Remove press representatives

[pelle]

Regardless of the disclaimers on this page, anyone listed here are going
to be perceived as representatives of Bitcoin. This has already caused
unneeded political discussions on bitcointalk and elsewhere.

I know journalists want this, but lets force them to do a bit of work
themselves. Such as emailing the press list.

That way bitcoin.org remains unpolitical and uncontroversial.

[bendiken]

+1. It's unfortunate if it has to come down to this, but at least nobody's being censored due to political views.

[bendiken]

+1. It's unfortunate if it has to come down to this, but at least nobody's being censored due to political views.

[gmaxwell]

Failing to list someone as a recommend press contact is not "censorship". Quite the contrary: Promoting people with more extreme views as representative effectively silences the great base of moderate voices.

[gmaxwell]

Failing to list someone as a recommend press contact is not "censorship". Quite the contrary: Promoting people with more extreme views as representative effectively silences the great base of moderate voices.

[pelle]

Which is exactly why there should not be a list of people there. While the bitcoin project was clearly started as a political tool, the actual implementation is a software program and a set of protocols.

People with extreme as well as moderate views should be allowed to present them as such and the marketplace of ideas should take from there.

[pelle]

Which is exactly why there should not be a list of people there. While the bitcoin project was clearly started as a political tool, the actual implementation is a software program and a set of protocols.

People with extreme as well as moderate views should be allowed to present them as such and the marketplace of ideas should take from there.

[saivann]

I know that this has been the target of a lot of criticisms (and it has been expected). However, I personally think that the best solution to reduce this problem is to add more interviewees rather than going back to no interviewees at all. Even though I understand there will always be controversy.

"nobody's being censored due to political views"
And it's not the case right now either. John Matonis is not there yet because it appears he has said multiple inaccurate claims about Bitcoin and promoted illegal behavior. Roger Ver because of his criminal records.

Also there's nothing wrong with having a political point of view on television. But being invited to speak about Bitcoin should not be an opportunity to attach Bitcoin exclusively to any form of ideology, or to some point, to speak more about your ideology than the subject which is : Bitcoin. Because doing so is mis-reprensentative and inaccurate.

bitcoin.org can never be a real authoritative website for Bitcoin, in a sense that anyone can promote Bitcoin for any reasons in any ways. This is where belongs free speech. However, I think bitcoin.org in its position has a responsability to help the press to gain the best levels of accuracy about Bitcoin. And I think that this is most of what we care about by choosing intervewees.

[saivann]

I know that this has been the target of a lot of criticisms (and it has been expected). However, I personally think that the best solution to reduce this problem is to add more interviewees rather than going back to no interviewees at all. Even though I understand there will always be controversy.

"nobody's being censored due to political views"
And it's not the case right now either. John Matonis is not there yet because it appears he has said multiple inaccurate claims about Bitcoin and promoted illegal behavior. Roger Ver because of his criminal records.

Also there's nothing wrong with having a political point of view on television. But being invited to speak about Bitcoin should not be an opportunity to attach Bitcoin exclusively to any form of ideology, or to some point, to speak more about your ideology than the subject which is : Bitcoin. Because doing so is mis-reprensentative and inaccurate.

bitcoin.org can never be a real authoritative website for Bitcoin, in a sense that anyone can promote Bitcoin for any reasons in any ways. This is where belongs free speech. However, I think bitcoin.org in its position has a responsability to help the press to gain the best levels of accuracy about Bitcoin. And I think that this is most of what we care about by choosing intervewees.

[pelle]

However many times we say that it is not the authoritative website for Bitcoin, it will still be believed that it is. Anyone listed on there will be believed as being the official spokes people of bitcoin, no matter the disclaimers. Thats just how simple it is.

Yes it's important that the truth about bitcoin as a technical protocol comes out, but that is not what the press is interested in. They will always be interested in scandal, hyperbole, talking points etc. Which is exactly why the primary project website should be about the project itself, the protocol, how to get involved etc and not dealing with what the press.

[pelle]

However many times we say that it is not the authoritative website for Bitcoin, it will still be believed that it is. Anyone listed on there will be believed as being the official spokes people of bitcoin, no matter the disclaimers. Thats just how simple it is.

Yes it's important that the truth about bitcoin as a technical protocol comes out, but that is not what the press is interested in. They will always be interested in scandal, hyperbole, talking points etc. Which is exactly why the primary project website should be about the project itself, the protocol, how to get involved etc and not dealing with what the press.

[saivann]

Since bitcoin.org is perceived as authoritative, then I think its goal should be to help understanding it's not :)

The press constantly bring back inaccuracies like Bitcoin being anonymous, doesn't understand how it works, doesn't understand the link between fiat currencies and Bitcoin, doesn't understand that this project has no central authority, doesn't understand how we can trust Bitcoin without knowning who is its inventor, and so on.

People who understand and are able to answer these questions accurately are precious and scarse human resources. I think it would be a shame not to have them very visible to help Bitcoin being better understood and thus, develop in a sustainable way. From a pragmatic point of view, I am under the impression that this is much more important than anyone personal feeling.

[saivann]

Since bitcoin.org is perceived as authoritative, then I think its goal should be to help understanding it's not :)

The press constantly bring back inaccuracies like Bitcoin being anonymous, doesn't understand how it works, doesn't understand the link between fiat currencies and Bitcoin, doesn't understand that this project has no central authority, doesn't understand how we can trust Bitcoin without knowning who is its inventor, and so on.

People who understand and are able to answer these questions accurately are precious and scarse human resources. I think it would be a shame not to have them very visible to help Bitcoin being better understood and thus, develop in a sustainable way. From a pragmatic point of view, I am under the impression that this is much more important than anyone personal feeling.

[pelle]

I understand the reasoning behind it, but in the imperfect world we live in having this "official list" (that I know and you know is not authoritative) actually reinforces the beliefs that it is authoritative. It is unfortunate I know, but the only way to teach the press that there is no authoritative source is to not give them any. I suspect at least 50% of all press interviews will present the people on the list as the official bitcoin mouth pieces. Again I know there are disclaimers, but disclaimers only server to appease lawyers not regular people nor journalists.

[pelle]

I understand the reasoning behind it, but in the imperfect world we live in having this "official list" (that I know and you know is not authoritative) actually reinforces the beliefs that it is authoritative. It is unfortunate I know, but the only way to teach the press that there is no authoritative source is to not give them any. I suspect at least 50% of all press interviews will present the people on the list as the official bitcoin mouth pieces. Again I know there are disclaimers, but disclaimers only server to appease lawyers not regular people nor journalists.

[jrmithdobbs]

I think this is too far.

Let's stick to disallowing criminals and people with proven track records of endorsing criminal behavior.

For now, at least. Controversial political activists should probably be excluded as well but how about we cross that line when one without a criminal background or background in endorsing overtly criminal behavior is actually proposed?

[jrmithdobbs]

I think this is too far.

Let's stick to disallowing criminals and people with proven track records of endorsing criminal behavior.

For now, at least. Controversial political activists should probably be excluded as well but how about we cross that line when one without a criminal background or background in endorsing overtly criminal behavior is actually proposed?

[mikegogulski]

NACK. handwaving My post count is higher than yours, nyaa nyaa, etc.

[mikegogulski]

NACK. handwaving My post count is higher than yours, nyaa nyaa, etc.

[mikegogulski]

More seriously:

I think an idea that should be considered is to take the collection of
ALL Bitcoin-community people who have done media already, and invite
them each to opt in or out. If Garzik, Maxwell, Luke et al. want to do
"strategic messaging visioning" or whatever-the-fuck, let them do it by
persuading the folks who are already talking to the media about Bitcoin,
rather than just drawing exclusionary lines. There should be dozens of
people on that list, not a hand-picked few.

[mikegogulski]

More seriously:

I think an idea that should be considered is to take the collection of
ALL Bitcoin-community people who have done media already, and invite
them each to opt in or out. If Garzik, Maxwell, Luke et al. want to do
"strategic messaging visioning" or whatever-the-fuck, let them do it by
persuading the folks who are already talking to the media about Bitcoin,
rather than just drawing exclusionary lines. There should be dozens of
people on that list, not a hand-picked few.

[bendiken]

Knowing Matonis, I believe he would take strong issue with the false claims bandied about here regarding him supposedly promoting criminal activities or misrepresenting Bitcoin. While Matonis doesn't shy away from covering controversial topics, it willfully slanders him to claim that he necessarily endorses the topics he writes about.

Similarly, the people calling Roger Ver a "criminal" should acquaint themselves with the facts of the case. Shame on you.

[bendiken]

Knowing Matonis, I believe he would take strong issue with the false claims bandied about here regarding him supposedly promoting criminal activities or misrepresenting Bitcoin. While Matonis doesn't shy away from covering controversial topics, it willfully slanders him to claim that he necessarily endorses the topics he writes about.

Similarly, the people calling Roger Ver a "criminal" should acquaint themselves with the facts of the case. Shame on you.

[pelle]

The bitcoin project was created as an act of civil disobedience and that can not be ignored. Having pretty much read everything Jon Matonis has written, I don't see much beyond proposing well informed civil disobedience. That said it's much simpler if the proof is in the pudding and not printed on the wrapper.

[pelle]

The bitcoin project was created as an act of civil disobedience and that can not be ignored. Having pretty much read everything Jon Matonis has written, I don't see much beyond proposing well informed civil disobedience. That said it's much simpler if the proof is in the pudding and not printed on the wrapper.

[maxkueng]

👍 This needs to go.

Even though these people are not being advertised as "representatives" of Bitcoin but instead as "potential interviewees", I don't think Bitcoin should have an opinion about who is good for an interview or not.

If there has to be something like that, it should be a list that is open to anyone willing to talk about Bitcoin to add and remove themselves. A place where they can post their contact details and some prove of their engagement in the Bitcoin economy/community. It could also have a rating system.

[maxkueng]

👍 This needs to go.

