Add several independent voices to the Press Center page

[aantonop]

Add several more press contact to the press center, starting with Jon Matonis, in anticipation of the rush of media for the bitcoin conference, and to better serve the diverse needs of financial, technology, business and consumer media from around the world.

I suggest there be at least four more press contacts (50% more) and that there be more information about areas of coverage for each press contact, beyond just a title.

Additionally, it would make a lot of sense to add people who speak several languages other than English, preferably representing languages from areas of rapid bitcoin growth such as Mandarin, Russian, Spanish, German etc etc. I do not want to draw too many conclusions from the names and faces, but I have a feeling that English is well represented... If XInhua wants to do a story, who is there to help them?

Thank you for your consideration

[luke-jr]

NACK, Matonis publicly encourages using Bitcoin for illegal activity and makes statements effectively daring governments to ban Bitcoin (such as claiming they can't do it).

[flix1]

AGREE on adding Jon Matonis.

Governments will intervene no matter what, as they have done with every single online payment system before (including PayPal) bar none. You know what their criteria for intervention is? Size. That is all that matters to them.

When Bitcoin gets to 5-10 million users they will do something. Regardless of who is on the bitcoin.org press page.

They couldn't care less about what people like you, me or any random blogger says.

[luke-jr]

@flix1 Government regulation is fine, the problem is only if they decide to ban it outright.

[emansipater]

@aantonop Strongly suggest that the other press contacts be added first, otherwise it defeats the point of my suggestion.

[aantonop]

@emansipater I hope others would you like to suggest additional press contacts. To me it is not so much about any individual as it is about opening the Press Center to a more diverse group, even through this broken process. Can anyone suggest someone who also has language proficiency beyond English, for example?

If anyone suggests a candidate, I will be happy to make the necessary additions and push some more changes into this pull request.

[aantonop]

@luke-jr offtopic, we are not arguing government regulation.

[flix1]

@aantonop Spanish here:
bitcoin#154

[gmaxwell]

There are currently already eight people listed— its more than a screen-full on my system.

As I've commented before, I think we need to be listing moderate voices. The press will find more extreme views, no doubt about that, but we don't want to be in a position where views like that are expressed as being fundamental to Bitcoin. An ideal primary press contact for bitcoin.org is someone who is saying the things that just about everyone involved with Bitcoin agrees with— even if thats a little boring.

FWIW, I hear from Jon that he is already receiving too many media requests. Perhaps this makes leaving him out more palatable for folks who aren't moved by the leave-the-politics-out-of-it arguments?

[pelle]

ACK

[bendiken]

ACK.

[aantonop]

@gmaxwell Too many people on the list? Let's make the photos smaller then. We need more diversity of opinion, not a narrow set that fits someone's idea of what is politically appropriate.

[masterkrang]

Although Jon Matonis seems like an obvious candidate, the alarming thing is that the press reps aren't being chosen in a more community driven way.

[bendiken]

Can anyone suggest someone who also has language proficiency beyond English, for example? If anyone suggests a candidate, I will be happy to make the necessary additions and push some more changes into this pull request.

@aantonop, in answer to your call for non-Anglo-American candidates, the obvious potential Finnish-language candidates would be:

• Martti Malmi, aka Sirius. He needs no introduction, but he is somewhat reclusive these days so it's not clear that he'd necessarily appreciate the nomination. Incidentally, he is the owner of the bitcoin.org domain.
• Henry Brade, aka Technomage. He operates the foremost Finnish-language Bitcoin site, exchange, and community at Bittiraha.fi and is frequently interviewed by the Finnish media on Bitcoin-related topics. He's the self-evident first point of contact for Finland.
• Vili Lehdonvirta. He is a virtual currency researcher, presently a Research Fellow at the Oxford Internet Institute. He is often quoted by Finnish media on Bitcoin-related topics.

All three aforementioned gentlemen fluently speak English as well.

As I recall, all three were interviewed in this widely-quoted Bitcoin report on Finnish TV last year, this report including the first affirmation from a central bank that Bitcoin was legal to use:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7vYH1JH73pw (with English subtitles)

[simonk83]

ACK for a more community driven decision process (preferably off GitHub). I'm also fine with Matonis.

[masterkrang]

I think it would be very interesting to get somebody like Song Hongbing (宋鸿兵) of Beijing China to represent Bitcoin for Mandarin speakers in Asia. He is already "tweeting" about it on weibo.com (Chinese Twitter) and is a well known publisher of Currency Wars《货币战争》(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Currency_Wars). I think he's at about 1.6 million followers on Weibo. Whether he's interested or not, I don't really know, but I'm sure it wouldn't be very hard to figure it out.

Here is his Chinese "wiki" http://baike.baidu.com/view/1183123.htm

[aantonop]

Is anyone willing to second one of the proposed press representatives introduced above, to be added to the page?

I will contact them, get approval, write them up and push a new commit to this pull-request, if others agree to nominate them.

Finish Speakers:
Martti Malmi, aka Sirius. He needs no introduction, but he is somewhat reclusive these days so it's not clear that he'd necessarily appreciate the nomination. Incidentally, he is the owner of the bitcoin.org domain.

Henry Brade, aka Technomage. He operates the foremost Finnish-language Bitcoin site, exchange, and community at Bittiraha.fi and is frequently interviewed by the Finnish media on Bitcoin-related topics. He's the self-evident first point of contact for Finland.

Vili Lehdonvirta. He is a virtual currency researcher, presently a Research Fellow at the Oxford Internet Institute. He is often quoted by Finnish media on Bitcoin-related topics.

Mandarin Chinese:
Song Hongbing (宋鸿兵) - publisher of Currency Wars《货币战争》(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Currency_Wars)
http://baike.baidu.com/view/1183123.htm

Any others?

[sunnankar]

aantonop, I second the suggestions for all three; Martti, Henry and Vili. The interviews and quotes have always appeared to be competent and professional from those three.

It would be good if you could find particular interviews and post the links so other community members can assess.

Regarding Matonis, I think he would make a fine addition because he is competent, professional and already a member of the press with Forbes.

MISATTRIBUTED AND INACCURATE REMARKS ABOUT MATONIS
Gmaxwell and luke-jr have attributed quotes to Matonis as reasons for non-inclusion that are either misattributed (ex. the drug cartel usage quote on Google +) or have made assertions which are not plainly contained in the quotes themselves. Therefore, I think @luke-jr's defamatory comments should not be taken seriously that 'Matonis publicly encourages using Bitcoin for illegal activity'.

WARNING
Additionally, since after reading this thread one would be put on notice and the republishing of these disparaging remarks would indicate a reckless disregard for the truth therefore others who may consider republishing these inaccurate and disparaging remarks should be put on notice that doing so may give rise to a potential legal claim for defamation by Matonis.

We should keep in mind that in our discussions we want to make sure that we only make assertions that are truthful and it would be wise to do so with credible and verifiable sources.

