What were the Bitcoin news centers reporting on the 16th anniversary of the founding block?

Author: BitMEX Research

Overview

In another part of the Bitcoin history series, we will return to April 2013. Prior to this, we have reported on the following topics:

The June 2011 Bitcoin Flash Crash

London 2012: The 2nd Bitcoin Conference

Satoshi's 2014 Email Hack

The 2014 OP_Return War

In this article, we discuss the controversy surrounding a media contact list for a page called "Bitcoin News Center" on the Bitcoin.org website in April 2013. This topic may seem trivial, but it touches on broader cultural issues within the Bitcoin community, such as what the purpose of Bitcoin is, what development strategies should be adopted, and who the true Bitcoin users are. Therefore, we believe this topic still holds enough discussion value even 12 years later.

On March 22, 2013, the once-prominent Bitcoin developer Mike Hearn posted on the BitcoinTalk forum, proposing the creation of a "Bitcoin News Center" page on the Bitcoin.org website and inviting volunteers to suggest themselves as candidates for media contacts. This way, if journalists wanted to write articles about Bitcoin, they could search for Bitcoin on Google, find this page, and locate people to talk to along with their contact information. As Mike stated:

"In the past few years, many of us have been surprised by the inconsistent quality of Bitcoin news coverage. Some journalists truly understand the essence 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 coverage is written during my time at a large software company. There is a good reason why all large companies have dedicated PR teams, as helping journalists write good stories is a full-time job. The 'good' here refers to being accurate and balanced, not necessarily positive coverage that praises 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 the establishment of a news center page. Several individuals 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, and thus they were not included in the website's list. It now seems that such an exclusive short list inevitably sparked heated and unconstructive debates and may have offended some people. These issues quickly became personal, which was predictable in discussions about who best represents Bitcoin. These discussions often involved broader philosophical questions about Bitcoin and its public image.

The Controversy Over the Pull Request

The first to express concerns about the media contacts was Bitcoin developer Luke-Jr, who quickly labeled Jon Matonis as an "extreme anarchist." Another Bitcoin developer, Jeff Garzik, subsequently voiced his support for Luke-Jr's position.

Matonis openly advocates for illegal activities such as tax evasion, which is too much. Roger Ver has previously been interviewed by media such as the "Anarchist Daily," though I think some of those interviews have since been toned down.

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

A third developer, Greg Maxwell, also agreed with Luke and Jeff's views:

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 that those who speak for Bitcoin should be able to set those views aside. Especially when they believe Bitcoin is at odds with the laws and norms of major nations.

While I am pleased that Bitcoin is a big enough tent to include such diversity, I think we should lean towards politically moderate names as media contacts. We want and need various diversities for Bitcoin to succeed. If such a stance is seen by some as contrary to integrity and lawful behavior, 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 persuasive, leading to the decision to remove Roger Ver and Jon Matonis from the list. Bitcoin developer Patrick Strateman and others also expressed agreement.

Felons should not appear on the news page.

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

This felon statement refers to Roger Ver's conviction in the U.S. for selling explosives on eBay. It is conceivable that, although such a list is essentially irrelevant and meaningless, Roger Ver himself and many others were 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 advocates in the world, and the crowd on the forum and I both clearly agree on that.

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 into "Roger Ver, Bitcoin spokesperson, convicted for selling explosives to terrorists" or something similar? Your response here completely ignores the issue of the conviction, which suggests (perhaps I've read too much into it) that you may still disagree with what you did back then -- as far as I know, maybe you are right -- and if you are defensive about it, that is not helpful. If your response to them is "this further proves that the government is an immoral violent organization that should not be supported anyway," then you would certainly think that this is detrimental to Bitcoin.

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

The Bitcoin.org site developers who submitted the pull request then joined the debate, trying to calm the situation:

Roger Ver, this is actually unrelated to your ability to represent Bitcoin. So far, from what I've seen (though 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 that they can stick on you and Bitcoin as a whole. No matter what abilities you have, they will not let you defend yourself, and you (we) will have nowhere to appeal. I am a bit disappointed, but that is how it is. It is not that you cannot interview well and help Bitcoin; it is just that associating your name (and your past) with the "official" in people's eyes is problematic.

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

Many seemed to be somewhat angry and highly skeptical about Roger being excluded 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 no one would have even looked at the list. Nevertheless, now that Roger was excluded, it sparked anger from some about 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 advocates for 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 quiet, timid advocates who are more like politicians than real individuals, who are passionate, ideological, and, more importantly, have the character to stand up for their beliefs. Bitcoin is not weak enough to advance by bowing to those who have built the terrible systems that Bitcoin seeks to replace. It is embarrassing to see Bitcoin reduced to a cringing seeker of permission, too cowardly to talk about the real issues and the real reasons this technology is so important. Bitcoin is not a global, passion-driven community because it can lower transaction fees. We do this because of the philosophical and social significance of Bitcoin, and Roger and Jon are two of the best at conveying 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 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 doing serious harm to this community. If you want to promote pre-packaged, 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 the UK Bitcoin exchange Coinfloor, agreed with Erik's viewpoint:

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 because of 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 because of their extreme views, then I think your thinking is inconsistent with the ideals of directly 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 on bitcointalk 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 Matonis. The debate then shifted to BitcoinTalk, where Roger Ver defended his position:

My claims are not extreme. The government system we have today slaughters billions of innocents, drops nuclear bombs, imposes sanctions, extorts money through violent threats, controls capital flows, devalues currency, slows overall economic growth, and makes everyone poorer than before; that is extreme. Whether or not I am included 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 aside my ideology, I do believe I am quite good at promoting Bitcoin. I also believe the following people should be added to the news page: Jon Matonis, Erik Voorhees, Jeff Berwick. The essence of Bitcoin is inclusion, not exclusion.