Even though these people are not being advertised as "representatives" of Bitcoin but instead as "potential interviewees", I don't think Bitcoin should have an opinion about who is good for an interview or not.

If there has to be something like that, it should be a list that is open to anyone willing to talk about Bitcoin to add and remove themselves. A place where they can post their contact details and some prove of their engagement in the Bitcoin economy/community. It could also have a rating system.

[saivann]

bitcoin.org is owned by core developers, and the opinion of the community (everyone) is always taken into account. But someone needs to take decisions in order to have things done. And so far I have this role.

Right now the community is divised, and there will also be an outcry if we remove interviewees. So it makes no sense to rush things and create even more confusion and frustration right now. This part won't please everyone regardless of the final decision, so we should all be prepared for to make concessions.

[saivann]

bitcoin.org is owned by core developers, and the opinion of the community (everyone) is always taken into account. But someone needs to take decisions in order to have things done. And so far I have this role.

Right now the community is divised, and there will also be an outcry if we remove interviewees. So it makes no sense to rush things and create even more confusion and frustration right now. This part won't please everyone regardless of the final decision, so we should all be prepared for to make concessions.

[gmaxwell]

@MillyBitcoin There is a list of core developers on the website.

[gmaxwell]

@MillyBitcoin There is a list of core developers on the website.

[gmaxwell]

@MillyBitcoin This is the place for discussing the content of the website, it has been for years, as its the mechanism for updating it as well. My apologies for not noting that the word "Core" got dropped from the webpage during the redesign. In any case, the list is there. See "developers".

You can also see the changes made to the site at https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin.org/commits/master though I don't know if github provides a public way of seeing who has access to directly modify it (I can see the list, but this is because I have admin access). Anyone can propose changes to the site via pull requests like this one, and then the people with access (which includes the developers, saivann, and genjix)

I was asking saivann (and he answered me via chat) because I was confused a the sudden appearance of very ill-mannered people who were thoroughly confused at how this operates. Please moderate your tone, the hostile approach you are taking here is unneeded and unwelcome.

[gmaxwell]

@MillyBitcoin This is the place for discussing the content of the website, it has been for years, as its the mechanism for updating it as well. My apologies for not noting that the word "Core" got dropped from the webpage during the redesign. In any case, the list is there. See "developers".

You can also see the changes made to the site at https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin.org/commits/master though I don't know if github provides a public way of seeing who has access to directly modify it (I can see the list, but this is because I have admin access). Anyone can propose changes to the site via pull requests like this one, and then the people with access (which includes the developers, saivann, and genjix)

I was asking saivann (and he answered me via chat) because I was confused a the sudden appearance of very ill-mannered people who were thoroughly confused at how this operates. Please moderate your tone, the hostile approach you are taking here is unneeded and unwelcome.

[midnightmagic]

It is better to take a pragmatic, realistic approach. It is correct, now, to remove contentious statements and representatives and strictly maintain neutrality and calmness. Moderate voices are the best representatives, make the best interviewees, and help eliminate the fears of the general public that are stoked to fervour by the FUD-spewing mechanisms of the mass media. This isn't silencing or censoring anybody, and implying it is so is unfair and argumentative. If we don't self-moderate ourselves, we're going to be moderated anyway, and, like what happened with a certain recent SEC investigation, the recent FinCEN guidelines, the international court cases, and the constant pressure from law enforcement, I fully expect only the moderate voices will remain when the door to the world is thrown open. I.e. the most vocal opponents of moderate action typically don't hang around when the kitchen heats up. Ignore the detractors. You're doing the right thing.

[midnightmagic]

It is better to take a pragmatic, realistic approach. It is correct, now, to remove contentious statements and representatives and strictly maintain neutrality and calmness. Moderate voices are the best representatives, make the best interviewees, and help eliminate the fears of the general public that are stoked to fervour by the FUD-spewing mechanisms of the mass media. This isn't silencing or censoring anybody, and implying it is so is unfair and argumentative. If we don't self-moderate ourselves, we're going to be moderated anyway, and, like what happened with a certain recent SEC investigation, the recent FinCEN guidelines, the international court cases, and the constant pressure from law enforcement, I fully expect only the moderate voices will remain when the door to the world is thrown open. I.e. the most vocal opponents of moderate action typically don't hang around when the kitchen heats up. Ignore the detractors. You're doing the right thing.

[petertodd]

ACK

edit: NACK - good points have been made that the policy is fine.

[petertodd]

ACK

edit: NACK - good points have been made that the policy is fine.

[sunnankar]

@MillyBitcoin, I think there is wide consensus that adequate standards for inclusion should include competency, professionalism and a generally good reputation in the Bitcoin community. There are many factors that go into the 'generally good reputation' such as businesses run, code contributed and ideas suggested, etc. Although the Press Center can have spill over effects with regards to traffic, publicity, etc.

I do not think the general idea for the Press Center is to turn it into either an advertising forum or center for attention whores with personal agendas. The focus, which is almost universally agreed on, is that the Bitcoin brand needs to be protected and strengthened. And disagreement is on the strategy that should be adopted for accomplishing that.

When it comes to strategy, what is at issue in this discussion is whether bitcoin.org should be used as a persuasive resource to convey a particular veneer for the Bitcoin developers who maintain the site and project OR an objective resource to assist journalists in finding competent and professional sources? And I think there are good arguments for adopting either strategy.

When it comes to a political ideology test then for a persuasive resource it would be essential but for an objective resource it would be irrelevant.

Developers develop and marketers/PR people do marketing and public relations. We would not expect the marketers/PR people to code as they would do a lousy job even if well intentioned.

When it comes to marketing and public relations it could be viewed by some that the developers have either lacked a marketing strategy or have adopted the wrong one and the result has been a dropping of the ball over the past four years resulting in tremendous damage to the Bitcoin brand by allowing the media to completely co-opt the story, permitting consistent reporting of inaccuracies, not providing easy access to a wide range of competent and professional interviewees for whatever vignette is desired by journalists for the particular story or segment being produced and a general failing to take proactive control of the Bitcoin brand both with the press and with potential users. And whining and crying that it is the big bad media and we are merely victims is simply shifting the blame from where it squarely belongs.

For example, Bitpay is an excellent example of a Bitcoin company that has carved out through proactive effort a very positive relationship with the press and balanced the need for marketing/PR with technical competence.

Why have the developers in general failed to forge a similar path and instead allowed such tremendous damage to the Bitcoin brand? It gets back to the fundamental marketing/PR strategy and then having people willing to implement it.

[sunnankar]

@MillyBitcoin, I think there is wide consensus that adequate standards for inclusion should include competency, professionalism and a generally good reputation in the Bitcoin community. There are many factors that go into the 'generally good reputation' such as businesses run, code contributed and ideas suggested, etc. Although the Press Center can have spill over effects with regards to traffic, publicity, etc.

I do not think the general idea for the Press Center is to turn it into either an advertising forum or center for attention whores with personal agendas. The focus, which is almost universally agreed on, is that the Bitcoin brand needs to be protected and strengthened. And disagreement is on the strategy that should be adopted for accomplishing that.

When it comes to strategy, what is at issue in this discussion is whether bitcoin.org should be used as a persuasive resource to convey a particular veneer for the Bitcoin developers who maintain the site and project OR an objective resource to assist journalists in finding competent and professional sources? And I think there are good arguments for adopting either strategy.

When it comes to a political ideology test then for a persuasive resource it would be essential but for an objective resource it would be irrelevant.

Developers develop and marketers/PR people do marketing and public relations. We would not expect the marketers/PR people to code as they would do a lousy job even if well intentioned.

When it comes to marketing and public relations it could be viewed by some that the developers have either lacked a marketing strategy or have adopted the wrong one and the result has been a dropping of the ball over the past four years resulting in tremendous damage to the Bitcoin brand by allowing the media to completely co-opt the story, permitting consistent reporting of inaccuracies, not providing easy access to a wide range of competent and professional interviewees for whatever vignette is desired by journalists for the particular story or segment being produced and a general failing to take proactive control of the Bitcoin brand both with the press and with potential users. And whining and crying that it is the big bad media and we are merely victims is simply shifting the blame from where it squarely belongs.

For example, Bitpay is an excellent example of a Bitcoin company that has carved out through proactive effort a very positive relationship with the press and balanced the need for marketing/PR with technical competence.

Why have the developers in general failed to forge a similar path and instead allowed such tremendous damage to the Bitcoin brand? It gets back to the fundamental marketing/PR strategy and then having people willing to implement it.

[jgarzik]

Hopefully Bitcoin Foundation can hire some professional PR, with press training that knows bitcoin well, and leave engineers to their engineering.

Until such time, you get my opinion: Do not project an ideology onto an engineering invention [that has all these wonderful, disruptive, decentralized properties]. Anti-law or anarchist posture is simply not a mainstream position. Bitcoin is bigger than early adopter crypto-anarchists. Bitcoin belongs to the whole world.

[jgarzik]

Hopefully Bitcoin Foundation can hire some professional PR, with press training that knows bitcoin well, and leave engineers to their engineering.

Until such time, you get my opinion: Do not project an ideology onto an engineering invention [that has all these wonderful, disruptive, decentralized properties]. Anti-law or anarchist posture is simply not a mainstream position. Bitcoin is bigger than early adopter crypto-anarchists. Bitcoin belongs to the whole world.

[mikegogulski]

@MillyBitcoin: @gmaxell is quite correct here, in his first sentence at #152 (comment). That you don't know about or can't be bothered to use github, IRC or whatever is quite irrelevant to the process at hand.

[mikegogulski]

@MillyBitcoin: @gmaxell is quite correct here, in his first sentence at #152 (comment). That you don't know about or can't be bothered to use github, IRC or whatever is quite irrelevant to the process at hand.

[pelle]

@MillyBitcoin While I don't believe bitcoin.org should have a press list, that is my opinion and others in particular the core developers may not be in agreement. Thats fine. Bitcoin.org is the website of the Bitcoin engineering project at large and as such the core developers in particular and not of the bitcoin community at large.

