We're at 16 votes for expanding the press center list, 7 against.
Whether you believe the process will be honored (probably not), please keep voting.
Go to github, create a free account (https://github.com/users)
then go to this thread: https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin.org/pull/162
vote for expansion of the press center, by saying ACK. Stick around to defend your position.
They don't like publicity and they don't want you to vote (see rule 13 above). So go vote!
Topic: Roger Ver and Jon Matonis pushed aside now that Bitcoin is becoming mainstream - page 9. (Read 46544 times)
April 29, 2013, 02:01:57 AM
April 29, 2013, 01:47:10 AM
I'm also a foundation member. They simply do not listen to us
April 22, 2013, 11:51:56 PM
Lol, ok delete my bold claim about Satoshi 
. But in all honesty we are getting really off topic. Any conclusion to Jon and Roger?
. But in all honesty we are getting really off topic. Any conclusion to Jon and Roger?The press are going to talk to them, and they are going to talk to the press, regardless of whether or not they have a name and a photo on the press list.
Everyone has their knickers in a twist over a tempest in a tea cup.
It is censorship who cares, well guess what, bitcoin isn't about politics and censorship, and I will keep fighting that position.
April 29, 2013, 01:29:20 AM
Update for those interested.
The developers who are playing a power grab of bitcoin.org set the rules for nomination - a pull request. Then they changed the rules 15 times in a row, as I met every requirement.
To summarize:
* All I need is a pull request to nominate someone
* But only if I get support with votes
* But only the devs get a vote
* But everyone gets a VETO
* Unless it's me, I don't get a veto (I veto'd jgarzik, since everyone gets a veto)
* For that I have to do a pull request for VETO (30 seconds after I stated my veto)
* But only for existing Press Center members (30 seconds after I said I'd do a pull request)
* "Vetos for real reasons are real. Vetos because you want to create problems are not". @luke-jr get to decide which is which.
* Votes keep coming in (16-6 in favor of expanding the list), with people opposed voting as if the vote matters, but votes in support being ignored.
* Voting will continue until I lose in votes, or I lose by veto, or I Iose by having the pull-request closed.
* "Counting votes, after trolling specific audiences for votes on outside forums, just makes a vote even more meaningless". (ie, getting support from the community at large is somehow suspect- that's YOU everyone!)
* "As we see here, the loudest voice -- i.e. the person who posts the most -- just drowns out everything else". (Before there was no support, now there's TOO MUCH speech in this voting process, once I started getting support)
You may add you comments here - suggest constructive solutions, don't bash the individuals, that's what they want to call it a troll. Nominate more people, offer your own substantiated vetos and stick around to defend your positions.
https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin.org/pull/162
The developers who are playing a power grab of bitcoin.org set the rules for nomination - a pull request. Then they changed the rules 15 times in a row, as I met every requirement.
To summarize:
* All I need is a pull request to nominate someone
* But only if I get support with votes
* But only the devs get a vote
* But everyone gets a VETO
* Unless it's me, I don't get a veto (I veto'd jgarzik, since everyone gets a veto)
* For that I have to do a pull request for VETO (30 seconds after I stated my veto)
* But only for existing Press Center members (30 seconds after I said I'd do a pull request)
* "Vetos for real reasons are real. Vetos because you want to create problems are not". @luke-jr get to decide which is which.
* Votes keep coming in (16-6 in favor of expanding the list), with people opposed voting as if the vote matters, but votes in support being ignored.
* Voting will continue until I lose in votes, or I lose by veto, or I Iose by having the pull-request closed.
* "Counting votes, after trolling specific audiences for votes on outside forums, just makes a vote even more meaningless". (ie, getting support from the community at large is somehow suspect- that's YOU everyone!)
* "As we see here, the loudest voice -- i.e. the person who posts the most -- just drowns out everything else". (Before there was no support, now there's TOO MUCH speech in this voting process, once I started getting support)
You may add you comments here - suggest constructive solutions, don't bash the individuals, that's what they want to call it a troll. Nominate more people, offer your own substantiated vetos and stick around to defend your positions.
https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin.org/pull/162
April 26, 2013, 08:35:50 AM
Hi there!
I had joined the press team because I thought Bitcoin needed something like this and because it is quite a challenge to set up and operate a non-corporate communication department without hierarchical structures with some decider on top. But I have the feeling the experiment has already failed and we need to re-think how to run such a thing. It cannot work the way it does now with some two or three people determining political correctness and an according content strategy, believing they speak for the whole community, which they are not.
