Author: BitMEX Research
Overview
In another part of our Bitcoin history series, we go back to April 2013. Prior to this, we covered the following topics:
2011 Bitcoin Flash Crash
London Bitcoin Conference 2012
2014 Satoshi Nakamoto Email Hack
OP_Return War of 2014
In this article, we discuss the controversy that occurred in April 2013 around a list of media contacts on a page called "Bitcoin News Center" on the Bitcoin.org website. This topic may seem insignificant, but it touches on broader Bitcoin cultural issues such as what Bitcoin is used for, what development strategies should be adopted, and who are the real Bitcoin users. Therefore, we believe that this topic is still worth discussing today, even nearly 12 years later.
On March 22, 2013, the once-renowned Bitcoin developer Mike Hearn posted on the BitcoinTalk forum, proposing the idea of creating a "Bitcoin News Center" page on the Bitcoin.org website and inviting volunteers to nominate themselves as news contacts. This way, if journalists wanted to write articles about Bitcoin, they could Google Bitcoin, find this page, and then find people to talk to and their contact information. As Mike said:
"In recent years, many of us have been surprised by the mixed quality of Bitcoin news reports. Some journalists truly understand the nature of it all and delve deep, while others simply repeat what has already been written or seem to deliberately seek negative angles. For me, this is not particularly surprising, as I have seen how news reports are written during my time working at a large software company. There is ample reason for all major companies to have dedicated PR teams because helping journalists write good reports is a full-time job. Here, 'good' refers to accurate and balanced, not necessarily positive stories that praise the product. Bitcoin does not have dedicated PR personnel, nor should it. But we can achieve a second-best option by providing a genuinely 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 the establishment of a news center page. Several people were nominated as media contacts, two of whom sparked some 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 in the website list. It now seems that such an exclusive short list would inevitably spark fierce and unconstructive debates, potentially offending some. These issues quickly became personal, which was to be expected when discussing who best represents Bitcoin. These discussions often involved broader philosophical questions about Bitcoin and its public image.
Debate of the pull request.
The first to raise concerns about the news contacts was Bitcoin developer Luke-Jr, who quickly labeled Jon Matonis as an "extreme libertarian." Another Bitcoin developer, Jeff Garzik, subsequently also expressed support for Luke-Jr's position.
Matonis openly advocates illegal activities such as tax evasion, which is too much. Roger Ver has previously been interviewed by media like (Anarchist Daily), but I think some interviews have been toned down now.
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 viewpoint:
I am also very concerned about Mr. Matonis's inclusion. I am glad that Bitcoin attracts many people with political and philosophical backgrounds, including those I disagree with, but I believe those who speak for Bitcoin should be those who can set aside these viewpoints—especially when they believe Bitcoin conflicts with the laws and norms of major countries.
While I am glad that Bitcoin is a big enough tent to include such diversity, I think our names as news contacts should lean towards political moderation. We want and need diversity, so that Bitcoin can succeed. If this position is seen by some as contradicting integrity and legality, that is even more so.
Source: https://github.com/bitcoin-dot-org/Bitcoin.org/pull/139#issuecomment-16429652
The opinions of Luke-Jr, Jeff Garzik, and Greg Maxwell were very influential, leading to the decision to remove Roger Ver and John Matonis from the list. Bitcoin developer Patrick Strateman and others also expressed agreement.
Hackers with felony records 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 US for selling explosives on eBay. It is conceivable that, despite the fact that such a list is basically irrelevant and meaningless, Roger Ver himself and many others are dissatisfied with how and why they are excluded from the list. Roger Ver himself also participated in the discussion:
I believe I am one of the best ambassadors for Bitcoin in the world, and both the forum community and I agree on this point.
Source: https://github.com/bitcoin-dot-org/Bitcoin.org/pull/139#issuecomment-16435555
Luke-Jr then responded.