The Bitcoin foundation is trying to representative the community more generally. The engineering team needs to be more focused on the protocol, features and engineering challenges, which is also why I disagree with there being a press list. If there should be a press list for bitcoin.org I think it should be PR minded engineers who are available to explain the technology available. A large general purpose press list as @mikegogulski suggests would probably be better on the Bitcoin Foundation.

In the banking world people often talk about Chinese walls separating divisions within the same company. I realize that is also why the list is trying to avoid people who talk politics. But in that case having a more limited engineering specific list such as @jgarzik and @mikehearn may be clearer.

Non technical press representatives such as Trace, Tony, Arwa and Jon would be better suited for the Bitcoin Foundation since their focus is less on technical/infrastructure aspects and more on the societal effects.

[pelle]

@MillyBitcoin While I don't believe bitcoin.org should have a press list, that is my opinion and others in particular the core developers may not be in agreement. Thats fine. Bitcoin.org is the website of the Bitcoin engineering project at large and as such the core developers in particular and not of the bitcoin community at large.

The Bitcoin foundation is trying to representative the community more generally. The engineering team needs to be more focused on the protocol, features and engineering challenges, which is also why I disagree with there being a press list. If there should be a press list for bitcoin.org I think it should be PR minded engineers who are available to explain the technology available. A large general purpose press list as @mikegogulski suggests would probably be better on the Bitcoin Foundation.

In the banking world people often talk about Chinese walls separating divisions within the same company. I realize that is also why the list is trying to avoid people who talk politics. But in that case having a more limited engineering specific list such as @jgarzik and @mikehearn may be clearer.

Non technical press representatives such as Trace, Tony, Arwa and Jon would be better suited for the Bitcoin Foundation since their focus is less on technical/infrastructure aspects and more on the societal effects.

[mikehearn]

I think Saivann already made his views clear on this and ultimately he's the website maintainer. This pull request should just be closed. At some point in any debate the end must be reached and people need to move on - I think that point is now.

[mikehearn]

I think Saivann already made his views clear on this and ultimately he's the website maintainer. This pull request should just be closed. At some point in any debate the end must be reached and people need to move on - I think that point is now.

[mikegogulski]

@mikehearn This debate is all of eight days old, has really only just begun, and cuts to the heart of questions like "What does 'the Bitcoin community' actually mean?" Stifling discussion is exactly the wrong way to go.

[mikegogulski]

@mikehearn This debate is all of eight days old, has really only just begun, and cuts to the heart of questions like "What does 'the Bitcoin community' actually mean?" Stifling discussion is exactly the wrong way to go.

[mikehearn]

There's been way more than 5 or 6 comments on the this pull request, on the original pull request, on the forums and elsewhere so discussion has hardly been stifled.

There is a process - the process is that someone has to make the final call on issues like this and that call has been made. That doesn't mean "don't discuss it". It just means that you can't have every decision be debated endlessly or nothing ever happens. Hence why projects have maintainers.

Finally, I don't think this discussion has any relation to "what does 'the bitcoin community' actually mean" because I think it's blown out of all proportion, but if I did, I'd observe that the word community is derived from a Latin word meaning to come together and giving gifts. Somebody asked why does Saivann have the final say. The reason is that he turned up and has done a ton of volunteered high quality work - he came to our community and presented the gift of a brand new website that was much better than the previous one. Perhaps if MillyBitcoin had been the one to do all that work, he/she would now be in that position instead, but it didn't work out like that.

This whole thing really isn't a big deal. I think the upset is coming from the fact that some people are only just realising that not everyone sees Bitcoin as a means to a political end - some people really do just want a better form of money for its own sake. I saw some comments like "Bitcoin was born of civil disobedience". But Satoshi was not particularly extreme in his views, and in fact the introduction to his white paper talks about the problems people have paying for things online, it didn't lay out an anarchist manifesto. If you personally want Bitcoin to succeed as a way to undermine the state or whatever, that's A-OK, just don't get upset when it turns out that some of the people who are also taking part don't share your views.

[mikehearn]

There's been way more than 5 or 6 comments on the this pull request, on the original pull request, on the forums and elsewhere so discussion has hardly been stifled.

There is a process - the process is that someone has to make the final call on issues like this and that call has been made. That doesn't mean "don't discuss it". It just means that you can't have every decision be debated endlessly or nothing ever happens. Hence why projects have maintainers.

Finally, I don't think this discussion has any relation to "what does 'the bitcoin community' actually mean" because I think it's blown out of all proportion, but if I did, I'd observe that the word community is derived from a Latin word meaning to come together and giving gifts. Somebody asked why does Saivann have the final say. The reason is that he turned up and has done a ton of volunteered high quality work - he came to our community and presented the gift of a brand new website that was much better than the previous one. Perhaps if MillyBitcoin had been the one to do all that work, he/she would now be in that position instead, but it didn't work out like that.

This whole thing really isn't a big deal. I think the upset is coming from the fact that some people are only just realising that not everyone sees Bitcoin as a means to a political end - some people really do just want a better form of money for its own sake. I saw some comments like "Bitcoin was born of civil disobedience". But Satoshi was not particularly extreme in his views, and in fact the introduction to his white paper talks about the problems people have paying for things online, it didn't lay out an anarchist manifesto. If you personally want Bitcoin to succeed as a way to undermine the state or whatever, that's A-OK, just don't get upset when it turns out that some of the people who are also taking part don't share your views.

[paulogeyer]

I guess we should change "representatives" to "influential people", this makes me remember about a discussion about Luke-Jr inserting catholic prayers in the block headers. If we are going to remove someone because political views, we shouldn't have this list at all

I am an atheist, but I really appreciate Luke-Jr's work, and I am happy to have him as part of the community. Let's talk about bitcoin, not politics.

The controversy about prayers in the generated blocks is here, if anyone is interested, https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=38007.0

[paulogeyer]

I guess we should change "representatives" to "influential people", this makes me remember about a discussion about Luke-Jr inserting catholic prayers in the block headers. If we are going to remove someone because political views, we shouldn't have this list at all

I am an atheist, but I really appreciate Luke-Jr's work, and I am happy to have him as part of the community. Let's talk about bitcoin, not politics.

The controversy about prayers in the generated blocks is here, if anyone is interested, https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=38007.0

[mikehearn]

OK, having thought a bit more I want to be constructive. The core issue here is that bitcoin.org is trying to be neutral and basically avoid upsetting anyone. There are many people doing valuable things for Bitcoin who believe this to be important.

At the same time, there are plenty of other people who see Bitcoin as a tool to bring about libertarianism and various other political systems, and right now we're not really getting along because everyone is trying to squash into the same website and it's turning into a tug of war.

We see these tugs of war over things like forum moderation too. Actually this whole debate is rather reminiscent of when the original Silk Road thread was evicted from bitcointalk (that's what led to it no longer being forum.bitcoin.org).

I think a good resolution for this would be to have a new website/named movement for people who explicitly want to bring about political objectives via the mechanism of new monetary technology. When people disagree on an open source codebase sometimes a fork results, this ability is healthy for everyone. We can't really fork bitcoin.org in the same way, but a separate no-holds-barred website would have all sorts of advantages like people being able to have pages that aren't directly about Bitcoin, but have tangential mentions of it, and if you had an explicit movement (strawman name, "The Free Money Project" or something) then that viewpoint could legitimately get its own publicity and promotion. It'd be seen as something that is built on Bitcoin rather than being a fundamental part of it.

I realise that some people will prefer to just debate or argue rather than actually build a website, but I hope someone steps up to build such a site. I'd certainly want to read it!

[mikehearn]

OK, having thought a bit more I want to be constructive. The core issue here is that bitcoin.org is trying to be neutral and basically avoid upsetting anyone. There are many people doing valuable things for Bitcoin who believe this to be important.

At the same time, there are plenty of other people who see Bitcoin as a tool to bring about libertarianism and various other political systems, and right now we're not really getting along because everyone is trying to squash into the same website and it's turning into a tug of war.

We see these tugs of war over things like forum moderation too. Actually this whole debate is rather reminiscent of when the original Silk Road thread was evicted from bitcointalk (that's what led to it no longer being forum.bitcoin.org).

I think a good resolution for this would be to have a new website/named movement for people who explicitly want to bring about political objectives via the mechanism of new monetary technology. When people disagree on an open source codebase sometimes a fork results, this ability is healthy for everyone. We can't really fork bitcoin.org in the same way, but a separate no-holds-barred website would have all sorts of advantages like people being able to have pages that aren't directly about Bitcoin, but have tangential mentions of it, and if you had an explicit movement (strawman name, "The Free Money Project" or something) then that viewpoint could legitimately get its own publicity and promotion. It'd be seen as something that is built on Bitcoin rather than being a fundamental part of it.

I realise that some people will prefer to just debate or argue rather than actually build a website, but I hope someone steps up to build such a site. I'd certainly want to read it!

[pelle]

@mikehearn I agree completely. Which is why I just want to either remove the cause of debate completely or just limit it to direct technical representatives of the team, who can separate explaining technology from politics. As long as there is a list there is going to be debate.

[pelle]

@mikehearn I agree completely. Which is why I just want to either remove the cause of debate completely or just limit it to direct technical representatives of the team, who can separate explaining technology from politics. As long as there is a list there is going to be debate.

[mikehearn]

The current list of people was picked on the hope that everyone there can just talk technology (or finance or economics or whatever) and leave their political viewpoints to one side. Also I'd hoped Gavin would be there but he's too busy right now.

Right now the list is way too small, but there are open issues to fix that by getting more people up there who have a track record of talking to the press and being apolitical whilst doing so. So I think that will help calm people down.

[mikehearn]

The current list of people was picked on the hope that everyone there can just talk technology (or finance or economics or whatever) and leave their political viewpoints to one side. Also I'd hoped Gavin would be there but he's too busy right now.