[sunnankar]

@aantonop, the Press Center is organized in alphabetical order by last name. If you could make the changes for consistency it would be appreciated.

[aantonop]

@sunnankar Thank you for pointing out the correct alphabetical order. I will adjust the commit accordingly.

Question for the group - There are now several recommendations for FInnish, Spanish, and Mandarin speakers.
@flix1 has a previous pull request to add Spanish-speaking press contacts to the Spanish-translated pages.

This creates an interesting problem - we have some nominated press contacts who speak languages other than English, French and Spanish, the three languages with site-wide translation. This is likely to continue to be the case, and it is a good thing - the site could have press contacts in languages other than English, before it has a full translation in those languages. I see the normal progression as:

(1) add the press contact people first
(2) help world press get good interviews
(3) translators will volunteer.

Press contacts come before translator-volunteers if that assumption is correct, therefore it makes sense to add the non-English speaking press contacts to the main (English) press page.

Question for the group - would it make more sense to have a single press contact page with all the worldwide contacts in the English language section first, then gradually move (or copy without removing from English page) those contacts to dedicated pages as those translations are done?

I would like to add the Spanish, Finnish and Mandarin speakers into this pull request. I can either insert them alphabetically into the existing list and add some indication of languages spoken for each contact, or make one list of contacts grouped by language, assuming all the existing contacts go under "English" and the new additions create three new groups below: Spanish, Finnish and Mandarin.

[luke-jr]

Note: I have only attributed to Matonis what he has actually said/done.

[aantonop]

@luke-jr Duly noted. I also note you did not repeat or repost any of the misattributed quotes, which is great.

The stated purpose of the Press list (quoting from the page itself) is:

This list of potential interviewees has been curated by Bitcoin community members with the intent to include individuals possessing a wide spectrum of experience, ideas, and geography

Can we now move towards achieving the goal of expanding the list to include a greater diversity of geographies, languages, experiences and ideas, as proclaimed in this page?

I believe that your comments were heard. Some agreed, some did not. The overwhelming consensus as I see it above is to add Matonis. I see two objections and seven positive endorsements not counting mine. I believe that settles the issue of community vetting for Matonis.

I am offering some additional constructive changes and I think we are making some good progress. I would like to see some more non-English native speakers and some good ideas on how to organize a bigger press list that helps the global press get high quality quotes and interviews.

I would appreciate more nominations or format suggestions.

Thank you

[gmaxwell]

@sunnankar I stand by my statements and I supported my views with specific hyperlinks.

I've been in communication with Jon and the only complaint he brought to my attention was that that two of the things I quoted were in fact him quoting other people. It wasn't obvious at all to me that he was repeating other people in those instances (out of the four I cited), and I corrected the posting within 15 minutes of receiving his email. (I would also note that his repetition and apparent support of those comments would have equally supported my view— but no need to split hairs, the other quotes stand on their own just as well and there is no ambiguity about the level of support there.)

I don't think the hyperbole and legal threats are productive. I hope we can engage in future discussion civilly and with mutual respect, as I understand how people can become worked up in an argument. But if you seek to continue along your current trajectory, take heed: I will not be cowed by your coercive behavior. As you are well aware defamation in the US has no legs at all especially in the case of a public figure and when the views expressed are a clearly an earnest opinion. As you are also aware, California has powerful anti-slapp law and that malicious prosecution to silence criticism and public discourse is not likely to work out well for the plaintiff.

@aantonop

The overwhelming consensus as I see it above is to add Matonis

I think it's a little unfair and unproductive to discourse to open a new pull request and summarily ignore the views expressed by other people on the old one in order to declare "overwhelming consensus", especially in an environment which has been chilled by hostility, ad-hominem, and threats of legal prosecution which would rightfully discourage the prior commenters from following the storm front to repeat their argument in each new venue.

[aantonop]

@gmaxwell you retraction was duly noted. No need for anyone to threaten anyone, you are right. I don't want another sidetrack argument over the choice of forum , voting rules, ad-hominems etc. We can leave the issue open for discussion as long as you like. Other devs can easily follow from pull request to pull request. After all, this is your chosen forum and tool, and the rest of the community is at a distinct disadvantage. You have the home-field advantage, so I do not think you are discouraged. You also have the "Merge" button, so I doubt you are as powerless as you feel.

I will hope for the best and encourage more discussion.

Any suggestions on how to mix multiple press contacts for the world press, @gmaxwell, I would appreciate your input?

Any other nominees for English speaking press contacts?

Any preference as to how to indicate spoken languages? Little flag icons or text below the photo like "Speaks: English, Francais, Magyar" ? Or separate sections per "primary" language?

[joecoin]

ACK.

A list of potential interviewees without him is a joke.

[midnightmagic]

This discussion is a distraction, and will only serve to derail and divide the developers from themselves and the user community; it is likely also partially fuelled by an unfortunately well-funded echo-chamber.

The answers to this question are already in the other pull (#152) and attempting to re-do it here and build false consensus when a large set of non-overlapping users has already commented in the other is pointless and a waste of time.

bitcoin#152 (comment)

NACK, there's little point in accepting direction from armchair revolutionaries until they prove they won't melt into the background when the regulators catch up with us. In the meanwhile the moderates aren't interested in presenting contentious viewpoints to the public at large.

NOTE: Beware availability bias, for those of you insisting that Matonis is some kind of representative for Bitcoin.

[masterkrang]

@midnightmagic i was brought here by this discussion that @aantonop started, and i'd have to disagree with you you that it's going to divide developers. i'm here now and i'd like to help out if i'm needed, i think that's the opposite of what you're suggesting.

it really doesn't make sense to decide on representatives on a github thread, it should be open sourced to people beyond devs. if there isn't this kind of mechanism, then one should be created. we'd be defeating the purpose of bitcoin by emulating the very institutions that spawned it's existence (doing shit behind closed doors). i don't know who runs this site, and it doesn't even matter to me. bitcoin is an open source technology, having representatives is sort of a joke... the software sorta speaks for itself anyways. but if there are representatives, they should be decided in a more open forum, a more democratic way, and that's just not going to happen in a github thread.

@aantonop it does seem a bit rash to throw somebody in without following some protocol for approving representatives. i'm down to help you guys out and get involved. feel free to throw things at me.

[midnightmagic]

If you can engineer actual crypto and secure software, you are in fact needed already and should be participating in the development of bitcoind, especially in the areas of script testing, implementation, and non-fork wishlist items.

This pull request is divisive because the issue has already been hashed to death and this brand-new pull request is thus contentious and a source of frustration, especially since it comes from a user who's been registered with Github for quite some time and thus should know better.

Therefore, opening this new pull request is a poisonous act, IMO, and in my opinion has a non-zero probability of being a deliberate political ploy. It would thus be a destructive pull request, and should be immediately punted to avoid endless now multithreaded argument. What happened to the hydra?

Moderates don't want to be associated with radicals. Let the radicals fork and see how far they get without the support of the moderates. To me, it really seems to be that simple.

