Topic: Roger Ver Endorses Trace Mayer For Bitcoin Foundation Board Seat (Read 5063 times)

Theymos, do you mean 'You don't have any right to force how these things are used.'?

The Foundation doesn't have any control over bitcoin.org or Bitcoin development, so that's somewhat irrelevant here. In any case, I don't see a problem in trying to help people without asking them first as long as property rights, etc. are respected. That's what many charitable organizations do.

gmaxwell,

you made a persuasive argument. I will have to think about it.

for anyone new who's wondering what we're talking about look here:  https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/m.1970655

here:  https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/m.1983304

and here:  https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin.org/pull/162#commits-pushed-ee74e00

you'll get a good sense of how incensed the community was about the devs attempting to control an issue and outcome.

gmax, my concern is that when someone like you feels they have a moral authority despite being in the minority you tend to dismiss a potential majority prudent authority.  such as in the Press Center debate.  that was a political issue in which you could not declare any superior knowledge unlike in development.  yet you did anyway.  

here's where i brought the issue of ignoring the majority opinion came up again later on:  

https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/m.2087876

No no, I wasn't saying that you weren't quoting me, and as I said— and linked to, I have consistently said the same stuff, and said as much in the thread. It's absolutely my view.

Here I was saying that I wasn't sure if the quote came from github or someplace else. I can't find any reference to the text on google beyond your comment. You can tell if it's from github if you search your email, it'll be in your email if it was originally on github (but wouldn't be in mine).

Please do, forum search turns up nothing for me. Perhaps that was the original origin of it? I have no clue. My ability to turn up things in the thread to quote is limited by whats actually in the thread at this time.

I'm not sure why you think you've found some kind of zinger there: Its a position which I've consistently held, repeated many times, and which many people would repeat more or less exactly if asked what I thought about that kind of subject. (I note that Theymos advanced similar sentiment above— while I haven't consulted a market research firm, I don't believe it to be a rare one).

Its my experience and belief that voting is not a particularly effective decision method, at least not when there are alternatives and certainly not in an environment where it's so trivial to employ sock or meatpuppets. Basically the only positive qualities voting has is that its decisive and its sometimes available when all better alternatives are unworkable, but it loses its decisiveness when its trivial to cheat. I have no idea where you think I was willing to hold a vote, but I think it's unlikely that I've ever wanted to hold a vote on github or over some subject on github. (I can't help but find a little amusement in the notion of someone who claims to be opposed to state control advancing voting to control other people's activities against their consent as a go-to first choice tool for social involvement)

it's right here and it was you for sure:  

https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin.org/pull/162#issuecomment-17148851

come on Greg.  you're a smart guy with a good enough memory to pull out all those quotes of me in that same thread.  furthermore, this isn't the first time i've referenced that quote of yours to your face. it's the second time; the first being in another thread here on the forum a month or so later.  if you insist i'm sure i can dig it out with some effort.  you deleted it for a reason.


my problem with that situation is that you were willing to hold a vote amongst yourselves in a non-representative situation over in github when the vast majority of non-devs had no idea a vote was in progress.  when we found out about it and asked for a re-vote, we were dismissed.  i understand that the devs need to make decisions based on their best judgment in situations reliant on coding.  but when it came down to a simple situation like Ver and Matonis, the rest of the community has every right to have a say in who and who was not to be allowed into the press center.

well you know, that is exactly what happened.

the majority of us, feeling ignored by the minority controlling the bitcoin.org press center, made a plea to Sirius (the owner of bitcoin.org) who upon finding out what happened to Matonis and Ver promptly disagreed with their exclusion and as far as i know forced a resolution.  kudos to Sirius who listened to us and made a fair determination.

thanx to Andreas for setting up an alternative Press Center which diffused the situation and allowed inclusion of Matonis and Ver to all (or most of) our satisfaction.