Maybe we need more than one press center, different press centers with different editorial boards and different approaches and communication goals. Just like the community has different motivations, visions and points of view on the world.
We could have a competition between these press centers and the press could choose where to go to find stories and interviewees.
The way it's running now is a ridiculous attempt of a few people to promote their own views and ideologies. And it is not going to stop. What if one of the 'accepted' interviewees says something that does not suit one of the censors?
The press center right now is not even a service to the press as it is totally biased and does not reflect the diversity of the community at all. Right now the press center is a huge lie actually. And the press people are not so stupid not to realise that.
I can imagine that a forked press center is on the way already.
Joe
I had joined the press team because I thought Bitcoin needed something like this and because it is quite a challenge to set up and operate a non-corporate communication department without hierarchical structures with some decider on top. But I have the feeling the experiment has already failed and we need to re-think how to run such a thing. It cannot work the way it does now with some two or three people determining political correctness and an according content strategy, believing they speak for the whole community, which they are not.
Maybe we need more than one press center, different press centers with different editorial boards and different approaches and communication goals. Just like the community has different motivations, visions and points of view on the world.
We could have a competition between these press centers and the press could choose where to go to find stories and interviewees.
The way it's running now is a ridiculous attempt of a few people to promote their own views and ideologies. And it is not going to stop. What if one of the 'accepted' interviewees says something that does not suit one of the censors?
The press center right now is not even a service to the press as it is totally biased and does not reflect the diversity of the community at all. Right now the press center is a huge lie actually
. And the press people are not so stupid not to realise that.I can imagine that a forked press center is on the way already.
Joe
Yes, just start a new one.
Submit a pull request? That tells you a lot.
And base it out of here and the other one will just fade away.
April 26, 2013, 07:06:27 AM
...and here's me doing media...
http://www.guardian.co.uk/technology/2013/apr/26/bitcoins-gain-currency-in-berlin
April 26, 2013, 06:59:13 AM
April 23, 2013, 01:04:15 PM
Help if you are really serious about this forked press, then please contact me. I'd like to help you, but we also need to discuss the introduction of new people into the bitcoin community. This is essential for the future of bitcoin.
April 23, 2013, 12:50:00 PM
Hi there!
I had joined the press team because I thought Bitcoin needed something like this and because it is quite a challenge to set up and operate a non-corporate communication department without hierarchical structures with some decider on top. But I have the feeling the experiment has already failed and we need to re-think how to run such a thing. It cannot work the way it does now with
Very well said Joe.
I had joined the press team because I thought Bitcoin needed something like this and because it is quite a challenge to set up and operate a non-corporate communication department without hierarchical structures with some decider on top. But I have the feeling the experiment has already failed and we need to re-think how to run such a thing. It cannot work the way it does now with
Quote
some two or three people determining political correctness and an according content strategy, believing they speak for the whole community, which they are not.
Maybe we need more than one press center, different press centers with different editorial boards and different approaches and communication goals. Just like the community has different motivations, visions and points of view on the world.
We could have a competition between these press centers and the press could choose where to go to find stories and interviewees.
The way it's running now is a ridiculous attempt of a few people to promote their own views and ideologies. And it is not going to stop. What if one of the 'accepted' interviewees says something that does not suit one of the censors?
The press center right now is not even a service to the press as it is totally biased and does not reflect the diversity of the community at all. Right now the press center is a huge lie actually . And the press people are not so stupid not to realise that.
I can imagine that a forked press center is on the way already.
Joe
Maybe we need more than one press center, different press centers with different editorial boards and different approaches and communication goals. Just like the community has different motivations, visions and points of view on the world.
We could have a competition between these press centers and the press could choose where to go to find stories and interviewees.
The way it's running now is a ridiculous attempt of a few people to promote their own views and ideologies. And it is not going to stop. What if one of the 'accepted' interviewees says something that does not suit one of the censors?
The press center right now is not even a service to the press as it is totally biased and does not reflect the diversity of the community at all. Right now the press center is a huge lie actually . And the press people are not so stupid not to realise that.
I can imagine that a forked press center is on the way already.
Joe
Very well said Joe.
April 23, 2013, 11:47:46 AM
Hi there!