Ultimately, the primary source material is the source code. The source code is written by the devs. The devs control the website. If the devs don't want Matonis speaking for the source code they write and the website they own, what kind of an idiot would try to force it on them and pretend it's not a divisive, destructive act to do so?

All the people getting rich off Bitcoin right now don't suddenly deserve a voice on bitcoin.org because they bought a hoard of Bitcoin off someone or invested in it in some fashion. Use of the tool doesn't magically confer steering privileges, and none of our voices are suddenly more important just because we suddenly care how the project is being run. Neither does our combined, collective, and vast experience writing software somehow magically convert into a leadership role in the bitcoin project.

tl;dr Punt this pull request. There is a significant probability it is a destructive political ploy.

[aantonop]

midnightmatter: You are basically saying that a subset of the developers should make this decision without outside interference. If that is the case, then they should not have pretended to require pull requests, they should not have pretended this was an open process and they should not have said that all that was missing was community interest.

All of the claims of openness have been shown to be lies. If you want to just come out and say "we make this decision without any concern for the community and the whole pull request process is a charade", then go ahead and hit "Close". It's your reputation that will be (more) damaged, by such a move.

The devs picked this forum as the correct process for nominating individuals. I am making a good faith effort to use the process and discovering that the process was a sham.

So far, 10 for, 3 against, for the specific entry for Matonis, and a lot of hand waving without much constructive input for the other candidates.

"It's not who votes that counts, it's who counts the votes". Is that the process? Just say so and I'll go away.

[luke-jr]

It is an open process. Anyone can submit pull requests as nominations, and make suggestions. The final decision lies with the people who make Bitcoin work, however, not a simple majority of non-contributors...

[gmaxwell]

So far, 10 for, 3 against, for the specific entry for Matonis, and a lot of hand waving without much constructive input for the other candidates.

You're ignoring all the people who spoke up about this before, most of whom have been happily not following the further drama.

[aantonop]

@gmaxwell You ignored all the people who objected to your power grab and capriciously closed pull requests that had support. At the time, devs said it would take a specific pull request for Matonis to consider it having support from the community. That of course was a lie.

As I said, it's not who votes, it's who counts the votes. You only pretended otherwise until you could no longer use misquoted slander, and a nicely exclusive forum. Once your bluff was called you scurried like cockroaches. Pathetic.

[luke-jr]

No, it wasn't a lie. A pull request was needed to consider Matonis. He was considered. Consideration does not equate to a "yes" decision.

[gmaxwell]

@aantonop my power grab? capriciously closed? What are you talking about?

[masterkrang]

I think it's not correct to have a handful of developers decide who representatives are. Coding is only one part of what is required to make bitcoin "work". The logic that says "The final decision lies with the people who make Bitcoin work" is flawed. By this logic I shouldn't be able to participate in the representatives of my government, because I don't make the government "work". I'm just a peon who pays taxes and keeps his mouth shut. These decisions should be opened up to lots of people, not just coders, and the pull requests should be accepted based on how they reflect the entire community. Open it up to reddit and the other forums that have thousands of hits and users dying to get their voice heard. Really, the programmers should be laying the framework for this and being as objective as possible.

[aantonop]

I stand corrected - @gmaxwell Apologies, you just aggressively misquoted Matonis to slander him. @saivann did the dirty work of capriciously closing pull requests that had plenty of support and debate. It's hard to keep track of all the power plays around here.

[gmaxwell]

@aantonop I did not misquote anyone. Your hyperbole is discrediting your position. :(

[aantonop]

Attributing words to the wrong person, when those words were quotes of others, not original statements, is misquoting. You posted and reposted those misquotes. Doing so to make a negative point is slander.

You'd know that if you had any press or media relations experience. You'd recuse yourself from the decision if you had an ounce of integrity. Clearly neither is the case. Same goes for @luke-jr. You two have no business making this decision, you should've recused yourselves.

[gblilley]

ACK

[dgenr8]

ACK

I've been reading Matonis' pieces in Forbes for a year and had no idea he was an anarchist. I was just amazed to see such thoughtful commentary in a mainstream publication. The man has earned his stripes and bitcoin is fortunate to have not only someone who understands the details, but moves discourse forward in very innovative ways.

[gmaxwell]

@aantonop I provided the statements with hyperlinks. Nothing I said was false. It was the case that a couple of the comments were not originally Matonis'— in those couple cases he was repeating other statements in apparent support of— but this wasn't clear to me (and other people), but I corrected it within minutes of him bring it to my attention.

I didn't see a further reason to argue that because the original material was sufficient to make my point: Matonis' approach includes a politically controversial dialog.

Not that I think it's especially relevant, but I have non-trivial experience with media relations and performed media relations with several non-profits. I've personally been interviewed in quoted in industry and major national publications on subject matters unrelated to Bitcoin going back over a decade, I've authored press releases and prefabricated boiler-plate press responses, etc. I point this out to make it clear that you're not repeating some well uncontroversial "fact" abut my media relations experience but instead, as far as I can tell, you're making up that claim purely on the basis that you disagree with me.

This isn't to say that I'm the most experienced in this area— but the position I've taken doesn't require substantial experience: I think we should promote as press contacts on Bitcoin.Org only people who primarily take uncontroversial positions that basically everyone in the Bitcoin community can agree with, and otherwise carefully delineate their personal views with ones that are widely held. I believe there is substantial risk of scaring people off of Bitcoin with careless language which feeds the allegations that Bitcoin is nor respectable or even unlawful. I've seen first hand evidence of these perceptions scaring people away as well as people keeping their involvement with Bitcoin secret in order to avoid these perceptions.

There are plenty of other forums for more radical views about Bitcoin— and people taking those views have seem to already have no problems getting them heard. I'm just concerned about listing anyone who says things that many Bitcoiners are going to strongly disagree with, as I said above— that outcome is not good for the press (because they'll print lies) or the community. Having more alternative locations where people can find contacts which are less likely to be confused as "official positions of Bitcoin" would be good.

[aantonop]

@gmaxwell Your opinion is noted. It is in the minority. Stop playing victim when you have all the power here, it is quite unbecoming. I have far more press experience than you, but I'm neither nominating myself, nor do I particularly care if you count my vote - I am happy to recuse myself if people think I have a personal conflict or bias. Will you recuse yourself as I have asked?

More importantly, despite my decade of press experience, I wouldn't dream of trying to exclude someone from this page based on an opinion about their political positions. While I am very qualified to nominate people for press contacts, I wouldn't consider myself qualified or having the authority to make exclusionary judgments on behalf of the community. I'm am disappointed that you can't see the difference.

[cypherdoc]

It is an open process. Anyone can submit pull requests as nominations, and make suggestions. The final decision lies with the people who make Bitcoin work, however, not a simple majority of non-contributors...