Roger Ver, do you really understand how easily the media could spin your past into 'Roger Ver, the Bitcoin spokesperson, convicted for selling explosives to terrorists' or something similar? Your response here completely ignores the issue of conviction, which suggests (perhaps I've seen too much) that you may still disagree that what you did there was wrong—who knows, maybe you're right—if you are on the defensive because of this, that is also of no use. If your response to them is 'This further proves that the government is an immoral violent organization that should never be supported,' then you would certainly think this is 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 then joined the debate, trying to calm the situation:
Roger Ver, this is really not about your ability to represent Bitcoin. So far, from what I’ve seen (but I haven’t seen a lot of interviews), you seem to be [energetic], providing accurate and relevant answers. But the media is not merciful to you; you have a very bad label that they can stick on you and the entire Bitcoin. No matter what you are capable of, they will not let you defend yourself; you (we) will have nowhere to appeal. I am a bit disappointed, but that’s just how it is. It’s not that you can’t interview well and help Bitcoin; it’s just about associating your name (and your past) with the 'official' in people’s minds.
Source: https://github.com/bitcoin-dot-org/Bitcoin.org/pull/139#issuecomment-16464502
Many seem to be somewhat angry and highly skeptical about Roger's exclusion from the list due to his political or criminal record. This is somewhat ironic because if Roger had not been nominated in the first place, no one would have cared, and perhaps nobody would have ever looked at this list. Nevertheless, now that Roger is excluded, it has sparked anger among some regarding 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 were removed from the media list simply because their discussions did not cater to the lowest common denominator of public perception. Yes, some people will be shut out by their ideologies. Yes, some media may try to target them personally, thus tarnishing Bitcoin's reputation. So what? Bitcoin is not weak enough to only need meek, timid representatives who are more like politicians than true individuals who are passionate, ideological, and, most importantly, have the character to stand up for their beliefs. Bitcoin is not weak enough to be advanced by bowing to those who have established the terrible systems that Bitcoin seeks to replace. It is embarrassing to see Bitcoin reduced to a cringing, permission-seeking entity, too cowardly to talk about the real issues and the true reasons why this technology is so important. Bitcoin is not a global community driven by passion simply because it can lower transaction fees. We do this because of the philosophical and social significance of Bitcoin, and Roger and Jon are the two best at conveying that sentiment in a professional, non-confrontational, and peaceful manner. And now they are being censored. Bitcoin is a movement; those who try to distill it into a cute new technology are self-deceived. Bitcoin is a movement; those who try to distill it into a cute new technology are self-deceived and doing serious harm to this community. If you want to sell pre-packaged, politically correct PR, go work at Dwolla.
Source: https://github.com/bitcoin-dot-org/Bitcoin.org/pull/139#issuecomment-16746792
Mark Lamb, who was then the CEO of the UK Bitcoin exchange Coinfloor, agreed with Eric's point of view:
This is disgusting. Bitcoin is not a hierarchically structured organization. In fact, it is not a company or formal organization at all. Anyone here, anyone involved in Bitcoin, could be censored due to someone's radical ideas, which is completely absurd. Bitcoin is an uncensorable protocol, an open P2P network with no leaders or authorities to silence/censor people. If you think it is a good idea not to include someone on the PR list due to their extreme views, then I believe your thinking is inconsistent with the very idea of writing Bitcoin code. Furthermore, this stance does not align with the Bitcoin community. It is estimated that a significant portion (33% or more) of users in the bitcointalk forum and Bitcoin users 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 went live, but without the participation of Ver and Mr. Matonis. The debate then shifted to BitcoinTalk, where Roger Ver defended his position:
My argument is not extreme. The government system we have today is extreme; it kills millions of innocents, drops nuclear bombs, imposes sanctions, uses violent threats to extort money, controls capital flows, devalues currency, slows down overall economic growth, leaving everyone poorer than before. Whether or not I am listed on the news page, I will continue to advocate for Bitcoin at every waking moment, promoting it as a means to help us get closer to a voluntary world. Setting my ideals aside, I truly believe I excel in promoting Bitcoin. I also think the following individuals should be included on 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
The discussion then continued, questioning whether such a list should even exist. Cypherdoc said:
I think we should abandon this list.