Right now the list is way too small, but there are open issues to fix that by getting more people up there who have a track record of talking to the press and being apolitical whilst doing so. So I think that will help calm people down.

[mikegogulski]

Separating politics from discussion of Bitcoin in the media is a fool's errand. Journalists have asked and will ask for political statements, even from "just tech" people. Likewise, finance and economics are inseparable from politics -- UNTIL BITCOIN!

[mikegogulski]

Separating politics from discussion of Bitcoin in the media is a fool's errand. Journalists have asked and will ask for political statements, even from "just tech" people. Likewise, finance and economics are inseparable from politics -- UNTIL BITCOIN!

[joecoin]

Since this discussion is going on here as well as on the forum pls forgive me to crosspost my forumspost on this subject:

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

[joecoin]

Since this discussion is going on here as well as on the forum pls forgive me to crosspost my forumspost on this subject:

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

[mikehearn]

You know, I'd be OK with removing all the people from that page, but it won't solve the issues you're all getting upset about.

These arguments fundamentally aren't about a web page. They've been going on forever. They're about the fact that some people want Bitcoin to become indelibly associated with their personal politics - and other people don't. Look at Mike Golgulski - he is completely convinced that you can't talk about Bitcoin without talking about politics (which for him means his personal brand of pseudo-anarchism). That is wrong, it's quite possible to do it. But he will never accept that and I don't expect him to.

Removing stuff from the website won't make these arguments go away. It might look like it did, temporarily, but they'd just resurface in another form on another day.

Joe, I agree people are trying to promote their own viewpoints and ideologies ... but it's not the people who are writing the current page. The whole website is designed to NOT promote a particular ideology. The people who are getting upset are upset exactly because it remains neutral and they feel the Bitcoin project shouldn't be politically neutral, it should either (a) reflect their own beliefs or (b) be a platform for every man and his dog to advocate for his own politics, neither of which really works on a website with limited space that represents the work of lot of different people. Should Luke-Jr get a press center devoted to advocacy of Tonal numbering? I doubt even he'd agree with that!

People who have strong political views need to understand that not everyone agrees with them, and the best way to ensure everyone can get along and build out the Bitcoin ecosystem together is to put these things to one side. Hence my suggestion of a separate place for specific advocacy and organisation of governmental regime-change via the mechanism of money instead of trying to make bitcoin.org that place.

[mikehearn]

You know, I'd be OK with removing all the people from that page, but it won't solve the issues you're all getting upset about.

These arguments fundamentally aren't about a web page. They've been going on forever. They're about the fact that some people want Bitcoin to become indelibly associated with their personal politics - and other people don't. Look at Mike Golgulski - he is completely convinced that you can't talk about Bitcoin without talking about politics (which for him means his personal brand of pseudo-anarchism). That is wrong, it's quite possible to do it. But he will never accept that and I don't expect him to.

Removing stuff from the website won't make these arguments go away. It might look like it did, temporarily, but they'd just resurface in another form on another day.

Joe, I agree people are trying to promote their own viewpoints and ideologies ... but it's not the people who are writing the current page. The whole website is designed to NOT promote a particular ideology. The people who are getting upset are upset exactly because it remains neutral and they feel the Bitcoin project shouldn't be politically neutral, it should either (a) reflect their own beliefs or (b) be a platform for every man and his dog to advocate for his own politics, neither of which really works on a website with limited space that represents the work of lot of different people. Should Luke-Jr get a press center devoted to advocacy of Tonal numbering? I doubt even he'd agree with that!

People who have strong political views need to understand that not everyone agrees with them, and the best way to ensure everyone can get along and build out the Bitcoin ecosystem together is to put these things to one side. Hence my suggestion of a separate place for specific advocacy and organisation of governmental regime-change via the mechanism of money instead of trying to make bitcoin.org that place.

[jgarzik]

Good! That is the healthy, free market way of solving the problem. Compete. Do it better. Fork the press center, and run BitcoinPressCenter.org. Scratch your own itch.

Requests for "the mostly unpaid volunteer dev team should do [this thing compatible with my ideology]" are simply not the right venue. The Bitcoin Free Press? Many opportunities here. ROUTE AROUND THE PROBLEM, in the free market way.

As @mikehearn noted, bitcoin.org should be more about technology, hence the bitcoin.org/bitcointalk.org split.

I would not mind links from bitcoin.org's press page to other, ideology-filled press pages.

[jgarzik]

Good! That is the healthy, free market way of solving the problem. Compete. Do it better. Fork the press center, and run BitcoinPressCenter.org. Scratch your own itch.

Requests for "the mostly unpaid volunteer dev team should do [this thing compatible with my ideology]" are simply not the right venue. The Bitcoin Free Press? Many opportunities here. ROUTE AROUND THE PROBLEM, in the free market way.

As @mikehearn noted, bitcoin.org should be more about technology, hence the bitcoin.org/bitcointalk.org split.

I would not mind links from bitcoin.org's press page to other, ideology-filled press pages.

[mikegogulski]

@mikehearn I don't know if you're in a hurry, being deliberately disingenuous with your comments, or what. In any case, you're not a mind reader, so do us the favor of not pretending to know others' motivations. By the way, there's nothing "pseudo" about my anarchism, and I believe that every human interaction contains within it a "political" (meaning addressing questions of how society ought to be organized) dimension, no matter how small, and no matter whether one is willing to acknowledge it or not.

I'm in this discussion because two prominent, respected and very well-informed members of the Bitcoin community who have already done substantial work with the media have been (at least provisionally) excluded based on their political views (Matonis) and their past persecution by the state (Ver, ultimately based on his political views as well).

No, the press center should not be a platform for people to push their politics. I agree completely. What I object to is seeing a small clique acting as thought police over what is, effectively, the key internet resource for introducing media to Bitcoin.

[mikegogulski]

@mikehearn I don't know if you're in a hurry, being deliberately disingenuous with your comments, or what. In any case, you're not a mind reader, so do us the favor of not pretending to know others' motivations. By the way, there's nothing "pseudo" about my anarchism, and I believe that every human interaction contains within it a "political" (meaning addressing questions of how society ought to be organized) dimension, no matter how small, and no matter whether one is willing to acknowledge it or not.

I'm in this discussion because two prominent, respected and very well-informed members of the Bitcoin community who have already done substantial work with the media have been (at least provisionally) excluded based on their political views (Matonis) and their past persecution by the state (Ver, ultimately based on his political views as well).

No, the press center should not be a platform for people to push their politics. I agree completely. What I object to is seeing a small clique acting as thought police over what is, effectively, the key internet resource for introducing media to Bitcoin.

[mikehearn]

Heh, well I apologise for doubting your commitment to anarchism :)

As has been pointed out many times already, the issue is not to build a list of people with particular political viewpoints. It's to have a list of people who will talk about Bitcoin neutrally. Let me ask you this Mike - do you think you should be up there? If somebody who wanted to write an article about Bitcoin said, "Mr Gogulski, what do you think the future holds for Bitcoin?" would you give an answer like, "Well there are many debates on that, but I think it's safe to say Bitcoin's future is bright" or would you say "I think Bitcoin will inevitably lead to overthrow of the state"?

I think it's pretty clear based on the discussion on this thread it'd be the latter more often than not. And that's just not a viewpoint shared by everyone, which is why neutrality is so important! The list of people compiled there just represents the same philosophy shared by the rest of the website - staying apolitical. Not "mainstream", just apolitical.

Let's just solve this by adding a bunch more people to the list, so we have lots of excellent spokespeople who won't make anyone else feel uncomfortable when they're quoted. And if people still feel bitcoin.org should be political in nature, then we can go back to talking about a possible new project website.

@MillyBitcoin I think your attitude is the right one, though "bitcoins.org" is rather similar to "bitcoin.org" - if the goal is to have a website devoted to the impact of cryptocurrency on the state, I bet you can come up with a better name.

[mikehearn]

Heh, well I apologise for doubting your commitment to anarchism :)

As has been pointed out many times already, the issue is not to build a list of people with particular political viewpoints. It's to have a list of people who will talk about Bitcoin neutrally. Let me ask you this Mike - do you think you should be up there? If somebody who wanted to write an article about Bitcoin said, "Mr Gogulski, what do you think the future holds for Bitcoin?" would you give an answer like, "Well there are many debates on that, but I think it's safe to say Bitcoin's future is bright" or would you say "I think Bitcoin will inevitably lead to overthrow of the state"?

I think it's pretty clear based on the discussion on this thread it'd be the latter more often than not. And that's just not a viewpoint shared by everyone, which is why neutrality is so important! The list of people compiled there just represents the same philosophy shared by the rest of the website - staying apolitical. Not "mainstream", just apolitical.

Let's just solve this by adding a bunch more people to the list, so we have lots of excellent spokespeople who won't make anyone else feel uncomfortable when they're quoted. And if people still feel bitcoin.org should be political in nature, then we can go back to talking about a possible new project website.

@MillyBitcoin I think your attitude is the right one, though "bitcoins.org" is rather similar to "bitcoin.org" - if the goal is to have a website devoted to the impact of cryptocurrency on the state, I bet you can come up with a better name.

[luke-jr]

@MillyBitcoin The link is dead for me. If you're writing for people who "don't care at all about the political implications", I think the press/media is not your target audience - so perhaps a link to your site would belong under some other category. That being said, millybitcoin.com as it is today does have some errors (off-topic here, feel free to ping me elsewhere for more details) that would make me uneasy about using it as a reference for people who want to learn about Bitcoin.

[luke-jr]

@MillyBitcoin The link is dead for me. If you're writing for people who "don't care at all about the political implications", I think the press/media is not your target audience - so perhaps a link to your site would belong under some other category. That being said, millybitcoin.com as it is today does have some errors (off-topic here, feel free to ping me elsewhere for more details) that would make me uneasy about using it as a reference for people who want to learn about Bitcoin.

[mikehearn]

Sure, OK. That seems like a positive outcome. Sorry about getting the address wrong.