@luke-jr i was going to stay out of this one but you just blew my mind. this comment just shows how far out of touch you are. you honestly think as a dev YOU are the ones that solely make Bitcoin work? what a joke. what about all of us who have poured all our hard earned money into the system that have allowed idiots like you to get paid? or who have contributed to the rise in price that has allowed you to profit from your coins? what about all the idealogues on the forums who have been arguing about Bitcoin's merits to the newcomers and the press over the years that have helped sway public opinion?

the number of ppl voicing ACKS for matonis and ver is overwhelming and all i see is you two burying your heads in your own ideology and making biased opinions about who is and who isn't a moderate.

you guys are in serious need of a reality check.

[JuniusBell]

It is very alarming that sycophants like Gmaxwell and Vessenes are commending Bitcoin and suppressing anyone who dares disagree with their statist agenda.

Since there are only a few of them to suppress an overwhelming majority of US they are weak and we are strong. Violence is immoral but their violent censorship can only be stopped through a matching response. Are there any proposals as to how we can solve this real "root" problem? Until it is solved the rest of the discussion is pointless.

[aantonop]

Update on Finnish speaking nominations from above:

Vili Lehdonvirta has declined the nomination, he is not interested.

"Technomage" agreed:

I'd be glad to be added to the list. I can speak English quite well also so both English/Finnish are fine.

Name: Henry Brade
Position: CEO Bittiraha.fi
Email: hbrade@bittiraha.fi

I've been interviewed to a large number of media articles and even some TV stuff, I'll send you information on them > later.

I would like some input on how to handle non-English speakers. My recommendation is to add to main en/bitcoin-for-press.html page, but under a separate list below the English speakers.

[cypherdoc]

these 3 devs have no sense of what a community is all about. the mere fact that they have tried to sequester/hide this process into github under a pull request is revealing. the fact that they think "devs" are the ones who make Bitcoin "work" is sociopathic. these guys already have a history of being confrontational and i see this latest development as more of the same.

i suggest all further funding related to anything they are associated with be withheld.

[luke-jr]

statism: concentration of economic controls and planning in the hands of a highly centralized government often extending to government ownership of industry

Nope, don't see any statists here...

[cypherdoc]

Nope, don't see any statists here...

doesn't help that you're blind.

[aantonop]

Any suggestions on other nominations for the expansion of the Press Center page?

We got some great Finnish speakers nominated so far, one has accepted.

Others?

[JuniusBell]

luke-jr, Gmaxwell opposed Matonis because Matonis is not afraid to call out theft by the state and points out that bitcoin allows people to transact consensually without oppression and said here that he hopes to gain the state's approval by opposing Matonis. Vessenes says he welcomes regulation. You criticized Matonis for promoting Bitcoin as a way to end state violence: bitcoin#139 (comment) . THIS IS THE DEFINITION OF A STATIST.

cypherdoc, This is an excellent suggestion and should be active immediately. Just like Bitcoin is to end state repression by defunding it, we can finish it within these developers by removal of their salary. It may not be enough but it is an obvious first step.

[luke-jr]

The State has the authority to collect taxes. That isn't theft. Encouraging people to commit crimes like tax evasion is a real problem for Bitcoin, since it gives the State a justified reason to ban Bitcoin. Anyone promoting this kind of anti-State nonsense has no business representing Bitcoin.

The definition of a statist, is someone who supports "concentration of economic controls and planning in the hands of a highly centralized government often extending to government ownership of industry". Nobody here supports this.

[aantonop]

@JuniusBell, @cypherdoc - While I share your outrage at the poor process and insular decision making, this is not a personal issue (at least not for me).

I would appreciate constructive suggestions to add more representatives. I am operating under the assumption that if I follow the process in good faith and there is sufficient support for more candidates we will get to consensus.

Please add recommendations for good candidates and give people the opportunity to undo some poor decisions. I am quite comfortable accusing people of being tone-deaf and having chosen a poor process for this decision. I am not comfortable with accusing anyone of a conspiracy. The power plays are a side effect of an insular and closed environment, not any malice from individuals.

This is about a broken process, a lack of authority to make such decisions without transparency, and a tone-deaf attitude to criticism. All can be fixed in good faith.

[aantonop]

@luke-jr You have every right to your opinion and to have it represented by the press spokespeople of your choice. No one is arguing for excluding your opinion or those who share it from the Press Center. You are however arguing to have different opinions excluded, whether by freezing the status quo, or removing any possibility of change by ignoring other voices. That is not ok.

Let's keep those who agree with you in the Press Center. Let's add those who disagree with you too. Your opinion does not represent the entire community, as is obvious from the comments here. Yet, no one called for your opinion to be suppressed or those agreeing with you to be excluded. That attitude is all on your side of the argument.

PS. I pay taxes and consider tax evasion immoral for citizens who benefit from the state's resources, so on that we agree. On that issue I disagree with Matonis. I will defend your opinion, just as I will defend the exact opposite opinion. Can you not see that this is about an attempt to stiffle the opposite opinion?

[cypherdoc]

@aantonop i don't even know these guys, or you, nor have i interacted with them ever before. all i know is what i've read of their statements. imo, their statements are egotistical, discriminatory, and self serving; not to mention tone deaf as you say. i recognize unfair people when i see them and i'm not about to stand aside and let them do as they please.

[aantonop]

@cypherdoc Agreed. The best way to answer such an attitude is by nominating more diverse voices to the Press Center - help me make constructive change. They have every right to be opinionated and even tone-deaf. Most importanty, those who get paid by the foundation, get paid to write code and write awesome code. They do not get paid to make political decisions on press relations.That's not a good reason to start a crusade against the one thing they do very well - write code. It's a reason to help them see that they are neither qualified nor authorized nor paid to make political decisions for and on behalf of the community.

[JuniusBell]

It is personal: These people are violent oppressors corrupted by greed and desire for power and will not remove themselves as you strongly suggested above. They are deaf to freedom. They do not confine their conduct to professional matters when they impose their violence on me by silencing my voice and so I MUST respond in the same manner or we will all be crushed by them.

We must stop paying them immediately because they are using those payments to oppresses us. The time for polite words has long since passed.

I recommend Mircea Popescu as an additional voice who refuses to be frightened by these statists.

[cypherdoc]

it really saddens me to see this type of behavior and have revealed what they truly think. i've been an avid financial supporter of other devs in Bitcoin since the beginning. i run a very successful Bitcoin financial newsletter and i've helped alot of ppl understand what Bitcoin is truly all about especially during the dark days of late 2011. i've helped alot of young investors literally make fortunes in this run up and perhaps even retire.

to hear Luke say that devs are the only ones who make Bitcoin work in light of this is personal and offensive.

[saivann]

@aantonop : Given the actual situation, it might be the only solution to everyone's concern. I was also thinking about doing the same. But I didn't want to make this decision in a rush.

[cypherdoc]

@saivann, @gmaxwell - i still say lets have a formal vote if you're so confident you're right.

