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, Mike Hearn, a once famous Bitcoin developer, posted on the BitcoinTalk forum, proposing the idea of ​​creating a "Bitcoin News Center" page on the Bitcoin.org website and inviting volunteers to propose themselves as candidates for press contacts. This way, if a reporter wants to write an article about Bitcoin, they can search for Bitcoin on Google, discover this page, and then find someone 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 news coverage of Bitcoin. Some journalists really understand what it is all about and dig deep, while others simply repeat what has already been written, or seem to deliberately look for a negative angle. For me, this is not particularly surprising, because during my time working for a large software company, I have seen how news coverage is written. There is a good reason why all large companies have dedicated PR teams, because helping journalists write good coverage is a full-time job. By 'good' I mean accurate and balanced, not necessarily positive coverage touting the product. Bitcoin does not have a dedicated PR staff, nor should it. But we can do the next best thing by providing a really 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 pull request was submitted to GitHub proposing a press center page. Several people were nominated as media contacts, two of whom caused a certain degree of controversy: Mr. Roger Ver and Mr. Jon Matonis. Some Bitcoin developers believed that these candidates were unsuitable for the position for some controversial political reasons, so they were not included in the website list. In retrospect, such an exclusive short list inevitably led to heated and unconstructive debate and may have offended some people. These issues quickly became personal, which is to be expected when discussing who best represents Bitcoin. These discussions often touched on broader philosophical questions about Bitcoin and its public image.

Pull request debate

The first to raise concerns about the press contact was Bitcoin developer Luke-Jr, who quickly called Jon Matonis an "extreme anarchist." Another Bitcoin developer, Jeff Garzik, later spoke out in support of Luke-Jr's stance.

Matonis openly advocates tax evasion and other illegal activities, which is too much. Roger Ver has been interviewed by media such as (Anarchist Daily), but I think some interviews have been restrained now.

Source: https://github.com/bitcoin-dot-org/Bitcoin.org/pull/139#issuecomment-16426114

A third developer, Greg Maxwell, agreed with Luke and Jeff:

I am also very concerned about Mr. Matonis joining the party. I am glad that Bitcoin has attracted many people with political and philosophical backgrounds, including those I disagree with, but I think the people who speak for Bitcoin should be those who can put those views aside. Especially when they believe that Bitcoin conflicts with the laws and regulations of major countries.

While I’m glad Bitcoin is a big enough tent to include such diversity, I think our names as press contacts should lean toward political moderation. We want and need all kinds of diversity in order for Bitcoin to succeed. This is especially true if such a stance is viewed by some as antithetical to upright and lawful conduct.

Source: https://github.com/bitcoin-dot-org/Bitcoin.org/pull/139#issuecomment-16429652

The opinions of Luke-Jr, Jeff Garzik, and Greg Maxwell were so valid that it was decided to remove Roger Ver and John Matonis from the list. Bitcoin developer Patrick Strateman and others also agreed.

Hacker felons should not be on the news pages

Source: https://github.com/bitcoin-dot-org/Bitcoin.org/pull/139#issuecomment-16429672

This felon statement refers to Roger Ver's conviction in the United States for selling explosives on eBay. As you can imagine, while such a list is largely irrelevant and meaningless, Roger Ver himself and many others are unhappy about 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 spokespersons in the world, and the forum crowd and I clearly agree with that.

Source: https://github.com/bitcoin-dot-org/Bitcoin.org/pull/139#issuecomment-16435555

Luke-Jr then responded

Roger Ver, surely you understand how easily the media could spin your past into “Roger Ver, Bitcoin spokesman, was once convicted of selling explosives to terrorists” or something like that? Your response here completely ignores the issue of conviction, which suggests (maybe I’m reading too much into this) that you may still disagree that what you did there was wrong — and for all I know, maybe you’re right — and it’s no use if you’re defensive about it. If your response to them is “this is more proof that the government is an immoral, violent organization that shouldn’t be supported anyway,” then you’re surely going to think that’s bad for Bitcoin.

