You cannot expect, only hope. Remember, the @Bitcoin Twitter account was anti-Bitcoin, pro-Bitcoin Cash before, spreading propaganda "for Bitcoin", but not actually for Bitcoin.


Why? You want people instead to go to, https://www.bitcoin.com, and buy the "other version of Bitcoin", expecting to buy Bitcoin?

Hypothetically speaking, if we want to promote the idea of Bitcoin and internet freedom, in case of a domain owner willing to turn a Bitcoin-related one into an anti-BTC campaign should be free to do so without being censored. Guess it's also why a lot of BSV shills are still on here promoting it.

How does it really help if theymos copies bitcoin.org to bitcointalk.org? In case bitcoin.org turns into a crappy anti-BTC propaganda, that'll open up a big door for whoever wants to start another website and promote the real coin and the legit information; the new website with legit info will also be added to whatever big website is currently promoting the "bitcoin.org" links.

Even if bitcoin.org changes and theymos copies the current website, absolute newcomers will still initially believe the "bitcoin.org" domain is the legit one. So the only thing really changing is that you now have 2 different domains, that's it. Newcomers will not know which is the legit one anyway - the only ones knowing about this change would be us.

Not really.

From previous drama.

https://github.com/bitcoin-dot-org/bitcoin.org/issues/3398



Actions speak louder than words, but in this case both align, and at no point has Cobra indicated or acted in a way to harm the wholesomeness of Bitcoin.org. No reason for him to start now.

OK..I thought you meant the www.bitcointalk.org web site as well...which the WayBack Machine could definitely not handle...sorry about that..pet peeve of not being able to get the sites above I wanted to back up....so mis-read.

Nope waste of resources and money in my opinion what he needs to do is to upgrade the server or have separate different server that is dedicated by country just like in Facebook to manage billions of users.
What you suggest is going back to zero and it will bring down Bitcointalk rankings in google which is a loss of money also.

I'm pretty sure nothing has been announced.  There would have been so much noise and attention, probably some drama and controversial opinions being thrown about.  I'm guessing you wouldn't be able to miss it unless you were living in a cave, heh.

I think the main pitfall with your proposal is that you're assuming we'd get to nominate who the extra workload gets assigned to.  I get that people trust this site and it's administrators, but they already do a lot of work just keeping this place running.  I don't think it's right or proper that people should be pressuring them into potentially maintaining two websites just because you have concerns over what Cobra might or might not decide. 

If we're going to have a backup plan, we should be asking for volunteers, not just handing a job to someone who might not want it.

If you read the topic in full, you'd realise it's likely that we don't need to change anything.  This is purely contingency planning if something goes wrong:

IF <problem> DO <proposal>

---

I support the idea in principle, yes.