[cypherdoc]

you devs are violating everyone of Satoshi's principles that have been built into his code. what makes the sourcecode so great is that it gives everyone some skin in the game and applies all the right economic incentives to want ppl to participate. it is essentially a voting system.

how is your heavy handedness in excluding certain ppls votes in this simple situation in anyway consistent with his original objectives?

[aantonop]

@saivann Will you remove yourself from the voting process and agree to accept the results whatever they may be? I will do the same - that's my only goal - open process.

I ask the same of @gmaxwell and @luke-jr. If you have commit, you already have the power, let others decide.

If you have a clear, transparent process for nomination and votes without exclusion, I will support it (with code and any other required effort) and I will simultaneously remove my pull request, my nominations and my vote from the process.

But, no changing the rules. Everyone already on the Press Center has to be nominated and approved too (surely not difficult to do, if they have broad support). Any nominations that are seconded (or higher threshold) and pass a voting threshold (any threshold you want as long as the existing one have to pass it too) will be final and non-negotiable. No vetos, no changing the rules. Winners are added without complaint or further discussion.

Make an open, transparent, consistent, broad-based and fair process and I will not only accept, but strongly support it.

[gmaxwell]

@aantonop Your capacity to make make claims seemed to be only matched by your lack of capacity to provide hyperlinks to support them.

@cypherdoc You can equally say I'm "imposing the agenda" of any of the other people who said "no, please" here. My agenda is to avoid agendas. I realize that this position is not apolitical, just as Bitcoin itself is not completely apolitical. But seeing how being totally apolitical isn't possible, I believe we should have the policy with the lowest risks (least risk for angering authorities, least risk of falsely attributing views to the community, etc), and which scares away the fewest possible adopters (especially the people who are already not adopters: It would be hard to prevent extreme libertarians from using Bitcoin!). Rejecting controversial views is also the only policy that I've seen that reliably addresses the edge cases like what should we do about people who hold pro-market-murder, pro-child-porn views or are operating scams.

I know this might be unfathomable to you, but I don't care about and don't want your money. Though I'm a little insulted that you imply that I haven't spent enormous amounts of time helping people out.

As far as Satoshi goes, I already remarked on that in the prior pull on this subject. Satoshi himself shyed away from controversy when he thought it would bring down fire on the system. Bitcoin is absolutely not a voting system. There is some computational-voting in Bitcoin where there was no other choice, but everywhere else the system operates by autonomously imposed rules— so that every participant consents to the operation of the system and can't be victimized by a majority who chooses to harm them. If you want a currency operated by votes— go use the official money of any democratic nation.

[aantonop]

Such a process could also be continuous, so that it allows for future additions. If you feel you absolutely need it, add a process with a much higher threshold for REMOVING people who have become unnacceptable. Again, broad-base, open, consistent and transparent process.

Say you need 5 nominations and at least 20 vote margin (Ayes vs Nays) to be added, but 10 de-nominations (impeachmets) and 40 vote threshold to be de-nominated and removed. Again, votes are final and implemented without interference by the site maintainers.

I would storngly support an impeachment process, as long as it had much higher thresholds.

My guiding principle is that bad speech is cured by MORE speech. More press contacts are better than fewer, more opinions are better. However, I recognize there may be circumstances where someone becomes a liability and repellent to the community at large. Take that decision public and make it transparent and we have a working model.

[aantonop]

@gmaxwell You non-agenda is an agenda itself. It's not even a popular one, because you have failed to show how it would be implemented fairly or consistently. How can you not see that?

[luke-jr]

@cypherdoc I didn't say devs are the only ones who make Bitcoin work. I said those who make Bitcoin work have a voice in this, as opposed to leechers who do not contribute in any way. Financial support is one way (of many) that people can get behind "making bitcoin work".

Since you have helped a lot of people understand Bitcoin, do you really see the problem with excluding certain persons who confuse and misrepresent Bitcoin??

You clearly have no clue what you're talking about when you bring up *gminer, but that is totally off-topic here.

@masterkrang The problem isn't anyone's views here, the problem is their advocacy of using Bitcoin for illegal activities (regardless of what you think of said laws). If you don't like the laws, try to get them changed - but that is completely unrelated to Bitcoin and should not be pushed as going hand-in-hand with it.

@aantonop A consensus is 100% in agreement. You do not have that for Matonis.

Finally, it seems nobody here understood @gmaxwell 's comment about vetos. He posits that everyone has a veto on this. That means if any one of you disagrees with a nomination, you can veto it. Nobody is special in this regard. This is by definition also what a consensus is.

[cypherdoc]

@luke-jr I understand as least as much as any other non-invested person in the matter does as i've read all your back and forth crap with kano and con.

and yes, that's exactly what you said but i'm glad i had a hand in changing your mind.

[cypherdoc]

once again i say the only way to cut everyone's wasted time here is to apply a formal vote here in github with 1 lead day to advertise the vote on the 2 other forums. this controversy could be over with and done that fast.

[aantonop]

@luke-jr The argument that nobody is special, when the veto suits you, is precious. You seemed plenty elitist when the argument was about the process and who gets a vote. If I decided to take you up on your "new rules", I bet my veto of one of your pet candidates would be ignored. Wanna try?

I VETO JGARZIK

Explanation - Sorry Jeff I think you're an awesome coder, but you lack the ability to explain bitcoin in simple terms to non technical people. Your interviews are not easy to read. Nothing personal, you're an amazing programmer and a god among bitcoiners for your contributions. Doesn't make you a press-rep though.

I honestly believe the above, but I also don't think we should really exclude jgarzik. I don't believe in exclusion. I want him counter-balanced with more voices. But that's not your approach, you want exclusion and assume people have veto. Let's see how many seconds before the VETO I apparently had gets rationalized away and you change the rules. It is too easy to show you up.

[aantonop]

@cypherdoc Agree with new forum for general notice. Disagree with voting on github, there are better sites for voting.

[gmaxwell]

@cypherdoc If you're suggesting that I might also shy away from controversial changes in the software— you're damn right I do. For example, I refused to add blacklisting to the reference software.

@luke-jr Right well, full consensus is a suicide pact especially in an environment that admits some amount of hostile actors... I generally favor something that looks more like the modified-consensus that the IETF or English Wikipedia practices aspire to... Tolerating a very small of non-consensus, but still taking care to minimize the harm to excluded views.

@aantonop You're being a jerk now— where were those concerns about Jeff before it was "politically convent" for you? come on. I mentioned above the possibility of people being malicious and took care to not specify an absolute veto. Tremendous patience has been demonstrated here, but it is beginning to wear out.

[aantonop]

@gmaxwell I had plenty of concerns, but as I said, I want inclusion not exclusion. So instead I proposed increasing the pool.

Do I no longer have a veto @gmaxwell? What a surprise. You are so transparent. Took all of 2 minutes for you to show it.

[luke-jr]

@cypherdoc I'm not sure how you think I've changed my mind...