Source: https://github.com/bitcoin-dot-org/Bitcoin.org/pull/139#issuecomment-16440473

The Bitcoin.org website developer who made the pull request then weighed in on the debate, trying to calm the situation:

Roger Ver, this has nothing to do with your ability to represent Bitcoin. From what I've seen so far (but I haven't seen a ton of interviews), you are [energetic] and you seem to provide accurate and relevant answers. But the media has no mercy on you and you have a very bad label that they can put on you and Bitcoin as a whole. No matter what you have, they won't let you defend yourself and you (we) will have nowhere to appeal. I'm a little disappointed too, but that's how it is. I'm sure you want to help, but I'm not sure how much you can help in this situation. However frustrating this is. Not that you can't do a good interview and help Bitcoin yourself, it's just that your name (and your past) is associated with what people see as "official".

Source: https://github.com/bitcoin-dot-org/Bitcoin.org/pull/139#issuecomment-16464502

Many people seem somewhat angry and highly suspicious of the fact that Roger was left off 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 probably never even looked at the list. Still, now that Roger has been left off, some are angry about the decision. Erik Voorhees expressed the anger as follows:

When I heard about this yesterday, I thought it was a joke. It is shocking that Roger Ver and Jon Matonis, the most professional and articulate public supporters of Bitcoin, 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 turned off by their ideology. Yes, some media may try to target them personally and tarnish Bitcoin's reputation. So what. Bitcoin is not so weak that it only needs silent and timid spokespersons who are more like politicians than real individuals who have passion, ideology and more importantly, the character to stand up for what they believe in. Bitcoin is not so fragile that it can only be promoted by kowtowing to those who built the terrible system that Bitcoin is designed to replace. It is embarrassing to see Bitcoin reduced to groveling permission seekers, cowardly enough to not talk about the real problems and the real reasons why this technology is so important. Bitcoin did not form a global, passion-driven community because it can lower the fees for transferring money. We are doing this because of what Bitcoin means on a philosophical and social level, and Roger and Jon are two of the best people at communicating that sentiment in a professional, non-confrontational, and peaceful manner. And now they are being censored. Bitcoin is a movement, and those who try to distill it down to a cute new technology are fooling themselves. Bitcoin is a movement, and those who try to distill it down to a cute new technology are fooling themselves and doing a grave disservice to the community. If you want to sell pre-packaged, politically correct PR, go work for 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 Eric:

This is disgusting. Bitcoin is not a hierarchical organization. In fact, it is not a company or formal organization at all. The idea that any one person here, anyone working on Bitcoin, could potentially censor someone because of their radical ideas is completely ridiculous. Bitcoin is a censorship-free protocol, an open P2P network, with no leaders or authority that can muzzle/censor people. If you think it is a good idea to not put someone on a PR list because of their extreme ideas, then I think your thinking is inconsistent with the philosophy written directly into the Bitcoin code. Furthermore, this position is also inconsistent with the Bitcoin community. It is estimated that a significant portion (33% or more) of Bitcointalk users 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 Mr. Ver and Mr. Matonis. The debate then moved to BitcoinTalk, where Roger Ver defended his position:

My advocacy is not extreme. The system of government we have today, which massacres hundreds of millions of innocent people, drops nuclear bombs, imposes sanctions, extorts money with threats of violence, controls capital flows, devalues ​​the currency, slows overall economic growth, and makes everyone poorer than they were before, is extreme. Whether or not I get included in the news pages, I will continue to promote Bitcoin and the voluntary world it will help us get closer to, every waking moment. Regardless of my philosophy, I do think I am doing a good job of promoting Bitcoin. I also think the following people should be included in the news pages: Jon Matonis, Erik Voorhees, Jeff Berwick. Bitcoin is about inclusion, not exclusion.

Source: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=181168.msg1893085#msg1893085

The discussion then continued, questioning whether there should be such a list at all. Cypherdoc said

I think this list should be abandoned.

While another user suggested the News Hub page could backfire, saying: "If you're not careful this stupid argument will make the news:

If we are not careful, this silly debate will become the focus of the news instead of the real technology and its impact. The headline is "Bitcoin players are divided into liberal and 'mainstream' factions".