I had joined the press team because I thought Bitcoin needed something like this and because it is quite a challenge to set up and operate a non-corporate communication department without hierarchical structures with some decider on top. But I have the feeling the experiment has already failed and we need to re-think how to run such a thing. It cannot work the way it does now with some two or three people determining political correctness and an according content strategy, believing they speak for the whole community, which they are not.
Maybe we need more than one press center, different press centers with different editorial boards and different approaches and communication goals. Just like the community has different motivations, visions and points of view on the world.
We could have a competition between these press centers and the press could choose where to go to find stories and interviewees.
The way it's running now is a ridiculous attempt of a few people to promote their own views and ideologies. And it is not going to stop. What if one of the 'accepted' interviewees says something that does not suit one of the censors?
The press center right now is not even a service to the press as it is totally biased and does not reflect the diversity of the community at all. Right now the press center is a huge lie actually. And the press people are not so stupid not to realise that.
I can imagine that a forked press center is on the way already.
Joe
I had joined the press team because I thought Bitcoin needed something like this and because it is quite a challenge to set up and operate a non-corporate communication department without hierarchical structures with some decider on top. But I have the feeling the experiment has already failed and we need to re-think how to run such a thing. It cannot work the way it does now with some two or three people determining political correctness and an according content strategy, believing they speak for the whole community, which they are not.
Maybe we need more than one press center, different press centers with different editorial boards and different approaches and communication goals. Just like the community has different motivations, visions and points of view on the world.
We could have a competition between these press centers and the press could choose where to go to find stories and interviewees.
The way it's running now is a ridiculous attempt of a few people to promote their own views and ideologies. And it is not going to stop. What if one of the 'accepted' interviewees says something that does not suit one of the censors?
The press center right now is not even a service to the press as it is totally biased and does not reflect the diversity of the community at all. Right now the press center is a huge lie actually
. And the press people are not so stupid not to realise that.I can imagine that a forked press center is on the way already.
Joe
April 23, 2013, 11:36:29 AM
Satoshi will never come forward and anyone who claims to be him is a fraud. Satoshi is likely Wenbo Mao and the Chinese government will go after him if he is revealed
April 23, 2013, 11:24:08 AM
How is it possible that Satoshi Nakamoto is a FOUNDING MEMBER of the THE BITCOIN FOUNDATION, INC??
This has been discussed before. He's named in the bylaws, but he wasn't actually involved in the Foundation's creation.
I just noticed that they didn't use his full PGP fingerprint, though. What'll they do when someone creates a colliding KeyID? It isn't that difficult.
April 22, 2013, 09:51:39 PM
The Bitcoin Foundation is not the same as the Bitcoin dev group. They are two totally separate organizations.
But the members of the Bitcoin Foundation include the bitcoin dev group, and one of the board members is Gavin Lead developer. You can't believe that they are really two separate organizations. Plus Gavin is paid by the foundation which is he a board member of. They both directly control bitcoins.
April 23, 2013, 10:19:51 AM
How is it possible that Satoshi Nakamoto is a FOUNDING MEMBER of the THE BITCOIN FOUNDATION, INC??
(a) Founding Members. The Founding Members of the Corporation shall be:
...
vii. Satoshi Nakamoto, at [email protected], author of the white paper “Bitcoin: A Peer-to-Peer Electronic Cash System” published on http://bitcoin.org and owner of the PGP Public Key with fingerprint: 5EC948A1.
(a) Founding Members. The Founding Members of the Corporation shall be:
...
vii. Satoshi Nakamoto, at [email protected], author of the white paper “Bitcoin: A Peer-to-Peer Electronic Cash System” published on http://bitcoin.org and owner of the PGP Public Key with fingerprint: 5EC948A1.
April 23, 2013, 09:00:39 AM
Jgarzik, you should open up the list to matonis and ver.
And change the title from spokesperson to contacts list.
And change the title from spokesperson to contacts list.
April 23, 2013, 07:47:03 AM
As much as I respect jgarzik for the great work he does with the bitcoin s/ware and the very level-headed comments he provides in most public forums, it makes me uncomfortable when I read him actively denigrating (borderline slandering) the subjects of this discussion, Roger Ver and Jon Matonis. Especially since they would be competing voices on the page in question that he is already listed on.
In all fairness he should be recusing himself from the discussion since he could be seen to be conflicted, not saying that he is but it should be above that level.