A vote is fine, but unnecessary: anyone can already plainly see there is no consensus. A single person disagreeing means there is no consensus! Consensus is NOT mob/majority rule.

@aantonop Jeff is already on there, so it's not the same thing. You should have voiced your veto before he got added. That being said, feel free to open a pull request to remove him if you really think your reasons justify it. However, you say you "don't think we should really exclude jgarzik", so I have my doubts that you actually think he should be removed. But if you do, feel free to open a pull request for that with your reasoning.

[cypherdoc]

@gmaxwell

Bitcoin is absolutely not a voting system. There is some computational-voting in Bitcoin where there was no other choice, but everywhere else the system operates by autonomously imposed rules— so that every participant consents to the operation of the system and can't be victimized by a majority who chooses to harm them.If you want a currency operated by votes— go use the official money of any democratic nation.

it is in the sense that ppl vote to use and support Bitcoin if they believe the principles of the original sourcecode will be upheld and modified by devs like you. once your start trodding over users rights to vote in a simple situation like this, it immediately brings suspicions to your state of mind in how you'll uphold the original code.

[aantonop]

@luke-jr And if I open a pull request to apply my VETO? I will call you on your bluff.

Let's summarize:

• All I need is a pull request
• But only if I get support
• But only devs vote
• But everyone gets a VETO
• Unless it's me
• For that I have to do a pull request for VETO
• But only for existing Press Center members

Am I keeping up ok?

As soon as I open a pull request for removing jgarzik will you accept the result? Or will it then be up for a vote? Because of course the means its not a veto. Will I be asked to get majority or consensus then for what others get to use a single-vote veto?

Again, I'd rather add to the pool, but if vetos are real, I'm gonna use mine.

[luke-jr]

Vetos for real reasons are real. Vetos because you want to create problems are not.

[emansipater]

wow. just fyi, most of the people who find this entire discussion ridiculous are not bothering to participate in all the hubub. @gmaxwell and @luke-jr I appreciate your intent to make even people you disagree with be part of the process, but I think it's becoming clear this is just ideological ranting, not real discussion. The fact that a fight like this even could be fought in any public forum is the whole reason Matonis has proven too controversial (and personally, I didn't originally have a very strong opinion on it. Once again idealogues have taken what could have been a simple discussion and turned it into a war. Bitcoin.org isn't the place for wars.) NACK.

[aantonop]

@luke-jr Who decides that? Is that a new rule? Is there an appeal?

You just changed the rules again. I thought all I had to do was state reasonable basis for the veto, which I did. When did my intent become part of the criteria? Oh right, when you didn't like the result.

[luke-jr]

@aantonop Your intent isn't relevant. Either you have real reasons to exclude @jgarzik or you don't.

[saivann]

@aantonop I didn't think about all details, but yes, I was also thinking about a seperate community project with many reviewers working on transparent guidelines that would be totally independant from bitcoin.org. With as much interviewees as possible (but still only those who really do a good job), more detailed infos about interviewees. And done in a way that clearly shows that nobody is an official Bitcoin representative. And without extremes like "Bitcoin az been created to destroy gouvernments". And of course, I also see no one having more power on decisions among the reviewers. But that's just how I imagine it.

[cypherdoc]

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

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

[luke-jr]

Because for the SMALL part of bitcoin that miners influence, avoiding a majority-rule was UNAVOIDABLE. If you can eliminate the majority in this case without creating new worse problems, you will make Satoshi's invention obsolete. Note that for every other part of Bitcoin, a consensus is required that cannot be overruled by any majority.

[cypherdoc]

well i think we have a philosophical problem here. first of all, i think all parts of the Bitcoin community are equally important. it never ceases to amaze me how different the various subforums are on BitcoinTalk. some ppl never leave there little area and wander elsewhere. i make it my job move around to get a feel for the whole community. i'll even cruise thru Bitcoin-dev once in a while.

imo, a consensus means a majority. you devs seem to think that a consensus within your little corner of Bitcoin means that every other area should follow along b/c "they don't know better". where do we hear that everyday in our various countries? i think that a vote is important and should include everyone. its your job as devs to go out and influence public opinion to vote your way if you have fears that the result might not be what you want or that the masses are ignorant. you don't get to impose your philosophy on everyone else. otherwise you and Bitcoin are no better than the worldwide system we have now.

[saivann]

@cypherdoc : All parts of the community are equally important. Why would anyone have the right to interfere with developers, while developers are not interfering with each other? We are all doing something for Bitcoin. I don't see gmaxwell saying to Matonis what he should say or not, and he's demonstrated respect for him. Satoshi created a free market and individual freedoms applied to money. I don't see why, when people disagree, we should not all have the same level of freedom. gmaxwell is defending an approach that respect the right of people to be free to have their own ideology about Bitcoin. So it seems like, as opposed as what you are saying, he is against enforcing any particular philosophy on Bitcoin. And that is how he thinks that can be really achieved.

[SomeoneWeird]

nack

[aantonop]

@luke-jr I stated my perfectly valid reasons for my veto. These are sentiments shared by others, but that's irrelevant, since everyone gets a veto.

I assume you are about to approve removal of jgarzic from the list? Or you are about to approve my nominees?

Or are you going to show once again that the only rule that matters is that you get to make rules as you please. Because I've jumped through all your hoops, yet I'm going in circles because you're all so slippery.

You said I had veto. I stated my veto. What are you going to do now? Lie again?

[aantonop]

@emansipater You were the one who suggested that a proposal to add more people would be discussed more fairly. Turns out that was a lie too. Your NACK puts us at 16-5 for new additions. Did you vote even though you don't believe the votes will be counted? How hypocritical of you.

[cypherdoc]

@saivann

So it seems like, as opposed as what you are saying, he is against enforcing any particular philosophy on Bitcoin.

so if that's the case, why is gmax applying his own philosophical ideals on Matonis in regards to Bitcoin?

[cypherdoc]

did you count my ACK?

[aantonop]

I expect we will continue this charade until you agree to a fair process or shut it down arbitrarily. My proposal is ahead 16 votes to 6.

Also I have veto'd jgarzik, based on my veto power as endowed by devs @luke-jr and @gmaxwell.

At this point, we can either remove both my candidates and jgarzik, based on your veto rule, or we ignore vetos and add my candidate. Which will it be?

[jgarzik]

Counting votes, after trolling specific audiences for votes on outside forums, just makes a vote even more meaningless. As we see here, the loudest voice -- i.e. the person who posts the most -- just drowns out everything else.

Would prefer to keep bitcoin.org largely ideology-free and neutral.

[aantonop]

Summarizing the rules again:

• All I need is a pull request to nominate someone
• But only if I get support with votes
• But only the devs get a vote
• But everyone gets a VETO
• Unless it's me, I don't get a veto
• For that I have to do a pull request for VETO
• But only for existing Press Center members
• Vetos for real reasons are real. Vetos because you want to create problems are not. @luke-jr get to decide which is which.
• Votes keep coming in, with people opposed voting as if the vote matters, but votes in support being ignored.
• Voting will continue until I lose in votes, or I lose by veto, or I Iose by having the pull-request closed.