Trace Mayer, one of the non-controversial media contacts on the list, also weighed in on the debate, siding with Mr. Ver and Mr. Matonis:

Three highly respected and long-standing developers want to introduce a political ideology test when deciding who to include on the media contact list as potential interview subjects. Why such a political ideology test is relevant or needed is not explained or illustrated and seems to be largely an emotional appeal. Not to mention how to conduct a political ideology test. If there is consensus that we should use a political ideology test, then what type of test is it and why? For example, should we use the mainstream political views in Africa, Pakistan, the United States, or Argentina? Why?

Source: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=181168.msg1895322#msg1895322

Luke-Jr then responded:

No, the problem (in this case) is not their political ideas. The problem is that they project their political ideas onto Bitcoin, such as describing Bitcoin as a tool to achieve anarchy. Matonis, at least, seems to be encouraging people to break the law when talking about Bitcoin. While my original objection also included Roger Ver, it was pointed out that he has (at least recently) publicly separated his political stance - so my objection in this reasoning is limited to Matonis. The general objection to Roger Ver is that he has a criminal history. And not just some debatable crime (e.g., drug-related or statutory offense), but trafficking in explosives

Source: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=181168.msg1896810#msg1896810

Another user disputed Luke’s assertion that they are projecting their own political views onto Bitcoin, replying:

the same as you

Luke-Jr responded with a famous and somewhat ridiculous/funny quote of his:

Quite the contrary. While it is true that my interest in Bitcoin is to facilitate the Tonar system, I do not pretend that Bitcoin’s raison d’être is to facilitate the Tonar system.

Many other users support Bitcoin’s rebellious, revolutionary, and anarchist roots, stating: “Every revolution is illegal.”

Luke-Jr denied this, claiming:

But Bitcoin is not a political revolution

Charles Hoskinson, the eventual founder of Ethereum and Cardano, then weighed in on the debate:

You may want to think a little deeper about what Bitcoin means. Currently, currency is heavily regulated and controlled by a group of secretive bankers who are accountable to no one. All currencies are inflationary fiat currencies. Bitcoin is almost the opposite of the world's monetary system. If it succeeds, then it will have a huge impact on the credibility and faith of central banks. Gunpowder was an incredible scientific achievement, but its real impact was changing warfare forever. Bitcoin, if successful, will change currency forever.

Even bitcoin developer Gavin Andresen weighed in, seemingly supporting Weir and Matonis over Luke.

I think diversity of opinion is a good thing, as long as the people expressing it are honest, credible, and respectable. I still think Luke causes far more trouble and strife than he's worth. I wish people would stop suggesting he was part of the core development team.

Source: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=181168.msg1897036#msg1897036

It is worth noting that Gavin Andresen was the final decision maker on the site’s list at the time, as far as we know, as Gavin is the ultimate owner of the repository on GitHub, and he may have sublicensed this section to others, who decided not to include Ver and Matonis, but based on our incomplete understanding of how GitHub accounts work, Gavin could have removed the web developer’s permissions if he wanted to. Although the final decision on the matter rested with the owner of the Bitcoin.org domain, which was Sirius (Martti Malmi) at the time. But in the end, the domain seems to have been transferred to Cobra, an anonymous individual who was eventually sued by Craig Wright. Sirius did express his views on May 1, 2013, but he never enforced them on others.

It is unfair to have a small group of “Bitcoin reps” hand-picked for the news page. The bitcoin-press mailing list is also not very democratic and transparent. I am in favor of removing it.

Source: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=181168.msg1996365#msg1996365

Andreas Antonapoulos

No one was more outraged about the media list incident than Mr. Andreas Antonopolous. Educating a wider audience about Bitcoin was obviously a big topic for Antonopolous, who quickly became perhaps the best Bitcoin speaker in the world, proving to be very engaging, inspiring, and passionate when talking about Bitcoin. Andreas must have known a lot about how to communicate about Bitcoin, so he was frustrated by the poor decision to exclude Mr. Matonis and Mr. Weir from the list. On April 26, 2013, Andreas Antonopolous added a new pull request on GitHub, hoping to add more people to the News Center page "starting with Jon Matonis." The same Bitcoin developers objected again, with Greg Maxwell hoping for "moderate voices." Andreas Antonopolous retorted

We need more diverse opinions, rather than narrowly deciding what is politically appropriate based on one person's ideas.