Luke, the link works for me.

Actually I just watched a video from RT and @mikegogulski appears in it, and it was great! I don't know what else might have been said in that interview, but the quote from Mike was straightforward and about the technology, so maybe my point was a bad one :)

[mikehearn]

Sure, OK. That seems like a positive outcome. Sorry about getting the address wrong.

Luke, the link works for me.

Actually I just watched a video from RT and @mikegogulski appears in it, and it was great! I don't know what else might have been said in that interview, but the quote from Mike was straightforward and about the technology, so maybe my point was a bad one :)

[joecoin]

@mikehearn: not possible, as there's people like me who are not comfortable with people who do not make at least someone else feel uncomfortable ;).

[joecoin]

@mikehearn: not possible, as there's people like me who are not comfortable with people who do not make at least someone else feel uncomfortable ;).

[luke-jr]

Works now.. I was expecting a more complete site though :)

[luke-jr]

Works now.. I was expecting a more complete site though :)

[mikegogulski]

"If a few people acting outside of all boundaries of professional behavior uncontrollably yelling, lobbing threats, etc. makes something unworkable then no effort of man can ever be workable because a byzantine attacker could always raise a fuss. Try again." -- @gmaxwell

Here's me being unprofessional: Damn your "professional" presumption! You're being a complete weenie by failing to address the massive substantive issue at #152 (comment) , seeming instead to prefer blathering over whether or not this person or that is being polite to you. Ignore that shit, please, and look at the substance.

(N.B.: I am not now, nor have I ever been, associated with Byzantium.)

[mikegogulski]

"If a few people acting outside of all boundaries of professional behavior uncontrollably yelling, lobbing threats, etc. makes something unworkable then no effort of man can ever be workable because a byzantine attacker could always raise a fuss. Try again." -- @gmaxwell

Here's me being unprofessional: Damn your "professional" presumption! You're being a complete weenie by failing to address the massive substantive issue at #152 (comment) , seeming instead to prefer blathering over whether or not this person or that is being polite to you. Ignore that shit, please, and look at the substance.

(N.B.: I am not now, nor have I ever been, associated with Byzantium.)

[mikegogulski]

@aantonop Whoa there, dawg. I'm not a mind reader, and neither are you.

[mikegogulski]

@aantonop Whoa there, dawg. I'm not a mind reader, and neither are you.

[gmaxwell]

@mikegogulski And while whining about all the discomfort that opposing views cause him, he is comfortably sitting on top of the commit-access permission, preferring to ignore who actually has the power. When those who have the power complain about being victims of those they disagree with, despite the ability to control the situation, you should wonder about their sanity or motivation.

@aantonop Good point.

[gmaxwell]

@mikegogulski And while whining about all the discomfort that opposing views cause him, he is comfortably sitting on top of the commit-access permission, preferring to ignore who actually has the power. When those who have the power complain about being victims of those they disagree with, despite the ability to control the situation, you should wonder about their sanity or motivation.

@aantonop Good point.

[pera]

Bitcoin Foundation standardizes, protects and promotes the use of Bitcoin cryptographic money for the benefit of users worldwide.

Again, why can't all this just be included in bitcoinfoundation.org instead of bitcoin.org?
keep bitcoin.org as simple as possible: the paper, satoshi's client, and some links (wallets, bitcoin.it, bitcoinfoundation.org, bitcointalk.org, etc.)

[pera]

Bitcoin Foundation standardizes, protects and promotes the use of Bitcoin cryptographic money for the benefit of users worldwide.

Again, why can't all this just be included in bitcoinfoundation.org instead of bitcoin.org?
keep bitcoin.org as simple as possible: the paper, satoshi's client, and some links (wallets, bitcoin.it, bitcoinfoundation.org, bitcointalk.org, etc.)

[mikegogulski]

@pera In some quarters, inclusion of the Bitcoin Foundation itself is controversial, but that doesn't detract from the wisdom of your suggestion.

[mikegogulski]

@pera In some quarters, inclusion of the Bitcoin Foundation itself is controversial, but that doesn't detract from the wisdom of your suggestion.

[joecoin]

@pera
From the very beginning of this project (press center on bitcoin.org) on it was clearly stated that this is a community-driven project on bitcoin.org and that it has got nothing to do with the 'bitcoin foundation' and that the 'bitcoin-foundation' has got no say in it.

And that's how we're gonna keep it.

Joe

---

Von: pera [notifications@github.com]
Gesendet: Mittwoch, 1. Mai 2013 05:47
An: bitcoin/bitcoin.org
Cc: Joerg Platzer
Betreff: Re: [bitcoin.org] Remove press representatives (#152)

Bitcoin Foundation standardizes, protects and promotes the use of Bitcoin cryptographic money for the benefit of users worldwide.

Again, why can't all this just be included in bitcoinfoundation.org instead of bitcoin.org?
keep bitcoin.org as simple as possible: the paper, satoshi's client, and some links (wallets, bitcoin.it, bitcoinfoundation.org, bitcointalk.org, etc.)

—
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHubhttps://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin.org/pull/152#issuecomment-17267517.

[joecoin]

@pera
From the very beginning of this project (press center on bitcoin.org) on it was clearly stated that this is a community-driven project on bitcoin.org and that it has got nothing to do with the 'bitcoin foundation' and that the 'bitcoin-foundation' has got no say in it.

And that's how we're gonna keep it.

Joe

---

Von: pera [notifications@github.com]
Gesendet: Mittwoch, 1. Mai 2013 05:47
An: bitcoin/bitcoin.org
Cc: Joerg Platzer
Betreff: Re: [bitcoin.org] Remove press representatives (#152)

Bitcoin Foundation standardizes, protects and promotes the use of Bitcoin cryptographic money for the benefit of users worldwide.

Again, why can't all this just be included in bitcoinfoundation.org instead of bitcoin.org?
keep bitcoin.org as simple as possible: the paper, satoshi's client, and some links (wallets, bitcoin.it, bitcoinfoundation.org, bitcointalk.org, etc.)

—
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHubhttps://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin.org/pull/152#issuecomment-17267517.

[joecoin]

I find the list of @mikegogulski a valuable start and worth considering as (and grounds to discuss) a mechanism to define who goes on that list and who does not.

The list as it is now with only a few people being put to the front should dissappear and be turned into a directory of people willing to be contacted to speak about Bitcoin.

That should be searchable by criteria as "country, language, developer, miner, business user, private user / consumer, whatever ...". (And the press is desperately seeking for a variety of people, so why not offer it to them?)

Only then it will do what it actually aims to do and offer journalists a range of people to contact and only then it will solve this dispute.

Untill then it will be an obvious lie (press people may be stupid but not that stupid) and an ongoing reason for the community to argue about it.

Joe

[joecoin]

I find the list of @mikegogulski a valuable start and worth considering as (and grounds to discuss) a mechanism to define who goes on that list and who does not.

The list as it is now with only a few people being put to the front should dissappear and be turned into a directory of people willing to be contacted to speak about Bitcoin.

That should be searchable by criteria as "country, language, developer, miner, business user, private user / consumer, whatever ...". (And the press is desperately seeking for a variety of people, so why not offer it to them?)

Only then it will do what it actually aims to do and offer journalists a range of people to contact and only then it will solve this dispute.

Untill then it will be an obvious lie (press people may be stupid but not that stupid) and an ongoing reason for the community to argue about it.

Joe

[saivann]

@joecoin That is actually pretty near what I started suggesting. As long a this goes on a dedicated website outside of bitcoin.org, I think we have a good potential to have a solution for everyone. This dedicated website, being not perceived as an authoritative resource, could then easily contain a more diverse range of interviewees without being controversial and with less problems if one of the interviewees starts to say crazy things in the media. If this website is well done, well organized and uses decent guidelines, it might be possible to promote this resource with bitcoin.org and to only show a few "formal" and "technical" interviewees on bitcoin.org (Ex. developers, Patrick Murck for legal stuff, etc.). The fact that this resource would be independant from bitcoin.org and the foundation would be a good thing. Just like bitcoin.org is independant from the foundation. Which prevents individuals, like me, to have a wide control on everything. And I think it's one of the reasons why there will always be criticisms as long as we handle this task on bitcoin.org.

But then again, someone needs to do the work.

[saivann]

@joecoin That is actually pretty near what I started suggesting. As long a this goes on a dedicated website outside of bitcoin.org, I think we have a good potential to have a solution for everyone. This dedicated website, being not perceived as an authoritative resource, could then easily contain a more diverse range of interviewees without being controversial and with less problems if one of the interviewees starts to say crazy things in the media. If this website is well done, well organized and uses decent guidelines, it might be possible to promote this resource with bitcoin.org and to only show a few "formal" and "technical" interviewees on bitcoin.org (Ex. developers, Patrick Murck for legal stuff, etc.). The fact that this resource would be independant from bitcoin.org and the foundation would be a good thing. Just like bitcoin.org is independant from the foundation. Which prevents individuals, like me, to have a wide control on everything. And I think it's one of the reasons why there will always be criticisms as long as we handle this task on bitcoin.org.

But then again, someone needs to do the work.

[aantonop]

@saivann I volunteer to build a completely independent dedicated website, which can display a list of press contacts with filtering by various criteria, languages etc.

I will have no involvement on the selection, nomination or process.

I don't know if something like bitcoinpresscenter.org is free, but if not, I can buy and donate it to the community (again, to be managed by others).

Bottom line: I offer to do the work and put up money for an independent press center and others can fill it with candidates and manage it.

[aantonop]

@saivann I volunteer to build a completely independent dedicated website, which can display a list of press contacts with filtering by various criteria, languages etc.

I will have no involvement on the selection, nomination or process.

I don't know if something like bitcoinpresscenter.org is free, but if not, I can buy and donate it to the community (again, to be managed by others).

Bottom line: I offer to do the work and put up money for an independent press center and others can fill it with candidates and manage it.