And another user hinted that the news center page might backfire, saying: "If you are not careful, this stupid debate could become the news:"
Carelessly, this stupid debate could become the news focus, rather than the actual technology and its impact. Headline: 'Bitcoin players split into libertarians and 'mainstream' faction.'
Trace Mayer is one of the uncontested media contacts on the list, and he also joined this debate, standing by Mr. Ver and Mr. Matonis:
Three long-standing, respected developers wanted to introduce a political ideology test when deciding who to include as potential interviewees on the media contact list. Why this political ideology test is relevant or necessary was not explained or clarified; it seems to be essentially 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 the mainstream political views of Africa, Pakistan, the United States, 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 ideology. The issue is that they project their political beliefs onto Bitcoin, such as calling Bitcoin a tool for achieving anarchy. At least Matonis, when discussing Bitcoin, 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) separated his political stance in public, so my objections in this regard are limited to Matonis. The general objection to Roger Ver is that he has a criminal history. And not just some questionable crimes (such as those related to drugs or statutory crimes), but for selling explosives.
Source: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=181168.msg1896810#msg1896810
Another user objected to Luke's statement that 'they project their political views onto Bitcoin,' replying:
You too
Luke-Jr quoted one of his famous, somewhat ridiculous/funny sayings in response:
On the contrary. While my interest in Bitcoin is indeed to promote a tonal system, I do not pretend that the reason for Bitcoin's existence is to promote a tonal system.
Many other users support Bitcoin's roots in rebellion, revolution, and anarchism, claiming: 'Every revolution is illegal.'
Luke-Jr denied this, claiming:
But Bitcoin is not a political revolution.
Subsequently, Charles Hoskinson, the final founder of Ethereum and Cardano, also joined the debate:
You might need to think more deeply about the meaning of Bitcoin. Currently, currencies are heavily regulated and controlled by a group of secret bankers who are not accountable to anyone. All currencies are inflationary fiat currencies. Bitcoin is almost the complete opposite of the world monetary system. If it succeeds, it will have a huge impact on the credibility and faith of central banks. Gunpowder is an incredible scientific achievement, but its real impact was to forever change warfare. Bitcoin, if successful, will forever change currency.
Bitcoin developer Gavin Andresen even joined the discussion, seemingly supporting Ver and Matonis while opposing Luke.
I think diversity of viewpoints is a good thing, as long as the people expressing those views are honest, credible, and respected. I still believe that the trouble and disputes Luke brought far outweigh his value. I hope people will stop implying 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 website 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 that web developer's permissions. Although the final decision was in the hands of the owner of the Bitcoin.org domain, then Martti Malmi. But ultimately, that domain seemed to have been passed to Cobra, an anonymous individual ultimately sued by Craig Wright. On May 1, 2013, Martti did express his views, but he never enforced them on others.
It is unfair to appoint a small group of 'Bitcoin representatives' for the news page. The bitcoin-press mailing list is also not very democratic and transparent. I support its removal.
Source: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=181168.msg1996365#msg1996365
Andreas Antonopoulos
No one was more outraged than Mr. Andreas Antonopoulos regarding the media list incident. Promoting Bitcoin to a wider audience is clearly an important topic 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 have had a clear understanding of how to communicate about Bitcoin, and thus felt frustrated by the wrong 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. The same Bitcoin developers opposed again, with Greg Maxwell hoping for "moderate voices." Andreas Antonopoulos rebutted,
We need more diverse opinions rather than narrowly deciding what is politically appropriate based on someone's ideas.
Andreas then said:
Now, can we strive, as this page claims, to expand the list to include more regions, languages, experiences, and thoughts? I believe you have all heard your opinions. Some agree, some disagree. In my view, the overwhelming consensus is to include Matonis. I saw two objections and seven approvals (not including my opinion). I believe this resolves the community review issue regarding Matonis.