Andreas went on to say:

Now, can we please work toward the goal of expanding the list to include more geographies, languages, experiences, and ideas, as this page claims? I'm sure you've all heard your comments. Some agree, some disagree. It seems to me that the overwhelming consensus is to add Matonis. I saw two dissenting comments and seven in favor (not including mine). I believe this resolves the community review issue for Matonis.

Andreas also tried to arrange a vote on adding more candidates to the list, which he said he won (17 votes to 7), but the website developers did not implement the vote. A few days later, on April 26, 2013, Andreas seemed to lose patience with the process:

Matonis, Vil, or anyone else will not be added through this process. Even if they were added, the entire process has lost all credibility (there wasn't much to begin with), and the developers involved have [shown] they have no qualms about respecting the "process" they made up (and keep making up as much as necessary). Even if one or two candidates were added now, the damage would have been done - the News Center list is supposed to be as broadly determined as possible, with as much input from the community as possible, and as little exclusion as possible. None of that is possible anymore with this process. It has proven to be a complete joke. Keeping the existing lists won't work either. Every list is tainted, through no fault of their own, but rather the inconsistency 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, after all this was not a technical issue but seemed to be a political one, so many said it was not a decision of the developers. In addition to the above, Andreas allegedly sent the following message to Greg Maxwell:

Fuck you, 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 sycophants to silence you. Fuck the 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, that aimed to address this very issue.

I'm hoping to get your help and offer a beta version of the bitcoinpresscenter.org website I'm building as a replacement for the current one. It will have one purpose: to provide a comprehensive list of resources, packaged for the press (short blurbs, multi-resolution photos, attribution text, etc.). There are ways to solve this problem in a constructive way, leaving the chaos behind. The press center I envision will have dozens of speakers with different areas of expertise, different roles in the community, using different languages, and expressing a wide range of opinions. Nominations will be open. Voting and endorsements will be public.

Source: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=181168.msg2002317#msg2002317

in conclusion

By July 2013, the discussions had largely come to an end. Mike Hearn declared the press center a success, issuing the following statement:

Despite the controversy over how to manage the Newsroom staffing, after a few months of hindsight, I think the Newsroom was a very useful thing. I don't regret setting it up. The press is really using it, and we've improved the quality of a lot of Bitcoin coverage. The one that made me happiest was a CNN story that started out with the headline "Bitcoin blockchain used to host child pornography," and we successfully worked with the reporter involved so that when the story was finally published, the child pornography was relegated to the last few paragraphs, and the whole story was much more neutral and balanced. Just last week, Jeff and I were teaching a reporter working for the [Financial Times] about proof of work and why Bitcoin was designed the way it was. We've come a long way from the bad old days of 2011.

Source: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=181168.msg2684368#msg2684368

In the following months, several more people were named as media contacts. Vitalik Buterin, who later founded Ethereum, became the primary media contact a few months after the event.

Note: Felix Moreno de la Cova was also briefly 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, the Bitcoin.org website recommends that if you have questions, visit the Bitcoin Foundation. Andreas' website is also listed as a recommendation, and it has a longer list of contacts for Bitcoin news. To our knowledge, there are over 50 media contacts or “Bitcoin experts” with an emphasis on providing media contacts in multiple languages. This may be a better result. There is even more decentralization as a small group of specific individuals are no longer listed on the Bitcoin.org website. This also means there is no debate about exclusive lists. If this list were still around, it's easy to imagine years of unhelpful arguments and wrangles over who should be on it. It was an interesting experiment and we quickly got the results that it was a bad idea for Bitcoin. However, to our knowledge, the bitcoinpresscenter.org website has never gained significant traction. Today, reporters may not have a problem finding Bitcoin experts, and a centralized list will never be a scalable solution for helping reporters find “real experts.”

It seems like a waste of time to write about such a small thing that happened many years ago. This may be true, but on the other hand, it may also be a small part of the wider Bitcoin story. The brief story of the news center that is part of Bitcoin.org can be considered similar to the story of the Bitcoin Foundation. It was too centralized and caused too many arguments and scandals. In Bitcoin, such a centralized system could not work, so it was abolished or became irrelevant and fell into an undignified mess. However, Bitcoin itself continues to exist.