[saivann]

@aantonop : "I will have no involvement on the selection, nomination or process." Why not? :-) Anyhow, it's great to have volunteers to improve things. I surely can't say if the result will please everyone and help having a better consensus, but I really think there is a good potential for this. And in the worst scenario, this can still be a serious valuable resource. Yes bitcoinpresscenter.org is free (was free, you just registered it), I choosed not to register it to let a chance for someone to involve and have control over one domain. I've just registered the .com . bitcoinpresscenter.** seems like the perfect domain name for this.

If it can be of any help, I wrote some simple review guidelines that seemed to fit everyone's opinion when the bitcointalk thread was very active. I can bring back this work in case anyone want to use a part of it.

[saivann]

@aantonop : "I will have no involvement on the selection, nomination or process." Why not? :-) Anyhow, it's great to have volunteers to improve things. I surely can't say if the result will please everyone and help having a better consensus, but I really think there is a good potential for this. And in the worst scenario, this can still be a serious valuable resource. Yes bitcoinpresscenter.org is free (was free, you just registered it), I choosed not to register it to let a chance for someone to involve and have control over one domain. I've just registered the .com . bitcoinpresscenter.** seems like the perfect domain name for this.

If it can be of any help, I wrote some simple review guidelines that seemed to fit everyone's opinion when the bitcointalk thread was very active. I can bring back this work in case anyone want to use a part of it.

[joecoin]

@aantonop Well then, go ahead and do so! It needs to be done and if you are willing to throw the work in and you start something that convinces others (and a press-center-fork is wanted and needed) and if you can keep it on a professional looking level I guess you will have more support than you expect right now (you will have mine for sure).

@saivann My thanks and my respect for you and your work here. I may not at all agree to some of your decisions but I do recognise the fact that you were willing and motivated to get this press center rolled out as a web master and that is what had to be done and that is what you did and I understand that you really have spent a lot of your volunteer time into trying to settle these disputes here, which you did not expect to have to do when you took on the task as a web master ;).

Guys, let's get our shit together as we are all here for the same reason, to bring the first existing and functioning crypto-currency a bit further, are we not?

Let's hard-fork the press center then. You don't have to 'volunteer', you just have to do it. In a way, with a domain, with clearly stated rules for who has something to say there, Just start the project. If it is delivering what is on demand here I am sure we can even get developers like @saivann and @mikehearn involved there.

Joe

[joecoin]

@aantonop Well then, go ahead and do so! It needs to be done and if you are willing to throw the work in and you start something that convinces others (and a press-center-fork is wanted and needed) and if you can keep it on a professional looking level I guess you will have more support than you expect right now (you will have mine for sure).

@saivann My thanks and my respect for you and your work here. I may not at all agree to some of your decisions but I do recognise the fact that you were willing and motivated to get this press center rolled out as a web master and that is what had to be done and that is what you did and I understand that you really have spent a lot of your volunteer time into trying to settle these disputes here, which you did not expect to have to do when you took on the task as a web master ;).

Guys, let's get our shit together as we are all here for the same reason, to bring the first existing and functioning crypto-currency a bit further, are we not?

Let's hard-fork the press center then. You don't have to 'volunteer', you just have to do it. In a way, with a domain, with clearly stated rules for who has something to say there, Just start the project. If it is delivering what is on demand here I am sure we can even get developers like @saivann and @mikehearn involved there.

Joe

[aantonop]

@saivann Of course, people may or may not like it, but I have professional designers and skinners to call on so I can make sure it is both functional and styled professionally.

I pledge to have a site ready and public by Monday, for people to review. I will create a github org and project for the source and content. I will give you commit access to that repository as soon as it is ready.

If such a site were to be built and look and work as well (or better) than the existing press center, would you later consider closing the bitcoin.org press center and linking form bitcoin.org to this other domain? All the existing press contacts could obviously be re-nominated and included.

Then we can move this entire issue to an external site, make the process very public, open and transparent and people can nominate whoever they want. I can implement a nomination form for new press contacts and a simple voting mechanism, I'm open to suggestions.

Once implemented and populated, I could offer a pull request to include a link to the new site in bitcoin.org, as the only "endorsement".

I am willing to take the chance that this is a sincere effort to resolve this and will put the effort and money without any guarantee.

[aantonop]

@saivann Of course, people may or may not like it, but I have professional designers and skinners to call on so I can make sure it is both functional and styled professionally.

I pledge to have a site ready and public by Monday, for people to review. I will create a github org and project for the source and content. I will give you commit access to that repository as soon as it is ready.

If such a site were to be built and look and work as well (or better) than the existing press center, would you later consider closing the bitcoin.org press center and linking form bitcoin.org to this other domain? All the existing press contacts could obviously be re-nominated and included.

Then we can move this entire issue to an external site, make the process very public, open and transparent and people can nominate whoever they want. I can implement a nomination form for new press contacts and a simple voting mechanism, I'm open to suggestions.

Once implemented and populated, I could offer a pull request to include a link to the new site in bitcoin.org, as the only "endorsement".

I am willing to take the chance that this is a sincere effort to resolve this and will put the effort and money without any guarantee.

[aantonop]

@saivann, you have commit. Who else wants to help and have commit? All welcome.

https://github.com/bitcoinpresscenter/bitcoinpresscenter

bitcoinpresscenter.org is the domain.

[aantonop]

@saivann, you have commit. Who else wants to help and have commit? All welcome.

https://github.com/bitcoinpresscenter/bitcoinpresscenter

bitcoinpresscenter.org is the domain.

[joecoin]

@aantonop "If such a site were to be built and look and work as well (or better) than the existing press center, would you later consider closing the bitcoin.org press center and linking form bitcoin.org to this other domain?"

Why would you give a fuck? Why ask anyone for permission or linking to it or whatever? Why not just do it and make it better and convince everybody around?

Joe

[joecoin]

@aantonop "If such a site were to be built and look and work as well (or better) than the existing press center, would you later consider closing the bitcoin.org press center and linking form bitcoin.org to this other domain?"

Why would you give a fuck? Why ask anyone for permission or linking to it or whatever? Why not just do it and make it better and convince everybody around?

Joe

[saivann]

@joecoin Indeed, we can't always agree, but yes I think you are right, it's secondary. All that matters is what we do.

Actually, more nice involved people is good. I suppose that the selection and nomination process might remains a difficult task. But still much easier than it is right now. I think it only takes a few nice people, some good guidelines (but not hard rules IMO) for reviews and a good layout. The current one lacks many informations like country, languages, etc. And a short description of each interviewees would not be bad. Those are all things I was considering.

@aantonop I think the real deal won't be the design (though it's a real good thing to have a good design). But more how the project will be managed and the quality of the content. That's what might turn any community member or developer to agree or not. So before you actually do the website, perhaps you'd like to find people wiling to build this reviewing process and become the team behind your project. Some people from the Bitcoin wiki might have experience with this (or not). When Mike Hearn initiated the press center, he called for volunteer on bitcointalk.

I am not sure if it would make sense to completely close what has been done on current bitcoin.org. I think it's too early before we can say anything as that will depend on the result. And what should be delegated or not. For instance, it might be nice to keep the FAQ as a formal reference on bitcoin.org and delegate all stock materials (images, video, etc.). And as I said previously, I anticipate that what is going to be the best compromise if we go in that direction will be to turn bitcoin.org into a technical reference and drop most interviewees except a few formal/boring "technical" / "legal" people. I remember that this has been suggested a few times before. I imagined that a proeminent link to the new "Community Press Center" could be there. Or something similar. But that is just some thoughts in progress.

[saivann]

@joecoin Indeed, we can't always agree, but yes I think you are right, it's secondary. All that matters is what we do.

Actually, more nice involved people is good. I suppose that the selection and nomination process might remains a difficult task. But still much easier than it is right now. I think it only takes a few nice people, some good guidelines (but not hard rules IMO) for reviews and a good layout. The current one lacks many informations like country, languages, etc. And a short description of each interviewees would not be bad. Those are all things I was considering.

@aantonop I think the real deal won't be the design (though it's a real good thing to have a good design). But more how the project will be managed and the quality of the content. That's what might turn any community member or developer to agree or not. So before you actually do the website, perhaps you'd like to find people wiling to build this reviewing process and become the team behind your project. Some people from the Bitcoin wiki might have experience with this (or not). When Mike Hearn initiated the press center, he called for volunteer on bitcointalk.

I am not sure if it would make sense to completely close what has been done on current bitcoin.org. I think it's too early before we can say anything as that will depend on the result. And what should be delegated or not. For instance, it might be nice to keep the FAQ as a formal reference on bitcoin.org and delegate all stock materials (images, video, etc.). And as I said previously, I anticipate that what is going to be the best compromise if we go in that direction will be to turn bitcoin.org into a technical reference and drop most interviewees except a few formal/boring "technical" / "legal" people. I remember that this has been suggested a few times before. I imagined that a proeminent link to the new "Community Press Center" could be there. Or something similar. But that is just some thoughts in progress.

[aantonop]

@saivann That is excellent advice, thank you.

In terms of functionality I want to include a few critical pieces of information for press contacts that are missing, namely: full name and title as used in quotes (aka attribution) "said Satoshi Nakamoto, of XYZ organization in Wichita Kansas". First thing a reporter asks is how to do the attribution. Also, I'd like to add three sizes/resolutions of photos, a 1-line biographical statement (SoAndSo is a developer, carpenter and amateur astronomer), 1-paragraph short bio and a longer bio. Also things that press asks for immediately.

Beyond that in terms of process, I would like to make a public nomination and vote. Some way to crowd-source and bubble-up the right candidates based on popular support. I'm open to suggestions. A bitcointalk and reddit thread per candidate and a clear way to vote and count votes would work, or something more elaborate. I would like to see your review criteria for re-use and post them on the project wiki page that is already up. I will gather proposals for a fair and transparent selection mechanism on bitcointalk and reddit, and of course if anyone here has a suggestion, please share it.

