On Thu, 22 May 2014, Joerg Platzer wrote:

> And you do complain about the list of speakers at their conference.
> Yet you would not speak there I guess. Neither would Cody or
> Antonopolous and I have to admit that I have to count myself in there,
> having turned down their offer to a seat on a panel there for the same
> reason.

I would blame Amir only if he'd be ranting while doing nothing for the
community, but he is well active on other fronts. so I'm fine with his
strong opinion and boycotting attitude even if I don't agree with all of
it. I just don't think is inconsistent. OTOH we could consider the
"sacrifice" of a presence in that place a service to the community if
done to vehicule the original values behind Bitcoin within the
institutionalization process of the foundation.

> It only occured to me later that if alone the people named (Jaromil
> were you there?)

Despite living close by I was not invited at all. I have no idea who are
the local organizers really. I found the program overly boring and
predictable to be honest and due to other work I could be there only a
day before to meet some people off-stage. Had quite some beerz with
Jorge and Sipa the whole evening, was very nice :^)

I hear from others who where there that wasn't that interesting.


> would have been on there and shown where Bitcoin is coming from and
> where and why we think the journey should go further, this might not
> have been such a bad idea.

sure. but well on the wave of my long-term outspoken activity in the
hacker scene I really don't want to become an hyper-famous talking head
of sorts. I think I'm appearing around enough already (and have some
code to write eheh). The best I could do is put some history on paper
with an academic article, I guess that's enough for one.

In unsystem for instance there are already a lot more people able to
bring that spirit up in view of the audience and remind it to
institutional foundation of sorts. As the multitude aspect of Bitcoin
was a success for the project in its early stages, it is now the best
strategy to honor and represent the multiplicity of voices, avoid
mediatic hegemonization and show the diversity and enthusiasm of the
communities at large.

Personally I'd like to see more visibility for CIC and similar
initiatives starting all over Europe.


> Another fact: there are still a lot of people in the foundation who
> would love to see speakers like us on their conference and who would
> still love to see foundation money being spent on prjects aiming at
> enabling people to take the control over their own business back into
> their own hands instead of controlling them.

> Maybe we should not let these forces down but strengthen them instead
> (and I was really startled when someone the other day actually said to
> me "man, you let us down").

well... another foundation member here is planning to leave it next
year... I think you really need to think this well through. If you guys
leave then please make it in a loud and coordinated way, don't disappear
without making your point and use that energy to create something else
or to reinforce this very initiative. And consider that as a visible
crack is opening across the community, no more people from this side
will be able to enter in the future, the foundation will just become
more closed and biased.

at last, about Amir's feelings on Gavin: I think he is right on many
points and I do know that also in the core team there is some common
sense in thinking that there should be a new maintainer now. Maybe that
will change something? Not Sure. But without an attempt to keep the
foundation focused on the ethics of Bitcoin for sure we won't have
someone like Amir in that position next; to the contrary, maybe there
will be somoene worst than Gavin.

ciao