completely lost respect for a couple of the developers who I thought had integrity. Other than that, it's business as usual.

They won't get far with this attitude and behavior.

PM me we need to discuss a strategy moving forward. I'm getting sick of this stuff.

At 17 for expanding the press center and 7 votes against, @saivann, the appointed webmaster closed the vote declaring it a loss (invalidating the 17 votes)

Being part of the foundation isn't fighting it so your already failing.

Got my ACK in right before they closed it. Sorry I couldn't be more help, but they simply won't listen.