[aantonop]

@saivann That is excellent advice, thank you.

In terms of functionality I want to include a few critical pieces of information for press contacts that are missing, namely: full name and title as used in quotes (aka attribution) "said Satoshi Nakamoto, of XYZ organization in Wichita Kansas". First thing a reporter asks is how to do the attribution. Also, I'd like to add three sizes/resolutions of photos, a 1-line biographical statement (SoAndSo is a developer, carpenter and amateur astronomer), 1-paragraph short bio and a longer bio. Also things that press asks for immediately.

Beyond that in terms of process, I would like to make a public nomination and vote. Some way to crowd-source and bubble-up the right candidates based on popular support. I'm open to suggestions. A bitcointalk and reddit thread per candidate and a clear way to vote and count votes would work, or something more elaborate. I would like to see your review criteria for re-use and post them on the project wiki page that is already up. I will gather proposals for a fair and transparent selection mechanism on bitcointalk and reddit, and of course if anyone here has a suggestion, please share it.

[joecoin]

@aantonop Looks good. I clicked it. But as a non-developer being stranded on this developer-plattform I don't even know what 'commit' means but I would love to contribute anyways. This should happen on another plattform though I believe. Nevermind.

Since this fork has a certain reason I believe that reason has to be addressed first and foremost. That reason is to create a press plattform with an inclusive list of people who may be contacted by journalists to say something reasonable about Bitcoin. And to make it so that the majority of the Bitcoin community feels represented, which probably is the hard part of this project ;). But then I guess this is only going to be one of more forks.

@mikegogulski has provided a suggestion for a mechanism to actually choose and evaluate those people earlier in this thread. Let's take that as a discussion basis for the inclusion process. Before opening a github-project or ordering a webdesigner I think this is the first and actually only important thing to lay out.

Once this is clearified and communicated to the community and a site with application- as well as suggestion-funcionalities has been built one can go into detail about webdesign and categories and stuff. I guess most of the surrounding content may be copied from bitcoin.org, One shall see.

Joe

[joecoin]

@aantonop Looks good. I clicked it. But as a non-developer being stranded on this developer-plattform I don't even know what 'commit' means but I would love to contribute anyways. This should happen on another plattform though I believe. Nevermind.

Since this fork has a certain reason I believe that reason has to be addressed first and foremost. That reason is to create a press plattform with an inclusive list of people who may be contacted by journalists to say something reasonable about Bitcoin. And to make it so that the majority of the Bitcoin community feels represented, which probably is the hard part of this project ;). But then I guess this is only going to be one of more forks.

@mikegogulski has provided a suggestion for a mechanism to actually choose and evaluate those people earlier in this thread. Let's take that as a discussion basis for the inclusion process. Before opening a github-project or ordering a webdesigner I think this is the first and actually only important thing to lay out.

Once this is clearified and communicated to the community and a site with application- as well as suggestion-funcionalities has been built one can go into detail about webdesign and categories and stuff. I guess most of the surrounding content may be copied from bitcoin.org, One shall see.

Joe

[pera]

@joecoin I never said there was some relation between bitcoin.org and the Bitcoin Foundation, not sure why are you saying that. I just suggested that if the press needs to interview someone they could go there (because that's one of the reasons of why they exist, right?). And actually there wasn't any statement on the press page, the message you say was on the home page.
But anyway I really don't think this is relevant: the press is evil and journalists lazy. I'm sure they don't even understand what means "community-driven", they only see the "The Official Bitcoin website" and a press page.

btw until yesterday the bitcoin for press page didn't have this notice: "Bitcoin has no official organization, individuals with authority, nor spokespeople. Read more". Maybe now it's a bit more clearly, but I'm still against this section.

[pera]

@joecoin I never said there was some relation between bitcoin.org and the Bitcoin Foundation, not sure why are you saying that. I just suggested that if the press needs to interview someone they could go there (because that's one of the reasons of why they exist, right?). And actually there wasn't any statement on the press page, the message you say was on the home page.
But anyway I really don't think this is relevant: the press is evil and journalists lazy. I'm sure they don't even understand what means "community-driven", they only see the "The Official Bitcoin website" and a press page.

btw until yesterday the bitcoin for press page didn't have this notice: "Bitcoin has no official organization, individuals with authority, nor spokespeople. Read more". Maybe now it's a bit more clearly, but I'm still against this section.

[saivann]

@pera : There is a small relation between bitcoin.org and the Foundation, because many developers are members of the foundation themselves. However, the gouvernance board taking decisions for the foundation (except Gavin) have no control on Bitcoin.org . So both projects remains independant of each other. And Gavin expressed many time before that he his working hard to delegate his authority.

The disclaimer was there. But our discussions made me realize it would be more visible once moved at the top, before the interviewees list :)

@aantonop : I've poked @mikehearn, after all this project was initiated by him and he has a good experience with open-source projects. Maybe he can propose good tips, resources and people. Personally, I am not saying that I know what is the best way to handle this, but I wonder if a large-scale vote is the right way to go, at least to choose interviewees if the press center is open to all with simple basic guidelines. I am making the supposition that there will be no problems as long as no respected member of the community is excluded.

Here is a few issues I see : Large-scale votes will slow down the development and need a lot of good organization to work. People won't necessarily vote based on more than their personal appreciation of the personality of each interviewees, which means we have no way to know if they take into account important things like verifying the accuracy or the legality of what they are saying. Thus, that can lead to bad results in some cases and make other interviewees uncomfortable. Voting could prevent new interviewees to have their chance and lock the press center to an elite. Especially for new interviewees that have not done a lot of interviews before, or if they are speaking a language that most people don't understand, and thus cannot vote for. Voting could potentialy allows some group of people to abuse the voting procedure for their own personal convictions.

[saivann]

@pera : There is a small relation between bitcoin.org and the Foundation, because many developers are members of the foundation themselves. However, the gouvernance board taking decisions for the foundation (except Gavin) have no control on Bitcoin.org . So both projects remains independant of each other. And Gavin expressed many time before that he his working hard to delegate his authority.

The disclaimer was there. But our discussions made me realize it would be more visible once moved at the top, before the interviewees list :)

@aantonop : I've poked @mikehearn, after all this project was initiated by him and he has a good experience with open-source projects. Maybe he can propose good tips, resources and people. Personally, I am not saying that I know what is the best way to handle this, but I wonder if a large-scale vote is the right way to go, at least to choose interviewees if the press center is open to all with simple basic guidelines. I am making the supposition that there will be no problems as long as no respected member of the community is excluded.

Here is a few issues I see : Large-scale votes will slow down the development and need a lot of good organization to work. People won't necessarily vote based on more than their personal appreciation of the personality of each interviewees, which means we have no way to know if they take into account important things like verifying the accuracy or the legality of what they are saying. Thus, that can lead to bad results in some cases and make other interviewees uncomfortable. Voting could prevent new interviewees to have their chance and lock the press center to an elite. Especially for new interviewees that have not done a lot of interviews before, or if they are speaking a language that most people don't understand, and thus cannot vote for. Voting could potentialy allows some group of people to abuse the voting procedure for their own personal convictions.

[saivann]

Also, I was thinking that the press center would be a nice way to keep all interviewees on track with PR and legal advices. We've had a good example of this, as Mike Hearn just sent to all current interviewees a text and explanations to allows everyone to understand and have good answers relative to the recent incident involving potential illegal data published in the blockchain.

[saivann]

Also, I was thinking that the press center would be a nice way to keep all interviewees on track with PR and legal advices. We've had a good example of this, as Mike Hearn just sent to all current interviewees a text and explanations to allows everyone to understand and have good answers relative to the recent incident involving potential illegal data published in the blockchain.

[aantonop]

@saivann I've been following the press mailing list and I think the "community of pundits" aspect is really great.

In a way, I think that peer consensus and coordination in the forum can compensate for some of the individual propensity to go off on a tangent. If they keep hearing that no one else is going that way, they may moderate without any external pressure or exclusion. One would hope. Peer pressure and the desire for social cohesion are much more powerful incentives that decrees and litmus tests.

[aantonop]

@saivann I've been following the press mailing list and I think the "community of pundits" aspect is really great.

In a way, I think that peer consensus and coordination in the forum can compensate for some of the individual propensity to go off on a tangent. If they keep hearing that no one else is going that way, they may moderate without any external pressure or exclusion. One would hope. Peer pressure and the desire for social cohesion are much more powerful incentives that decrees and litmus tests.

[luke-jr]

Earth's Bitcoin isn't viable past the moon.

[luke-jr]

Earth's Bitcoin isn't viable past the moon.

[aantonop]

As promised, I have built a completely independent site: http://bitcoinpresscenter.org

This site now has all the content engine done and has been tested by several people over the weekend. The site is currently "naked" without any CSS, other than a basic layout, so please look at the content/engine not the design for now. A graphic designer is applying a CSS skin and layout in the next two days.

In the mean time, the content works and the site offers the following features:

• A complete press contact card with three different length bios, multiple photos, unlimited links to media mentions
• Category filters (faceted navigation) to help the press find the right pundit for the job. The filters are dynamic based on the content
• A simple moderation system to allow proposed candidate information to be verified for accuracy and the person asked if they want to participate.
• Multilingual support for dozens of languages for the main interface and the press-contact records.
• On-site accounts for users or federated login via OpenID and OAuth (Google, Github, WordPress, Linkedin etc).

The system is now open to new press contacts. Anyone can register as a user (just email needed) and create a new press contact record, in any language (or several, in multiple languages)

The site fulfills the goal of offering a press center that is independent, has rich data, provides much more relevant information for the press, is able to scale to hundreds of global press contacts, while still making it easy to focus on the right person for a specific story. If a journalist wants a Finnish speaking, hardware expert with mining experience who can offer a TV interview, then they can find exactly that contact. Basically it fits the "Internet way" of information management - no filtering up-front, large scale, filter and sort on the output end.

