Quote from: justusranvier on November 19, 2014, 10:01:24 AM

Quote from: brg444 on November 19, 2014, 05:35:59 AM

And what if they step down?

Should they also stop committing code to Bitcoin?

You want to save Bitcoin from a ghost by proposing that 40% of its core developers & 3 top commiters stop working on it.

Yeah, I'm sure that will play out well for the development of Bitcoin's own code.

You've actually hit on a separate, but related issue.

There is a subset of toxic people and petty tyrants among the core developers who believe that what they do defines Bitcoin and wish to be the eternal gatekeepers of what is and is not allowed. They can't actually earn that position by virtue of being superior software engineers, so they keep it by resorting to FUD and other underhanded tactics any time some other developers try to get involved.

There's an extremely long list of people who would have tried to step up and participate, but have been effectively shut out by that cartel.

Bitcoin will be in a much stronger and more secure position once Bitcoin Core is deprecated, or is at least relegated to a minority position on the network. Part of the reason will be that the consensus will be derived from software implementations with a better design and higher code quality, and part of the reason will be because of limiting the effect of toxic developers so that more people will be willing to contribute.

PS: I still haven't forgotten that you never bothered to justify your "less decentralized" claim about colored coins.

who you talking about?

Quote from: Luke-Jr on April 20, 2013, 07:39:57 PM

Quote from: sunnankar on April 20, 2013, 12:06:34 PM

Jeff Garzik, gmaxwell and Lukejr turned this into an issue by moving to strike Jon Matonis and Roger Ver, two established Bitcoin community members who present themselves competently and articulately, based solely on their political ideas. Now, instead of discussing the topic of strategy and purpose for the Press Center, jgarzik wants to silence any debate. I think that determining the press strategy is very important.

No, the problem (in this case) is not their political ideas.

The problem is that they project their political ideas on Bitcoin, with things such as representing Bitcoin as being a tool used to bring about anarchy. Matonis, at least, seems to be encouraging people to break the law almost every time he talks about Bitcoin.
While I did include Roger Ver in my original objection, it was pointed out that he has (at least lately) kept his politics separate in public - so I've limited my objection in this reason to just Matonis.

The general objection against Roger Ver is that he has a criminal history. And not just some debatable crime (eg, drug-related or statutory), but selling explosives. For all I know, maybe he was just selling fireworks - or even wrongly accused and railroaded. However, the media doesn't care about the truth: this is a tool they can simply say "Bitcoin spokesman Roger Ver, who holds a conviction for selling explosives to terrorists, blah blah blah". Maybe they can say it regardless of who we put up as a press contact, but having him listed will serve to re-affirm such detraction when it happens.

Quote from: gmaxwell on April 29, 2013, 07:01:01 AM

Quote from: aantonop on April 29, 2013, 06:28:39 AM

He didn't have the brass to post it publicly of course, he's a cowardly weasel through and through

In the interest of being a tough guy like you, here is the rest of our PM discussion which you must have missed in your posting:

Quote from: gmaxwell on April 29, 2013, 06:33:45 AM

Quote

Wait, so you lost the vote, cancelled the vote and are now telling me that you lost it but BY LESS THAN I CLAIMED?

Do you believe that everyone in the world who doesn't agree with you is just one person? I'm getting that impression.

No. I'm saying that you either can't count or you were outright lying. And I'm letting you know in private because I'm kind enough to not point our your innumeracy-or-dishonesty in public even though you've been rather uncivil towards me.

Quote

The you accuse me from gathering community input (Wow!), which is what y'all said was needed.
Have you no shame?

Gathering input is good but what you posted wasn't a genuine effort to get opinions it was a heavily biased rabel-rousing rant which has had the effect of causing people to make threats of violence against me. And if I'm uncharitable I might conclude from the fact that you never mentioned it in the main discussion that you intended to keep it hidden so that your incorrect claims would go unchallenged... or perhaps you just didn't think to mention it, it happens... but still stinks.

to which you replied:

Quote from: aantonop on April 29, 2013, 06:35:21 AM

GO fuck yourself you little weasel. You have no shame, no integrity and no balls. You can't even handle a public discussion without getting some sycophant to shut it down when you're losing.

FUCK YOU and suck on a cactus.

I honestly believed that if it were actually a vote the position I was recommending would have eventually won out, the vote-stacking you were conducting only goes so far as I said in the discussion, the only criteria I've seen I've seen suggested that would have kept Bruce Wagner, Nefario, or even Pirate40 off is the one of not including people where there was genuine concern all hard large basis of public support. That this has been an enormous time and emotion suck, and it had reached the point where aantonop was name calling people who didn't agree with him, along with threats and other embarrassing responses... it probably was best to kill it mercifully.