No. Individuals should decide what they do with their own stuff. bitcoin.org is owned by one person who decides to use it in certain ways. The developers own their own time and skills. You don't have any right to influence how these things are used. I'm certainly not going to allow any majority to force me into doing things that I know are wrong with the assets under my control. Just because a majority of people (or a loud minority of people...) believe something doesn't mean that it's true. (Of course, I'm always willing to read and carefully consider reasonable arguments.)

Hm? I don't have a specific recollection of it, whenever it was it was a long time ago since that string doesn't show up elsewhere in any google result. Are you sure it was even a quote from that pull (check your email, github doesn't send-to-sender so I can't see it).

In any case, I've said the similar things many times, in fact there is a quote of mine (paraphrasing Satoshi) in the forums standard rotation on that subject matter.  If it was deleted it may have been because I'd already said basically the same thing:


And perhaps I removed it because I was just repeating myself non-productively (You may note that I made no further comments in that thread after that point). (Uh, This has veered way off-topic. Perhaps we should move to PM?)

Edit:I didn't see theymos' response except in your quote, but I assume he removed it because it was offtopic. What you're quoting from him there is exactly my view, and I think both Satoshi and the design of the Bitcoin system is abundantly clear on this point.  You could easily build a majority of miner's system, but it would not be a valuable one because the 'wolves could vote to have the sheep for supper', just like the resource-weighed-majority of today's democracies do not reliably rule with the consent of the governed. It would, however, be a lot simpler and easier to work on that Bitcoin is... Bitcoin is based not on trust, but on mathematical proof.  Not perfectly, since we are not yet skilled enough to design systems so perfect that they can operate completely without intervention but to the extent that we can make a reality of that vision Bitcoin can be immune to the folly of man. (A point you can see, e.g. the winklevossen making in their PR and SEC filings, for example). ... Even if all the miners agree they can't just steal your Bitcoin and assign it to themselves.

If a minority ruling over people is a tyranny, a majority ruling over other people is only a difference in magnitude. Freedom comes from autonomy, from not being ruled over by any master, not even the most popular one. Perfect autonomy is not possible, but we can certainly maximize it by adopting systems with clear rules at their outset which are not subject to and are designed to resist coercive change, like Bitcoin.

(Of course, on matters of preference where people's freedom isn't at stake, majorities can be useful modes to pick between options... though diversity is often even better: To each his own.)

Huh? This is, I think it to be totally irrelevant— but since we're already in recursive offtopic land—, neither of these things are true as far as I know.

i asked HIM why he deleted it.

let's review the context in which the whole github brew haha occurred:

1.  there is a thread here that clearly demonstrated the community's outrage at excluding Ver and Matonis from what was at the time the self appointed Bitcoin.org Press Center controlled by Savann and the developers including gmaxwell.
2.  despite consensus sentiment here there was an unannounced "vote" over at github as to whether to include them or not.  the "majority" apparently said no.  not surprising b/c they (jgarzik, luke-jr, gmaxwell, Savann) were the one's who unilaterally decided to exclude them.
3.  members of this forum were outraged b/c none of us ever heard about this supposed open vote and thus never had a chance to vote.  valid complaints were that github is never frequented by non-developers.  go look at it for yourself for those who doubt.  it's not non-developer friendly and there is no reason for non-devs to go there.
4.  upon hearing of the exclusion, a bunch of us went over to github and asked for a re-vote.  informal re-voting poll by Andreas showed that Ver and Matonis would have been included into the Press Center.
5.  our pleas were summarily dismissed.

in retrospect, Andreas went off and developed a new website which has been tremendously successful and supported by the community.  obviously, Matonis and Ver were included.  Matonis subsequently was elected BF Chairman and rightfully so despite gmaxwell's portrayal of him as some sort of out of control radical.  and Ver retains a seat on the Board.

they were wrong.  we were right.  the majority should determine the direction of Bitcoin.

theymos deleting your own posts?

i was just preparing a heavy handed response.

gmax, why did you delete this portion of what you said in this part of our github exchange?  if i'm wrong in not finding this please let me know.
https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin.org/pull/162


"gmaxwell:    Whats there to suspect? I'll state it right out: I will not make changes to the software that trod over the consent of a minority of its users simply because a majority wills it. The majority can go start some other software that I can't edit if it wants to impose its will or politics on a minority, if the minority chooses to use it then at least is by their consent.

cypherdoc:   hmmm. i don't get this line of thought. if satoshi agreed with your general line of thinking, then why did he design the whole mining process to depend on a MAJORITY of miners, as in >50%, determining which is the correct blockchain in the case of a fork?"