This is the current rule set? Just checking before I try to follow it and you change it again.

[aantonop]

Ooops, posted too soon. New rules:

• All I need is a pull request to nominate someone
• But only if I get support with votes
• But only the devs get a vote
• But everyone gets a VETO
• Unless it's me, I don't get a veto
• For that I have to do a pull request for VETO
• But only for existing Press Center members
• Vetos for real reasons are real. Vetos because you want to create problems are not. @luke-jr get to decide which is which.
• Votes keep coming in, with people opposed voting as if the vote matters, but votes in support being ignored.
• Voting will continue until I lose in votes, or I lose by veto, or I Iose by having the pull-request closed.
• Counting votes, after trolling specific audiences for votes on outside forums, just makes a vote even more meaningless. (ie, getting support from the community at large is somehow suspect)
• As we see here, the loudest voice -- i.e. the person who posts the most -- just drowns out everything else. (Before there was no support, now there's TOO MUCH speech in this voting process)

All with this line delivered with a straight face: "Would prefer to keep bitcoin.org largely ideology-free and neutral.". By that I assume you mean whatever ideology-free and neutral means to you, which is of course bot impossible and naive.

[cypherdoc]

@aantonop frickin hilarious! too much sense.

why won't you devs submit to a real vote with the entire community? afraid what they'll say? we could end all this back and forth BS in short order if you'd allow it.

or more simply, just let matonis and ver in.

[aantonop]

We're past adding Matonis, Ver or anyone else through this process. Even if they were added, the entire process has lost all credibility (didn't have much to start with) and the developers involved have show themselves to be without any scruples when it comes to respecting the "process" they made up (and made up again and again as needed).

Even if one or two candidates were added now, the damage has been done - the Press Center is a list that should be determined as broadly as possible, with as much input from the community and as little exclusion as possible. None of those things are possible within this process any longer. It has been shown to be a complete joke.

It's also not ok to keep the existing list. Every single one of them has been tainted, not of their own fault, but by the inconsistencies exhibited by the decision process.

[aardeem]

For godssake no! This whole thread justifies the public image of bitcoin users being extremist wackjobs. Next are you guys going to start putting hits out on the people you disagree with??? "Free market! they can buy defense!" God knows, after the above I should be afraid for my life to post since everyone disagreeing is being attacked.

If any change is made to the list it should probably be cut down to just major bitcoin business leaders and technology people and no loud-mouth pundits. Right now there is a picture of a guy with bags of money! Are you completely without self-awareness??? Repeat after me: Boring is good, used car salesmen with molotovs is bad.

I keep hoping my dear old mother never sees those forbes posts, or she'll be calling me twice a week asking if I'm in jail yet.

[aantonop]

@aardeem Thanks, 16-7 for the proposal.

[CharlesHoskinson]

ACK

[saivann]

Ok, It's time to continue working on real things. We have already spammed everyone enough. I cannot spend more time on this. So if you still disagree, please answer with a concrete alternative and do the hard work that comes with it instead of disrupting the work of others, because it's not going anywhere.

It has already been made clear that bitcoin.org is not run by votes. Bitcoin.org used to work with mutual respect and consensus between developers and with the input of the community. Trying to invite people to have an open and respectful debate here was my mistake. I didn't expect so much threat and hostile discussions.

Bitcoin.org is a technical reference for bitcoin. So it should be no surprise that some interviewees don't fit in that category, regardless of how good they are in their respective approach. Jon Matonis deserves his recognition by the whole community for everything he has done and what he is doing everyday. But that doesn't mean what he does is appropriate in all cases and circumstances. This is just common sense. A link on bitcoin.org is not what will prevent anyone to make interviews, especially not Jon.

If you want to make something different happen, just do it. I would be happy to see this happening, and perhaps even participate myself. I've said before that a community-driven open-to-everyone press center would be great. And it should be obvious after these discussions that bitcoin.org is not, and won't be the right place for this.

I've already made it clear that I wouldn't make a change without a good consensus. And no good consensus has been achieved. This issue already caused too much trouble to anyone, including Jon Matonis.

[aantonop]

Thank you for playing Tropico 5

[CharlesHoskinson]

Salvann, this isn't over. Unless you want the world's smallest bitcoin foundation, you guys need to learn to accept that members have rights and their voices should be listened to

[emansipater]

@saivann Thank you. Your hard work at creating dialogue speaks volumes to people like me even if you can't win over those with fundamental differences. Please don't feel that your time on this issue was wasted. People like me appreciate the time you put into Bitcoin.org and I wouldn't want you to feel disheartened. Take a break, do something in real life, and remember that a few angry voices don't speak for everyone. Your contributions are extremely helpful to Bitcoin.

[saivann]

@thanatosholdings Please work on a solution for the people you disagree with instead of thinking they don't have the same rights than you. And respect people who actually work extremely hard to do the impossible.

@emansipater Thanks, yeah, I need to sleep :) . If people complaining here don't start working on this before I do, I might take this on my own to see if I can provide an interesting solution to everyone..

[CharlesHoskinson]

@salvann
Listen my goal right now is to correct the enormous PR problem bitcoin has amongst the mainstream. i've been working tirelessly with the community to develop a crowdsourced introductory course that will build a bridge for the mainstream. What you guys are doing isn't helping. Some of the people on the other side happen to be CEOs with money and resources. If you piss them off, then you'll soon find yourselves working against a better funded group.

None of us want that to happen. We are just telling you to honor your commitments. If you open something to a vote, then accept the vote. If you don't want to risk losing, then call it soliciting feedback. Learn PR skils

[scintill]

I'd just like to be another "sycophant" and express my support for @saivann and the other developers. The way @aantonop et al are handling this is completely unreasonable. I'm not even sure he really has a purpose other than to cause a strink. The incendiary rhetoric and uncited emotional claims coming from @aantonop are totally inappropriate for a pull request. While I welcome newcomers to Github, it's appalling that he, not a stranger to the open-source ethos, would recruit people to sign up here and abuse the pull-request system like this. Of course his "votes" outnumber the others, because they aren't going around on reddit and bitcointalk linking to this PR with fear-mongering anti-summaries of what's going on and instructing people to sign up and post "ACK."

While the process and current selection of press contacts could probably use some improvement (along with anything else created by humans), we've made a good first step.

[aantonop]

Inappropriate for a pull request? Entirely!

The whole idea of nominating politically charged positions on github was idiotic. I didn't pick it.

This wasn't a code discussion. I wouldn't dream of handling a real pull request like this. But this was a political debate and power play from the very beginning, not a real pull request, not a code change, not a development discussion. It is completely disingenuous (but convenient) to pretend otherwise.