Andreas also tried to arrange a vote on adding 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 join through this program. Even if they were added, the entire program would lose all credibility (which it initially had very little of), and the relevant developers have already [indicated] that they have no qualms about respecting the 'program' they concocted (and repeatedly concocted as needed). Even adding one or two candidates now has already caused damage—the list of news contacts should be established as broadly as possible, listening to as many community voices as possible, and excluding as few as possible. In this process, none of this has become possible. It has turned out to be a complete joke. Keeping the existing list is also not feasible. Every list has its blemishes, not due to their own fault, but due to the inconsistencies shown in the decision-making process.
Source: https://github.com/bitcoin-dot-org/Bitcoin.org/pull/162#issuecomment-17150513
Andreas accused the developers of "playing politics on bitcoin.org." Many agreed with Andreas's viewpoint, after all, this is not a technical issue but seems to be a political issue, so many expressed that this is not a decision for developers. In addition to the above, Andreas reportedly also sent the following message to Greg Maxwell:
Go to hell, you little weasel. You have no shame, no integrity, and no guts. You can't even handle an open discussion, and when you lose, you find some flatterers to silence you. Go fuck yourself with a cactus.
Source: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=181168.msg1973254#msg1973254
On May 2, 2013, Andreas announced that he would launch a new website, bitcoinpresscenter.org, aimed at addressing this issue.
I hope to receive everyone's help and provide a beta version for the bitcoinpresscenter.org website I am building, to replace the existing site. It will have only one purpose: to provide a comprehensive list of resources packed for the press (brief bios, multi-resolution photos, attribution text, etc.). We have ways to constructively address this issue and leave the chaos behind. The news center I envision will have dozens of spokespersons with different areas of expertise, playing different roles in the community, using different languages, and expressing a wide range of opinions. Nominations will be public. Voting and approvals 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 had succeeded and stated:
Despite the controversy over how to manage the personnel list for the news center, in hindsight, I think the news center is a very useful thing. I do not regret setting up the news center. The press is indeed using it, and we have improved the quality of many Bitcoin reports. What pleases me most is a CNN report that initially had the headline 'Bitcoin blockchain used to host child pornography.' We successfully collaborated with the relevant journalist to ensure that child pornography was mentioned in the last few paragraphs, making the whole report more neutral and balanced. Just last week, Jeff and I were teaching a reporter from the Financial Times about proof of work and why Bitcoin is designed the way it is. 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 later created Ethereum and became a major media contact a few months after this incident.
Note: Felix Moreno de la Cova also briefly appeared on the list.
By January 2014, just about seven months later, the news center webpage was taken down as Sirius had previously suggested. On that webpage, the Bitcoin.org site recommended visiting the Bitcoin Foundation if there were any issues. Andreas's site was also listed as a recommendation, which had a longer list of Bitcoin news contacts. As far as we know, there were over 50 media contacts or 'Bitcoin experts,' focusing on providing media contacts in various languages. This might have been a better outcome. Since a small number of specific individuals were no longer listed on the Bitcoin.org site, it became more decentralized. This also means there were no arguments over an exclusive list. If this list still existed, it is easy to imagine the useless debates and entanglements over the years about who should be on it. This was an interesting experiment, and we got results quickly, which was a bad idea for Bitcoin. However, as far as we know, the bitcoinpresscenter.org site never gained significant influence. Today, journalists might not find it a problem to look for Bitcoin experts, and a centralized list would never be a scalable solution to help journalists find 'real experts.'
Writing about such a small incident that took place 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 a broader Bitcoin story. The brief story of the news center as part of Bitcoin.org could be seen as similar to the story of the Bitcoin Foundation. It was overly centralized, leading to too much controversy and scandal. In Bitcoin, such a centralized system cannot operate, so it was abolished or became irrelevant, falling into disrepute and chaos. However, Bitcoin itself continues to exist.