For examples of the faceted data filters, look at the left sidebar:

Languages Spoken

• English
• Finnish
• German

Time Zones

• EET (Eastern European Time - UTC+2)
• MST (Mountain Standard Time - UTC-7)
• PST (Pacific Standard Time - UTC-8)

Country

• Canada
• Finland
• Germany
• United Kingdom
• United States of America

Offering

• Quotes
• Written Interview
• Spoken Interview
• Video Interview
• Live Interview
• Public Speaking

Expertise

• Business
• Cryptography
• Economics
• Hardware
• Law
• Media
• Software

BitcoinRole

• Developer
• Entrepreneur
• Investor
• Merchant
• Writer

I welcome feedback, help, new press contacts or anything else!

[aantonop]

As promised, I have built a completely independent site: http://bitcoinpresscenter.org

This site now has all the content engine done and has been tested by several people over the weekend. The site is currently "naked" without any CSS, other than a basic layout, so please look at the content/engine not the design for now. A graphic designer is applying a CSS skin and layout in the next two days.

In the mean time, the content works and the site offers the following features:

• A complete press contact card with three different length bios, multiple photos, unlimited links to media mentions
• Category filters (faceted navigation) to help the press find the right pundit for the job. The filters are dynamic based on the content
• A simple moderation system to allow proposed candidate information to be verified for accuracy and the person asked if they want to participate.
• Multilingual support for dozens of languages for the main interface and the press-contact records.
• On-site accounts for users or federated login via OpenID and OAuth (Google, Github, WordPress, Linkedin etc).

The system is now open to new press contacts. Anyone can register as a user (just email needed) and create a new press contact record, in any language (or several, in multiple languages)

The site fulfills the goal of offering a press center that is independent, has rich data, provides much more relevant information for the press, is able to scale to hundreds of global press contacts, while still making it easy to focus on the right person for a specific story. If a journalist wants a Finnish speaking, hardware expert with mining experience who can offer a TV interview, then they can find exactly that contact. Basically it fits the "Internet way" of information management - no filtering up-front, large scale, filter and sort on the output end.

For examples of the faceted data filters, look at the left sidebar:

Languages Spoken

• English
• Finnish
• German

Time Zones

• EET (Eastern European Time - UTC+2)
• MST (Mountain Standard Time - UTC-7)
• PST (Pacific Standard Time - UTC-8)

Country

• Canada
• Finland
• Germany
• United Kingdom
• United States of America

Offering

• Quotes
• Written Interview
• Spoken Interview
• Video Interview
• Live Interview
• Public Speaking

Expertise

• Business
• Cryptography
• Economics
• Hardware
• Law
• Media
• Software

BitcoinRole

• Developer
• Entrepreneur
• Investor
• Merchant
• Writer

I welcome feedback, help, new press contacts or anything else!

[aantonop]

Design is ready and approved, will be installed on the site in the next 24 hours: http://i.imgur.com/uEKxK9A.png

[aantonop]

Design is ready and approved, will be installed on the site in the next 24 hours: http://i.imgur.com/uEKxK9A.png

[ghost]

Just to update this. The issue was never resolved. Interested parties were directed to Github only to be ignored. A notice was placed on Bitcoin.org has a press section chosen by the "Bitcoin community." Of course no "community" chose anything and the web site was set up by a small group of dishonest people. Any pull request was immediately closed and no legitimate discussion was held.

[ghost]

Just to update this. The issue was never resolved. Interested parties were directed to Github only to be ignored. A notice was placed on Bitcoin.org has a press section chosen by the "Bitcoin community." Of course no "community" chose anything and the web site was set up by a small group of dishonest people. Any pull request was immediately closed and no legitimate discussion was held.

[pera]

@MillyBitcoin maybe a polls subforum on bitcointalk would be a good way to know the opinion of the "Bitcoin community"..

[pera]

@MillyBitcoin maybe a polls subforum on bitcointalk would be a good way to know the opinion of the "Bitcoin community"..

[midnightmagic]

You can pretend history is different than it is by mischaracterizing it in the hopes that people who read the most-recent missives will swallow your idea of what's happened, and happening, but the massive number of socially destructive people in bitcointalk do not suddenly form a collective, informed opinion just because the majority of them agree with you out of spite.

[midnightmagic]

You can pretend history is different than it is by mischaracterizing it in the hopes that people who read the most-recent missives will swallow your idea of what's happened, and happening, but the massive number of socially destructive people in bitcointalk do not suddenly form a collective, informed opinion just because the majority of them agree with you out of spite.

[midnightmagic]

Sure.

http://youtu.be/Q52kFL8zVoM

That's you. And you are draining resources in an irrational way, or if it is rational, the only ways I can think of it being so are chilling and goosebumpy.

[midnightmagic]

Sure.

http://youtu.be/Q52kFL8zVoM

That's you. And you are draining resources in an irrational way, or if it is rational, the only ways I can think of it being so are chilling and goosebumpy.

[midnightmagic]

'Tis not a meme, your constant pointless diatribing is poisonous. You are being poisonous and counterproductive, and your strange mischaracterization of the past, and endless, machinelike persistence is precisely why I think so. But feel free to get the last word in, here's your big chance.

[midnightmagic]

'Tis not a meme, your constant pointless diatribing is poisonous. You are being poisonous and counterproductive, and your strange mischaracterization of the past, and endless, machinelike persistence is precisely why I think so. But feel free to get the last word in, here's your big chance.

[mikegogulski]

@midnightmagic You attempt to play trumps with the "poisonous people" bit. But u r teh failz in this, because what we are doing here is NOT ranting and raving about any and every old random thing with relation to an open-source project. What IS going on is at the first meta-level above the project code itself, in how it presents itself to the world and who it nominates to speak for it, and very specific. It is also about the process of decision-making within the project's presentation to the world. Playing the "poison people" card here is approximately you saying "shut the fuck up @MillyBitcoin and obey your betters." It is casting your opponents in a legitimate argument as mere fuckabouts who ought to be ignored.

[mikegogulski]

@midnightmagic You attempt to play trumps with the "poisonous people" bit. But u r teh failz in this, because what we are doing here is NOT ranting and raving about any and every old random thing with relation to an open-source project. What IS going on is at the first meta-level above the project code itself, in how it presents itself to the world and who it nominates to speak for it, and very specific. It is also about the process of decision-making within the project's presentation to the world. Playing the "poison people" card here is approximately you saying "shut the fuck up @MillyBitcoin and obey your betters." It is casting your opponents in a legitimate argument as mere fuckabouts who ought to be ignored.

[mikegogulski]

@MillyBitcoin Perhaps they are that species of fool which believes that true privacy is possible while states exist?

[mikegogulski]

@MillyBitcoin Perhaps they are that species of fool which believes that true privacy is possible while states exist?

[mikegogulski]

$600k? WTF? What's the source for that detail?

[mikegogulski]

$600k? WTF? What's the source for that detail?

[saivann]

Please conduct your OT conspiration theory investigation off github. This is for bitcoin.org development here.

[saivann]

Please conduct your OT conspiration theory investigation off github. This is for bitcoin.org development here.

[jgarzik]

OK, stop the trolling. Any mature adult can see that bitcoin.org != bitcointalk.org, that the two are unrelated in terms of people and management.

Continued troll posting in closed pull reqs will result in a ban. Take the conspiracy theories elsewhere.

[jgarzik]

OK, stop the trolling. Any mature adult can see that bitcoin.org != bitcointalk.org, that the two are unrelated in terms of people and management.

Continued troll posting in closed pull reqs will result in a ban. Take the conspiracy theories elsewhere.

[ghost]

@jgarzik I have seen that the same person own both and I do not know that botcoin.org and bitcointalk are unrelated. I understand they are both owned by the same person so I don't think you are telling the truth. If you want to go around banning people because they raise issues I can't stop you. You are one of the people behind this this and you never explain anything except to claim things are not true. So why don't tell us what is true.

Further, you should not go around calling people "trolls" as no "mature adult" would use such a term. Further, a "mature adult" knows how to shave and make themselves presentable before they appear in public rather than look like some homeless person who looks like they live under an overpass. When you reach the "mature adult" stage you let me know.

As many have suggested, this issue should me moved off Github but that is not being done so the issue stays here and it should not have been closed since it is not yet resolved.

[ghost]

@jgarzik I have seen that the same person own both and I do not know that botcoin.org and bitcointalk are unrelated. I understand they are both owned by the same person so I don't think you are telling the truth. If you want to go around banning people because they raise issues I can't stop you. You are one of the people behind this this and you never explain anything except to claim things are not true. So why don't tell us what is true.

Further, you should not go around calling people "trolls" as no "mature adult" would use such a term. Further, a "mature adult" knows how to shave and make themselves presentable before they appear in public rather than look like some homeless person who looks like they live under an overpass. When you reach the "mature adult" stage you let me know.

As many have suggested, this issue should me moved off Github but that is not being done so the issue stays here and it should not have been closed since it is not yet resolved.

[jgarzik]

You are misinformed. They are not in any way owned or controlled by the same person(s).

[jgarzik]

You are misinformed. They are not in any way owned or controlled by the same person(s).

[jgarzik]

Sirius has zero access to servers, and does not participate in management of either. c.f. "you are misinformed"

[jgarzik]

Sirius has zero access to servers, and does not participate in management of either. c.f. "you are misinformed"

[jgarzik]

The bitcointalk.org forum funds are for the bitcointalk.org forum. Theymos controls that pot, and it has nothing to do with bitcoin.org.

[jgarzik]

The bitcointalk.org forum funds are for the bitcointalk.org forum. Theymos controls that pot, and it has nothing to do with bitcoin.org.

[saivann]

@MillyBitcoin : This is meritocracy and team working and this has already been explained to you. Once again, please keep all this OT (Off-topic) stuff off github.

[saivann]

@MillyBitcoin : This is meritocracy and team working and this has already been explained to you. Once again, please keep all this OT (Off-topic) stuff off github.