For one, because the speaker clearly intends it as such, especially when they're using it in the context of arguing to dismiss a person's views. Moreover, political sterotyping is almost always insulting. It over simplifies to the point of insult, as the sterotype name embodies all the negative connotations and few of the positive, or it's just outright misplaced.

You wouldn't find it insulting if someone called you a racist or a religious zealot or any of a thousand other stereotyping terms as part of an argument as to why you're wrong and should be ignored?

If the Bitcoin foundation can control Bitcoin itself then Bitcoin has already failed. Its design and purpose was to be free of that kind of influence because no one can be trusted with it. Evenutally any organization of people will drift in its purpose of character and seek to ensure its own survival or advance its own purposes, to compromise principles for sufficiently compelling excuses, even at the expense of its original purpose. A diverse foundation not only has the benefit of potentially being able to go out and advance Bitcoin to a broader audience but would also preserve the healthy distrust that would remind the user community to not hand over too much authority.

Why do you perceive the term "statist" as insulting? Cognitive dissonance?

Just look at Wikipedia. Statism is a belief system and a statist is one who has that belief system. It is the opposite of anarchism and anarchist. If someone calls me an anarchist, I don't view it as insulting, on the contrary that is an accurate terminology. If someone calls me a statist, I don't view it insulting either, rather inaccurate.

If you think that the term "statist" is insulting, maybe that is actually a hint that you subconsciously want to be an anarchist. Assuming you are not one already, but then it makes no sense to become agitated about the term "statist" either.

A lot of the goals of different people are mutually exclusive. Bitcoin is a very powerful tool that may change who will reach their goal and who won't. This also affects people who do not use Bitcoin. Eventually, the Bitcoin Foundation may be in a position to influence the outcome and will have to make a decision, because, I repeat, some options are mutually exclusive. And I think that there is nothing strange when members of the foundation expect answers from board candidates about what the decision would be.

I don't know you well, but (without review) I think on the basis of our contact thus far I wouldn't advance you as a in a leadership or "representative" role,  I don't mean this as any kind of insult: I am not advancing myself in a press role either (although I'm not entirely without relevant experience, I generally deflect press contact).

Since you asked— In the 162 thread I believe you behaved at least somewhat at odds with the standard of ethical conduct that I would hold myself.  In the thread some (seemingly(?) sock-puppeted) participants were fairly clearly calling for violence and your followup contribution was to add additional insults, e.g. "the statists here".

Exactly where have I advanced a "statist" position which would have justified this insult?

You wrote, "i'm not about to stand aside" but you were happy to stand aside while people supporting your views threatened violence and you respond in agreement with their proposed economic (counter) attack, suggesting on your own: "all further funding related to anything they are associated with be withheld". I consider this kind of total warfare unethical: You'd deny my livelihood because I strongly argued that the Bitcoin project's "official" press contacts should use an approach which is politically tempered in order to avoid offending the broadest range of political background? really???

That particular proposed remedy was particularly insulting for reasons which were not apparent to you: I am not, and have never been, and have no interest in being, paid to work on Bitcoin... the grand total I've received for my hundreds of hours of contributions is a few Bitcoins here and there (usually in response to direct 1:1 tech support). It would have been laughable as there was simply nothing to take— a non-accidental situation, because I prefer to be free of vulnerability to exactly this kind of coercive response— but I've given so much effort and time, and because we'd disagree with the approach we should take in a public facing capacity as a representative of the project you'd seek that kind of revenge? Really? And yet you continue to benefit from my work. I can shield my economic security from this kind of attack, but shielding my self-respect is a little harder.