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

The discussion continued, questioning whether such a list should exist at all. Cypherdoc said:

I think we should abandon this list.

Another user hinted that the news center page might backfire, saying, "If you're not careful, this stupid debate could become the news:

Carelessly, this stupid debate could become the focus of the news rather than the actual technology and its impact. Headline: 'Bitcoin Players Divided into Libertarians and "Mainstream"'."

Trace Mayer, one of the undisputed media contacts on the list, also joined the debate, siding with Mr. Ver and Mr. Matonis:

Three esteemed long-term developers want 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 has not been explained or justified, and it seems fundamentally an emotional appeal. Not to mention how a political ideology test would be conducted. If everyone agrees 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 beliefs. The issue is that they project their political beliefs onto Bitcoin, such as claiming Bitcoin is a tool for achieving anarchy. At least Matonis seems to encourage people to break the law when discussing Bitcoin. 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 objection in this regard is limited to Matonis. The general objection to Roger Ver is that he has a criminal record. And not just some questionable crimes (like drug-related or statutory offenses), but for selling explosives.

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

Another user objected to Luke's statement about "projecting their political views onto Bitcoin," replying:

You do too.

Luke-Jr quoted one of his famous, somewhat ridiculous/funny sayings in response:

Quite the opposite. While my interest in Bitcoin is 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 supported the rebellious, revolutionary, and anarchistic roots of Bitcoin, claiming: "Every revolution is illegal."

Luke-Jr denied this, claiming:

But Bitcoin is not a political revolution.

Charles Hoskinson, the eventual co-founder of Ethereum and Cardano, also joined the debate:

You might need to think deeper about the meaning 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. Bitcoin is almost the exact opposite of the world monetary system. If it succeeds, it will have a tremendous impact on the credibility and faith in central banks. Gunpowder was an incredible scientific achievement, but its real impact was to forever change 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 the trouble and strife that Luke brings far outweigh his value. I hope people stop implying that he is a member of the core development team.

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

It is worth noting that, as far as we know, Gavin Andresen was the final decision-maker for the website list at that 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 this developer's permissions. Although the final decision rested with the owner of the Bitcoin.org domain, who was then Martti Malmi. However, ultimately, this domain seems to have been transferred to Cobra, an anonymous individual who was later 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 about the media list incident. Promoting Bitcoin to a broader audience was 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 been very aware of how to communicate about Bitcoin, and thus he was frustrated by the erroneous 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 with Jon Matonis" and add more people to the news center page. The same Bitcoin developers opposed again, with Greg Maxwell hoping for "moderate voices." Andreas Antonopoulos countered:

We need more diverse opinions, not narrowly deciding what is politically appropriate based on someone's views.

Andreas then said:

Now, can we strive to achieve the goal of expanding the list to include more regions, languages, experiences, and thoughts, as this page claims? 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 including my opinion). I believe this resolves the community review issue for Matonis.

Andreas also attempted 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 the process:

Neither Matonis, Ver, nor anyone else will join through this process. Even if they were added, the whole process has lost all credibility (which it had very little of to begin with), and the relevant developers have [shown] that they are utterly indifferent to respecting the "process" they fabricated (and have repeatedly fabricated as needed). Even adding one or two candidates now, the damage has been done -- the news center's list should be determined as broadly as possible, hearing as many voices from the community as possible, and excluding as few as possible. In this process, none of that is possible anymore. It has proven to be a complete joke. Keeping the existing list is also not viable. Every list has a stain, not of their own doing, but of 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, as this was not a technical issue but seemed to be a political one, so many expressed that this was not the developers' decision. In addition to the above, Andreas reportedly 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. 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 only one purpose: to provide a comprehensive resource list packaged for the press (brief bios, high-resolution photos, attribution text, etc.). We have a way to constructively address this issue and leave the chaos behind. The news center I envision will have dozens of spokespeople 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 subsided. Mike Hearn claimed the news center had been successful and made the following statement:

Despite the controversy over how to manage the personnel list for the news center, after months of reflection, I believe the news center is a very useful thing. I do not regret establishing 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, which initially had the headline "Bitcoin Blockchain Used to Host Child Pornography," and we successfully collaborated with the relevant journalist so that when the report was finally published, the child pornography content was placed in the last few paragraphs, making the entire report more neutral and balanced. Just last week, Jeff and I were also teaching a journalist from the Financial Times about proof of work and the reasons behind 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 people 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 removed as Sirius had previously suggested. On that page, the Bitcoin.org website suggested visiting the Bitcoin Foundation if there were any questions. Andreas's website was also listed as a recommendation, which had a longer list of Bitcoin media contacts. As far as we know, there are over 50 media contacts or "Bitcoin experts," focusing on providing media contacts in multiple languages. This may be a better outcome. Since a small number of specific individuals were no longer listed on the Bitcoin.org website, it became more decentralized. This also meant there was no longer a contentious exclusive list. If this list had remained, it is easy to imagine the unproductive debates and entanglements over who should be on this list over the years. This was an interesting experiment, and we quickly got results that turned out to be a bad idea for Bitcoin. However, as far as we know, the bitcoinpresscenter.org website never gained significant traction. Today, journalists may not have a problem finding Bitcoin experts, and a centralized list will never be a scalable solution to help journalists find "real experts."

Writing about such a small event that happened years ago may seem 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 as part of Bitcoin.org can be seen as similar to the story of the Bitcoin Foundation . It was too centralized, leading to too much controversy and scandal. In Bitcoin, such a centralized system cannot function, so it was abolished or became irrelevant, falling into disreputable chaos. However, Bitcoin itself continues to exist.