Quote from: HELP.org on April 29, 2013, 07:07:24 AM

When I first heard about this and the description I thought Matonis where some kind of radicals looking to overthrow the government.

When I looked it up for myself I found that Jon matonis generally wrote commentaries based in a premise that is often interesting but I never saw anything where he advocated some radical this.

Really?

Quote

It has been speculated that blocking the money stream to governments would solve the regulation of the economy and unbridled spending problems too.

Quote

Bitcoin challenges the State as monetary sovereign and that has grave implications for their monetary authority and quasi-peaceful taxing authority

Quote

Almost simultaneously with the recent jihad against tax dodgers, decentralized cryptocurrencies such as bitcoin arrived on the scene in early 2009 and now provide an outlet for personal wealth that is beyond restriction and confiscation.

Quote

They probably were also not aware that bitcoin is a three-year-old decentralized bootstrapped currency with a $100 million plus monetary base that is immune from government regulation

Quote

The pro-gambling casino people would all of a sudden realize how play money bitcoin bypasses the ridiculous and religious anti-gambling laws. [...] Which brings us to the giddy, pro-banking-integration spokespeople for Bitcoin that tend towards full compliance because its required or, worse, preemptive compliance because they believe it to be safe.

I mean nothing wrong with being radical, I've certainly taken some rather radical positions too. But I think that if you don't see Matonis' views as radical you've been desensitized by this forum, to the greater world that stuff is pretty darn radical, and moreover it puts us on in us a opposed-to-state position which will potentially get us crushed like bugs, as well as scaring away a good chunk of our untapped market potential. As far as I can tell Maronis' radical positions are a big part of his value add.

Hopefully it wasn't overstated there, that why I only commented on it when someone demanded quotes I don't think he's a bad guy or anything.

For some strange reason a lot of people assume that Bitcoin is _already_ illegal in the US, or at least that it soon will be. Arguments like the above do not help improve things there.

Quote

Mr. Ver was involved with using M-80 to exterminate mice when he was 22. If someone saw the initial description and compared to the facts then I believe their conclusion would be the facts were misrepresented and/or exaggerated when they removed from the web site.

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

Quote from: aantonop on April 29, 2013, 07:12:40 AM

You will of course note that I only called names after the vote was cancelled. Both for gmaxwell and the quote he linked to prove his point.
You're weaseling requires a lack of publicity gmaxwell. I was not calling anyone names when you were making a mockery of the process. I waited for you to show yourself as a coward.

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