In all fairness he should be recusing himself from the discussion since he could be seen to be conflicted, not saying that he is but it should be above that level.
April 23, 2013, 05:01:34 AM
I think a diversity of views is good, as long as the people expressing their views are honest, trustworthy, and respectable.
I still think Luke causes more trouble and strife than he is worth. And I wish people would stop implying he is part of the core development team.
I still think Luke causes more trouble and strife than he is worth. And I wish people would stop implying he is part of the core development team.
I wish people would stop implying that Bitcoin, rather than its "standard" client or "standard" daemon, has a core development team.
Because it it has, there goes decentralisation.
April 23, 2013, 04:45:33 AM
"core developer" tends to be strictly defined as anybody with push privs to github/bitcoin/bitcoin.git -- but we must admit that that term becomes less relevant over time, as other implementations and other non-bitcoind developers start contributing BIPs and other major, impactful changes.
i.e. should we consider the Armory dev a core developer? etothepi has written BIPs and certainly contributes to the wallet side of things. Mike Hearn (TD) and Matt C worked on the bloom filter feature, which revolutionizes the network-sync time for lightweight bitcoin clients.
...
So are they "core developers"? In the less strict sense, I'd answer "yes" Their changes are certainly trusted by the community at large, in addition to the yahoos on the bitcoin/bitcoin.git commit list.
i.e. should we consider the Armory dev a core developer? etothepi has written BIPs and certainly contributes to the wallet side of things. Mike Hearn (TD) and Matt C worked on the bloom filter feature, which revolutionizes the network-sync time for lightweight bitcoin clients.
...
So are they "core developers"? In the less strict sense, I'd answer "yes" Their changes are certainly trusted by the community at large, in addition to the yahoos on the bitcoin/bitcoin.git commit list.
This may be a significant issue to distinguish on bitcoin.org.
I think those who make 'substantial and material' contributions should be considered 'developers' instead of just 'contributors'. I think it should be left to the developers to determine which of their colleagues have substantially and materially contributed. Perhaps have a current developer nominate and 3-4 other current developers concur. This type of recognition system will help VCs know where to look for talent.
For example, Mike Hearn has (3), etothepi has no recognition, etc. and they may personally want some. VCs who are looking for talent may have a difficult time doing so. Additionally, I think you should get explicit permission from any individuals you do decide to list.
Perhaps this language would help inform the public about the differences:
Quote
A developer is someone who has made substantial and material contributions to Bitcoin code or via Bitcoin applications as determined by other developers. Developers with an * indicate those with push privileges to the Github repository. Contributors have also made contributions included in releases but the amount of significance does not arise to the same degree as developers.
April 23, 2013, 03:32:11 AM
The Bitcoin Foundation is not the same as the Bitcoin dev group. They are two totally separate organizations.
But the members of the Bitcoin Foundation include the bitcoin dev group, and one of the board members is Gavin Lead developer. You can't believe that they are really two separate organizations.
Yes, you can, because they are.
Frankly, I do not think bitcoin would work, or be useful to anybody, if it was "controlled" by the Bitcoin Foundation.
At that point, even if the code is available for download, I would not really call it open source.
Moving on to terminology.
"core developer" tends to be strictly defined as anybody with push privs to github/bitcoin/bitcoin.git -- but we must admit that that term becomes less relevant over time, as other implementations and other non-bitcoind developers start contributing BIPs and other major, impactful changes.
i.e. should we consider the Armory dev a core developer? etothepi has written BIPs and certainly contributes to the wallet side of things. Mike Hearn (TD) and Matt C worked on the bloom filter feature, which revolutionizes the network-sync time for lightweight bitcoin clients.
The bloom filter feature alone is huge. An embedded, low resource bitcoin client that is truly decentralized and P2P may be built -- as we see from the current Bitcoin Wallet on the Android market. Is that not a far better solution than more centralized, hackable, DDoS-able websites?
So are they "core developers"? In the less strict sense, I'd answer "yes" Their changes are certainly trusted by the community at large, in addition to the yahoos on the bitcoin/bitcoin.git commit list.
April 23, 2013, 03:05:26 AM
On the contrary. While it is true that my interest in Bitcoin is for the purpose of furthering the Tonal system, I don't pretend that Bitcoin's reason for existence is to promote Tonal.
Tonal is a pointless waste of brain space.
Jump to: