Original title: The Bitcoin Press Center
Original source: BitMEX Research
In this article on the history of Bitcoin, we look back to 2013 to explore the short-lived “Bitcoin News Center” on the Bitcoin.org website. At the time, it was proposed to list a list of people on the News Center page, which could become a quasi-official list of Bitcoin media contacts. We examine the inevitable debate about who should and who should not be on the list, and how the list is inherently connected to the broader battle over Bitcoin culture. Should Bitcoin remain an underground rebel currency, or should it go mainstream and appeal to the moderate masses?
Overview
In another part of the Bitcoin history series, we will return to April 2013. Prior to this, we had covered the following topics:
· 2011 Bitcoin flash crash
· 2012 London Bitcoin Conference
· 2014 Satoshi Nakamoto email hacking incident
· 2014 OP_Return war
In this article, we discuss the controversy surrounding a media contact list for a page on Bitcoin.org called 'Bitcoin News Center' that arose in April 2013. This topic may seem trivial, but it touches on broader cultural issues in Bitcoin, such as what Bitcoin’s use is, what kind of development strategy should be adopted, and who the real Bitcoin users are. Thus, we believe this topic still holds enough discussion value even today, nearly 12 years later.
On March 22, 2013, the once-famous Bitcoin developer Mike Hearn posted on the BitcoinTalk forum proposing the idea of establishing a 'Bitcoin News Center' page on the Bitcoin.org website and invited volunteers to suggest themselves as candidates for media contacts. This way, if a journalist wanted to write an article about Bitcoin, they could search for Bitcoin on Google, find this page, and then find people to talk to and their contact information. As Mike said:
“Over the past few years, many of us have been surprised by the uneven quality of Bitcoin news coverage. Some reporters truly understand the essence of it all and delve deep, while others merely regurgitate what has already been written or seem to deliberately seek out negative angles. To me, this is not particularly surprising because I have seen how news coverage is written during my time at a large software company. All large companies have dedicated PR teams for good reason, as helping reporters write good stories is a full-time job. The 'good' here refers to accurate and balanced, not necessarily positive coverage that promotes the product. Bitcoin has no dedicated PR personnel, nor should it. But we can make a second-best choice by providing a truly good self-service news center on the website.”
Source: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=156364.0;all
About a month later, on April 16, 2013, a related pull request was submitted on GitHub proposing to create a news center page. Several individuals were nominated as media contacts, two of whom raised a certain degree of controversy: Mr. Roger Ver and Mr. Jon Matonis. Some Bitcoin developers believed these candidates were unsuitable for the position due to certain controversial political reasons, so they were not included on the website list. It now appears that such an exclusive short list would inevitably spark heated and unconstructive debates and could potentially offend some people. These issues quickly became personal, which was predictable when discussing who best represents Bitcoin. These discussions often involved broader philosophical questions about Bitcoin and its public image.
Debate over the pull request
The first to express concerns about the media contacts was Bitcoin developer Luke-Jr, who quickly referred to Jon Matonis as an 'extreme anarchist.' Another Bitcoin developer, Jeff Garzik, subsequently also expressed support for Luke-Jr's position.
“Matonis openly advocates illegal activities such as tax evasion; it's too much. Roger Ver has been interviewed by media such as (Anarchist Daily), but I think some interviews have now been toned down.”
Source: https://github.com/bitcoin-dot-org/Bitcoin.org/pull/139#issuecomment-16426114
The third developer, Greg Maxwell, also agreed with Luke and Jeff's views:
“I am also very concerned about Mr. Matonis' inclusion. I’m glad Bitcoin has attracted many people with political and philosophical backgrounds, including those I disagree with, but I believe that those who speak for Bitcoin should be able to set those views aside, especially when they believe Bitcoin conflicts with the laws and norms of major states.
While I’m glad that Bitcoin is a sufficiently large tent that includes such diversity, I think we should lean towards political moderation in the names we choose as media contacts. We want and need a variety of diversity for Bitcoin to succeed. If some people consider this stance to be contrary to honest and legitimate behavior, that is even more the case.
Source: https://github.com/bitcoin-dot-org/Bitcoin.org/pull/139#issuecomment-16429652
“The opinions of Luke-Jr, Jeff Garzik, and Greg Maxwell are very impactful, so the decision was made to remove Roger Ver and John Matonis from the list. Bitcoin developers like Patrick Strateman also expressed agreement.
Hacker felons should not appear on the news page.”
Source: https://github.com/bitcoin-dot-org/Bitcoin.org/pull/139#issuecomment-16429672
This felony statement refers to Roger Ver's conviction in the U.S. for selling explosives on eBay. It can be imagined that, while such a list is basically irrelevant and meaningless, Roger Ver himself and many others are unhappy with how and why they were excluded from the list. Roger Ver himself also participated in the discussion:
“I believe I am one of the best Bitcoin representatives in the world, and both the crowd on the forum and I explicitly agree on this.”
Source: https://github.com/bitcoin-dot-org/Bitcoin.org/pull/139#issuecomment-16435555
Luke-Jr then responded
“Roger Ver, do you not understand how easily the media could spin your past to say 'Roger Ver, Bitcoin spokesperson, was convicted for selling explosives to terrorists' or something similar? Your response here completely ignores the conviction issue, suggesting (perhaps I’ve seen too much) that you might still disagree with what you did back then—perhaps you’re right; if you’re in a defensive posture because of it, that’s not helpful either. If your answer to them is 'this further proves that the government is an immoral violent organization that should not be supported anyway,' then you must think that would be detrimental to Bitcoin.”
Source: https://github.com/bitcoin-dot-org/Bitcoin.org/pull/139#issuecomment-16440473
The Bitcoin.org developers who proposed the pull request later joined the debate, attempting to calm the situation:
“Roger Ver, this actually has nothing to do with your ability to represent Bitcoin. So far, from what I’ve seen (but I haven’t seen a lot of interviews), you are [energetic], and you seem to provide accurate and relevant answers. But the media does not show you mercy; you have a very bad label, and they can stick that label on you and the whole Bitcoin. No matter what capabilities you have, they will not allow you to defend yourself, and you (we) will have nowhere to appeal. I’m a bit disappointed, but that’s how it is. I believe you want to help, but I’m not sure what help you can provide in this situation. No matter how frustrating that may be. It’s not that you can’t interview well and help Bitcoin; it’s just that you’re tying your name (and your past) to the ‘official’ narrative in people’s eyes.”
Source: https://github.com/bitcoin-dot-org/Bitcoin.org/pull/139#issuecomment-16464502
Many seem somewhat outraged and highly suspicious that Roger was excluded from the list due to his political or criminal record. This is somewhat ironic, as if Roger had never been nominated in the first place, no one would have cared, and perhaps this list wouldn’t have even been seen. Nevertheless, now that Roger is excluded, it has sparked anger from some over this decision. Erik Voorhees expressed the following anger:
“When I heard about this yesterday, I thought it was a joke. Roger Ver and Jon Matonis are the most professional and articulate public supporters of Bitcoin, yet they are excluded from the media list simply because their discussions do not cater to the lowest common denominator of public perception, which is shocking. Yes, some will be shut out by their ideology. Yes, some media may try to target them personally, thus tarnishing Bitcoin’s reputation. So what. Bitcoin is not weak enough to only require silent, timid spokespersons who are more like politicians than real individuals, who are passionate, ideological, and, importantly, have the character to stand up for their beliefs. Bitcoin is not weak enough to advance itself by bowing to those horrible systems it aims to replace. It is embarrassing to see Bitcoin reduced to a meek seeker of permission, too cowardly to address real issues and the true reasons this technology is so important. Bitcoin is not a global, passion-driven community because it can lower transaction costs. We do it because of the philosophical and social significance of Bitcoin, and Roger and Jon are two people who are best at conveying that sentiment in a professional, non-confrontational, peaceful manner. And now they are being censored. Bitcoin is a movement, and those who try to distill it into a cute new technology are deluding themselves. Bitcoin is a movement, and those who try to distill it into a cute new technology are deluding themselves and are seriously harming this community. If you want to sell prepackaged, politically correct PR, go work at Dwolla.”
Source: https://github.com/bitcoin-dot-org/Bitcoin.org/pull/139#issuecomment-16746792
Mark Lamb, then CEO of UK Bitcoin exchange Coinfloor, agreed with Erik's views:
“This is disgusting. Bitcoin is not a hierarchical organization. In fact, it is not a company or formal organization at all. Anyone here, anyone working with Bitcoin, could be censored for the radical thoughts of one person, which is completely absurd. Bitcoin is a censorship-resistant protocol, an open P2P network with no leaders or authorities to silence/censor people. If you think it’s a good idea not to include someone on the PR list because of their extreme views, then I think your thinking is incompatible with the philosophy of directly writing Bitcoin code. Furthermore, this stance is not in line with the Bitcoin community. It is estimated that a significant portion of users on bitcointalk and Bitcoin users (33% or more) are libertarians and anarcho-capitalists.”
Source: https://github.com/bitcoin-dot-org/Bitcoin.org/pull/139#issuecomment-16750756
BitcoinTalk forum debate
The pull request on GitHub was merged, and the Bitcoin news page was launched, but without the involvement of Ver and Matonis. The debate then shifted to BitcoinTalk, where Roger Ver defended his position:
“My position is not extreme. The government systems we have today kill millions of innocents, drop nuclear bombs, impose sanctions, threaten extortion with violence, control capital flows, devalue currencies, slow down overall economic growth, and make everyone poorer than before; that is extreme. Whether or not I will be included in the news edition, I will continue to advocate Bitcoin at every waking moment, promoting it as it will help us get closer to a voluntary world. Setting aside my ideology, I do believe I excel at promoting Bitcoin. I also think the following people should be added to the news page: Jon Matonis, Erik Voorhees, Jeff Berwick. The essence of Bitcoin is inclusivity, not exclusion.”
Source: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=181168.msg1893085#msg1893085
Later, people continued to discuss and question whether there should be such a list. Cypherdoc said:
“I think this list should be abandoned.
Another user suggested that the news center page might backfire, saying: "If you’re not careful, this stupid debate will become the news:
If we’re not careful, this stupid debate could become the focus of the news rather than the actual technology and its implications. The headline 'Bitcoin players divided into liberals and 'mainstream' factions.'
Trace Mayer is one of the uncontested media contacts on the list who also joined this debate, siding with Mr. Ver and Mr. Matonis:
Three respected long-term developers hoped to introduce a political ideology test when deciding who to include as potential interview subjects on the media contact list. The relevance or necessity of such a political ideology test was not explained or clarified, and it seemed essentially to be an emotional appeal. Not to mention how a political ideology test would be conducted. If everyone agrees that we should use a political ideology test, then what type of test, and why? For example, should we use mainstream political views from Africa, Pakistan, the U.S., or Argentina? Why?
Source: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=181168.msg1895322#msg1895322
Luke-Jr then responded:
“No, (in this case) the issue is not their political ideologies. The issue is that they project their political ideologies onto Bitcoin, like saying Bitcoin is used as a tool to achieve anarchy. At least when Matonis talks about Bitcoin, he seems to encourage people to break the law. While my initial objections also included Roger Ver, it was pointed out that he (at least recently) has separated his political stance in public; so my objections regarding this reason are limited to Matonis. The general objection to Roger Ver is that he has a criminal past. And it’s not just some questionable crimes (like drug-related or statutory offenses), but selling explosives.”
Source: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=181168.msg1896810#msg1896810
Another user challenged Luke's assertion that 'they project their political views onto Bitcoin' and replied:
“You too.”
Luke-Jr quoted one of his famous, somewhat ridiculous/funny quotes in response:
“On the contrary. While my interest in Bitcoin was indeed to promote the Tonal system, I do not pretend that the reason for Bitcoin's existence is to promote the Tonal system.”
Many other users support the rebellious, revolutionary, and anarchist roots of Bitcoin, claiming: 'Every revolution is illegal.'
Luke-Jr denied this, claiming:
“But Bitcoin is not a political revolution.”
Later, Ethereum and Cardano co-founder Charles Hoskinson also joined the debate:
“You might need to think more deeply about the implications of Bitcoin. Currently, currency is heavily regulated and controlled by a group of secret bankers who are not accountable to anyone. All currency is inflationary fiat money. Bitcoin is almost the exact opposite of the world monetary system. If it succeeds, it will have a massive impact on the credibility and faith in central banks. Gunpowder is an incredible scientific achievement, but its real impact was forever changing warfare. If Bitcoin succeeds, it will forever change currency.”
Bitcoin developer Gavin Andresen even joined the discussion, seemingly supporting Ver and Matonis while opposing Luke.
“I think diversity of opinion is a good thing as long as the people expressing those opinions are honest, credible, and respected. I still believe that the trouble and strife that Luke brings far outweigh his value. I hope people will no longer suggest that he is part of the core development team.”
Source: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=181168.msg1897036#msg1897036
Notably, as far as we know, Gavin Andresen was the final decision-maker for the site list at the time, as Gavin was the ultimate owner of the repository on GitHub. He may have delegated this part to others, who decided not to include Ver and Matonis, but based on our incomplete understanding of how GitHub accounts work, if Gavin wanted to, he could revoke the permissions of this web developer. Although the final decision was in the hands of the owner of the Bitcoin.org domain, who was then Martti Malmi. However, ultimately, it seems that the domain was transferred to Cobra, an individual who was ultimately sued by Craig Wright. On May 1, 2013, Martti indeed expressed his views, but he never enforced them on others.
“It is unfair to designate a small group of 'Bitcoin representatives' for the news page. The bitcoin-press mailing list is also not very democratic and transparent. I advocate for its removal.”
Source: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=181168.msg1996365#msg1996365
Andreas Antonopoulos
No one is more outraged by the media list incident than Mr. Andreas Antonopoulos. Promoting Bitcoin to a wider audience is evidently an important issue for Antonopoulos, who quickly became possibly the best Bitcoin speaker in the world, proving to be very engaging, inspiring, and passionate when discussing Bitcoin. Andreas must certainly understand how to communicate about Bitcoin, so he felt frustrated by the poor decision to exclude Mr. Matonis and Mr. Ver from the list. On April 26, 2013, Andreas Antonopoulos added a new pull request on GitHub hoping to 'start adding more people to the news center page, starting with Jon Matonis.' Again, the same Bitcoin developers opposed this, with Greg Maxwell hoping for 'moderate voices.' Andreas Antonopoulos countered,
“We need more diverse opinions rather than narrowly deciding what is politically appropriate based on someone’s thoughts.”
Andreas then said:
“Now, can we work towards the goal of expanding the list as this page claims, to include more regions, languages, experiences, and thoughts? I believe everyone has heard your opinions. Some agree, some disagree. In my view, the overwhelming consensus is to add Matonis. I see two objections and seven approvals (not counting my opinion). I believe this resolves the community review issue regarding Matonis.”
Andreas also tried to arrange a vote to add more candidates to the list, claiming he won the vote (17 votes to 7), but the website developers did not implement the voting results. A few days later, on April 26, 2013, Andreas seemed to lose patience with this process:
“Neither Matonis, Ver, nor anyone else would pass this process for inclusion. Even if they were added, the whole process would lose all credibility (which it had very little of to begin with), and the relevant developers have already [indicated] that they are unrestrained in respecting the 'process' they concocted (and have repeatedly concocted as needed). Even adding a couple of candidates now has caused damage—the list of the news center should be as broadly determined as possible, taking as many community opinions as possible, and excluding as few as possible. In this process, those have become impossible. It has proven to be a complete joke. Retaining the existing list is not an option. Every list has taints, not of their own making, but from the inconsistencies shown in the decision-making process.”
Source: https://github.com/bitcoin-dot-org/Bitcoin.org/pull/162#issuecomment-17150513
Andreas accused developers of 'playing politics on bitcoin.org.' Many agreed with Andreas, as this seems to be a political issue rather than a technical one, so many expressed that this should not be the developers' decision. In addition to the above, Andreas reportedly sent the following message to Greg Maxwell:
“Go fuck yourself, you little weasel. You have no shame, no integrity, and no courage. You can’t even handle a public discussion, and when you lose, you find some sycophants to silence the truth. Go fuck yourself with a cactus.”
Source: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=181168.msg1973254#msg1973254
On May 2, 2013, Andreas announced he would launch a new website bitcoinpresscenter.org aimed at addressing this issue.
“I hope to get everyone's help and provide a beta version for the bitcoinpresscenter.org website I am building to replace the existing site. It will have one purpose: to provide a comprehensive list of resources, packaged for use by the media (brief bios, multi-resolution photos, attributions, etc.). We have a way to constructively address this issue and leave chaos behind. The envisioned news center will have dozens of spokespeople with different areas of expertise, playing various roles in the community, using different languages, and expressing a range of opinions. Nominations will be public. Voting and endorsements will be public.”
Source: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=181168.msg2002317#msg2002317
Conclusion
By July 2013, the discussion had finally come to a close. Mike Hearn claimed the news center was a success and made the following statement:
Despite the controversy over how to manage the personnel list for the news center, in hindsight over the months, I believe the news center was a very useful thing. I do not regret establishing the news center. The media is indeed using it, and we have also improved the quality of many Bitcoin reports. What makes me happiest is a CNN report that initially had the headline 'Bitcoin blockchain used for hosting child pornography,' and we successfully collaborated with the relevant journalist, so when the report was finally published, the child pornography content was mentioned in the last few paragraphs, and the whole report was much more neutral and balanced. Just last week, Jeff and I were explaining to a journalist working for (The Financial Times) about the working proof and the reasons for Bitcoin's design. We have made significant progress compared to the bad times of 2011.
Source: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=181168.msg2684368#msg2684368
In the following months, several more individuals were appointed as media contacts. Vitalik Buterin, who later created Ethereum, became a major media contact a few months after this event.
Note: Felix Moreno de la Cova also briefly appeared on the list.
By January 2014, just about seven months later, the news center page was taken down as Sirius had previously suggested. On that page, Bitcoin.org suggested that if there were questions, please visit the Bitcoin Foundation. Andreas's site was also listed as a recommendation, which had a longer list of Bitcoin media contacts. As far as we know, there were over 50 media contacts or 'Bitcoin experts' focused on providing media contacts in multiple languages. This might be a better outcome. Since Bitcoin.org no longer listed a small number of specific individuals, it became more decentralized. This also meant that there was no longer a debate over an exclusive list. If this list still existed, it’s easy to imagine the unproductive debates and entanglements over who should be on it for years to come. This was an interesting experiment, and we quickly learned that it was a bad idea for Bitcoin. However, as far as we know, the bitcoinpresscenter.org website never gained significant influence. Today, journalists may not have the problem of finding Bitcoin experts, and a centralized list will never be a scalable solution to help journalists find 'real experts.'
Writing about this small incident that happened years ago seems like a waste of time. This may be true, but on the other hand, it could also be a small part of the broader Bitcoin story. The brief story of the news center, part of Bitcoin.org, can be seen as similar to the story of the Bitcoin Foundation. It was too centralized, leading to too much argument and scandal. In Bitcoin, such a centralized system cannot function, so it was abolished or became irrelevant, falling into disrepute and chaos. However, Bitcoin itself continues to exist.
Original link