People say stupid things and miss opportunities to behave optimally in the heat of an argument and that is easily enough forgiven, but it's also not a shining qualification for a position of leadership in an organization who's primary goal should be to build a bigger tent. I believe that someone with good leadership or press skills could have managed to avoid stepping on those rakes and could have made their preferences known without the insults. In your interaction you appeared to prioritize anti-statist politics to such an extent that you risked offending other community members (e.g. myself) without any deep exploration into if their views were even pro-statist to begin with ... at the potential expense to the Bitcoin project.

I am happy when any kind of person, even one whos politics I disagree with, adopts Bitcoin. I think that we should be careful that we do not advance non-bitcoin-critical politics at the risk of alienating adopters or contributors. I believe these views are a self-consistent and logical approach to maximizing the freedom that Bitcoin will provide for the world in the long term, and I would hope that the foundation is adopting a similar approach.  Perhaps you disagree, and if so my opinion on who shouldn't be a part of the foundation leadership is unlikely to be of value to you.

gmax, i'm curious.  what do you think of me?

i was in those same tempestuous threads arguing against what you were advocating as much, if not more, than Trace.  i thought you were wrong then to exclude Matonis and Ver and i still think you were wrong.

I think it is is a sad commentary that we have a community which tolerates calling hardworking and generous people insulting terms like "statist" on the mere suspicion that their beliefs are different— as a quick out in in argument—, without even necessarily understanding their beliefs well enough to know if or how much their beliefs differ.

I think part of a good moral code is understanding that people have a diversity of views on what constitutes morality and that none of us are so wise and free of cognitive defect to know with absolute certainty the optimal path.  Moreover, if Bitcoin is to be a big tent that is adopted and supported by the whole world, we must be tolerate of people whos views are not identical to our own, so long as they are sufficiently compatible, and certainly not be intolerant of views which we merely _suspect_ to be different.

I think that if the Bitcoin foundation is to exist it ought to exist for the sake of Bitcoin not for the sake of advancing any broader political ideology, even ideologies that I support. Fortunately, because Bitcoin itself is a liberating technology there are many other laudable agendas which the success of Bitcoin will also advance without any special effort.  The support of Bitcoin by anarcho-capitalists is already assured by Bitcoin's very nature, but to include others we must have representatives which are tolerant enough to understand and accept that a diversity of views exist without their holders being evil. ... or at least tactful enough to express dissent without the name calling.

For what it's worth I can personally vouch for Trace's integrity and I feel much better knowing that he, Jon Matonis and Roger Ver are involved in bitcoin at the levels that they are. Additionally, I greatly appreciate the technical solutions and ideas that Gregory Maxwell has created.

As an aside, it is a sad commentary when morality is considered by some to be a "fringe political belief".

why is it that all the people that want to be the 'poster boys' (the main face media see's) of bitcoin, all have some social issue.

Max Keiser - great economist but goes off the rails with his analogies
Amir Taaki - well if you seen any of his interviews with media, you don't need me to explain it
Trace Mayor - UFO/Alien protection fund, space travel investments..

we need some level headed people on the frontline to be teaching the world about bitcoin. although the 3 named people above have put alot of their personal time and money into bitcoin, when it comes to public appearances, their personalities let them down and suddenly people start to think of what they are hearing should be taken with a pinch of salt.

although the guys from bitinstant are on the libertarian camps, they do seem to have a more level head and don't come off too eccentric with their delivery.

if i was to request a spokesmen to teach a government, financial body about bitcoin i would still choose the bitinstant crew over Trace Mayor.

it seems like Trace Mayor has a 'i am a rich snob' aura to him and he seems most interested in the financial spending/looking after of the foundation. and from what i can see of his projects which he request donations for thus far, the end results/accomplishments would never flourish.

there has to be someone better out there then the current line up of candidates.

Agreed.