[mikehearn]

I have banned JuniusBell from this repository. That kind of threatening behaviour is unacceptable and will result in an immediate ban. Any further trolling or abuse will also result in bans. I have a no tolerance policy against that kind of crap on forums I'm an admin for - we keep it civil or we keep it out.

I didn't read the whole thread but I think there were suggestions for other people, separate pull requests for each person are the way to go. So far the vast majority have been unproblematic. At some point we might need to better organise the page though (eg by language).

The solution to these disputes is the same one I proposed in the last discussion. There are a lot of people for whom Bitcoin and politics are synonymous. Those people have to accept that many others don't feel the same way, what's more, many of those people don't want to be associated with the other peoples politics. That isn't debatable, it's just a fact.

Therefore the correct fix is to create a new community specifically for people who see Bitcoin as a route to libertarianism, anarchism or whatever floats their boat. Call it the Monetary Freedom Project or something else. With a name, a website and a well defined mission it will be easier to gather people together and focus those discussions. Then you can have your own flamewars over whether people who think child porn laws are oppression should be on your own press page.

Call it the Silk Road solution. We long ago evicted people who were openly trading drugs from the bitcointalk forums because that kind of thing was totally unacceptable and a lot of people didn't want to be associated with it. Some people engaged in massive dramas and trolling, but DPR did something different - he created his own community and made the whole issue moot. Then he imposed his own rules on that community too, which created another round of trolling and dramas. Such is the circle of life on the internet.

This is a repeat of that prior situation. If you aren't interested in creating a new website where "statists" aren't welcome, please don't open more pull requests or comment further on this issue, because there's no chance for consensus here.

[caedesvvv]

+1 to aantonop proposal, and -1 to devs and bitcoin foundation dirty tactics.
trying to manipulate is no good to the community or bitcoin, i think the foundation and few devs are losing all the respect (already lost mine at least) and with a good reason.

[mikehearn]

If you look up thread you can see that he was threatening to find and inflict violence on people he disagreed with.

The issue is not unusual views. The issue is when you have promote ideas that risk making other people uncomfortable or causing them actual problems.

Look, it's not all that complicated. Imagine some developers wife knows her husband is involved with this online money project called Bitcoin and beyond that doesn't really know much. She switches on the TV and there's some guy up there saying that Bitcoin is brilliant because it lets you buy drugs anonymously and will lead to the overthrow of the state. Guess what, the vast majority of people are not cool with that. So that's probably going to lead to an argument that didn't need to happen, and presuming the developer thinks his wife's happiness is more important than his hobby project maybe we'd lose a valuable contributor.

Now imagine instead of the developers wife, it's a regulator who that guy is applying to for permission to run a new Bitcoin exchange. And yes you need permission. If you don't have it your bank accounts get closed and you might go to jail, so don't bother turning this into an argument about the merits of the regulations, just accept they exist. Now imagine that the regulator saw the same TV show. Maybe they went from being on the fence about whether to approve, to thinking this is just a complicated money laundering scheme -> permission denied, now maybe there won't be an exchange in that country for the forseeable future.

These are the sorts of scenarios we're trying to avoid. Nobody really cares what people say on little community-made documentaries that preach to the choir, but yes if Trace was going on BBC News and saying he thinks Silk Road is great because it'll make for a more peaceful world then I'd be quite disappointed and maybe be thinking he shouldn't be on the list either. That's exactly the kind of radical position we're trying NOT to have Bitcoin become permanently associated with because it will lead directly to problems growing the ecosystem. So far it seems he hasn't done that.

A good example of this seems to be Mike Gogulski. He has unusually extreme political views even for this community, but you wouldn't know it from seeing him appear on the various videos that are out there about Berlin. He just talks about Bitcoin in a neutral and reasonable way, which is exactly what we need.

Do you see now why I think having a separate movement for freedom-via-monetary-means would be a good idea? If Trace or Jon goes on screen and says, "I am a Monetary Freedomist and our movement believes that via online cryptocurrencies and anonymizing networks we can bring about a more peaceful world", well, it's still not amazing but at least now it's clearly delineated from Bitcoin itself - Joe Developer can argue, "Hey those guys have their own views on what this all means but that's not the same thing as what I'm working on".

[dgenr8]

As one of the sheep so recruited, to my foolish sheep brain, this is a
referendum on Jon Matonis.

Having read every word he's written with incredulous thanks that someone
so insightful, persuasive and eloquent has attached themselves to the
cause, as a sheep I had no trouble following the call to attention that
there are those of you who mistakenly don't think he's an appropriate
spokesperson.

And, as a sheep again, I believe that any process that would reject him
as such must be broken.

[mikegogulski]

"There are currently already eight people listed— its more than a screen-full on my system." -- @gmaxwell

Anyone want to start a chipin to get gmaxwell a bigger monitor, or perhaps a page-down button?

"The State has the authority to collect taxes. That isn't theft." -- @luke-jr

What authority the state claims is illegitimate. Much like the authority being exercised in this censorious and shameful process.

"Trying to invite people to have an open and respectful debate was my mistake." -- @saivann

Don't underestimate yourself here, sir. Perhaps this is just what it took for you to become comfortable with your newfound powers as cliqueish autocrat.

ACK

[saivann]

"Trying to invite people to have an open and respectful debate was my mistake." -- @saivann

And I plan to do it again. But I won't be naive and think everyone is willing to be constructive and respectful.

[mikehearn]

So far the press coverage in 2013 has been much more positive than in 2011. I think a big part of that is because this time, our community was much bigger and it was easier for the press to find people to talk about Bitcoin, and the people who talked about it made sure to emphasise the positive parts. It was still too hard for them though, I had several conversations with journalists where they expressed frustration that it was so difficult to find information and people who really understood Bitcoin ... hence the idea of a press center. Whenever I brought up the idea, every journalist I spoke to thought it was a great plan.

In other words I disagree that it's a waste of time. Practical experience so far suggests otherwise.

(for those reading along, I replied to your other points on the pull req you opened).

[johndillon]

@mikehearn Simple easy access to basic information is extremely important. It's hard enough to understand how Bitcoin works for a journalist new to it. I think bitcoin.org should be a common ground with press resources that we can all agree on. Yes that means extreme viewpoints don't belong there, but Bitcoin is supposed to be decentralized anyway. If a journalist wants to find someone like Jon they will do so just fine on their own and if you want to put those voices in one place create a press center for your community and how it uses Bitcoin. Note how there is the San Jose conference, and Amir's Europe conference, with totally different outlooks on Bitcoin. There is nothing wrong with that and Bitcoin benefits from that diversity.

[mikegogulski]

My thinking has evolved.

NACK NACK NACK to this and every other attempt to add or remove people via consensus, democracy or autocracy. Ref: bitcoin#152 (comment)

[aantonop]

Yeah #152 had it right. They should end this failed experiment at politics-via-github. It has resulted in smearing the reputation of some developers and calling to question the integrity of anyone who remains on that press page despite the obvious conflicts of interest.