16th Anniversary of the Genesis Block, What Did the Former Bitcoin News Centers Report?

Original Title: The Bitcoin Press Center

Original Source: BitMEX Research

In this article on Bitcoin history, we look back to 2013 and discuss the brief existence of the "Bitcoin Press Center" on the Bitcoin.org website. At that time, there was a proposal to list a roster of individuals on the Press Center page, potentially creating a semi-official Bitcoin media contact list. We delve into the inevitable debates about who should and should not be included on the list, as well as the underlying tensions between this list and the broader Bitcoin culture. Should Bitcoin maintain its nature as an underground rebel currency, or should it move towards mainstream adoption, appealing to a broader audience?

Overview

In another installment of the Bitcoin history series, we revisit April 2013. Prior to this, we covered the following topics:

· 2011 Bitcoin Flash Crash

· 2012 London Bitcoin Conference

· 2014 Satoshi's Email Hack

· 2014 OP_Return War

In this article, we discuss the debate that took place in April 2013 surrounding a media contact list on a page titled the "Bitcoin Press Center" on the Bitcoin.org website. While this topic may seem trivial, it touches on broader Bitcoin cultural issues such as the purpose of Bitcoin, what kind of development strategy should be pursued, and who the true Bitcoin users are. Therefore, we believe this topic still holds enough discussion value even nearly 12 years later.

On March 22, 2013, the once-prominent 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 media contacts. This way, if a journalist wanted to write an article about Bitcoin, they could Google Bitcoin, find this page, and then find people to talk to along with their contact information. As Mike put it:

“Over the last few years, many of us have been surprised at the varying quality of Bitcoin news coverage. Some journalists really get it and do in-depth research, whereas others simply repeat what has been written already or seem to actively seek out negative angles. For me, this isn't particularly surprising, having seen press coverage from the inside at a large software company. All major companies have dedicated PR teams, and for good reasons, because helping journalists write good stories is a full-time job. When I say 'good,' I mean accurate and balanced, not necessarily puff pieces. Bitcoin doesn't have dedicated PR people, nor should it. But we can make a second-best choice by providing a genuinely good self-help news center on the website.”

Source: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=156364.0;all

Approximately a month later, on April 16, 2013, a related pull request was submitted on GitHub proposing the creation of a news center page. Several individuals were nominated as media contacts, with two causing some controversy: Mr. Roger Ver and Mr. Jon Matonis. Some Bitcoin developers felt that these candidates were unsuitable for the role due to controversial political reasons, leading to their exclusion from the website list. It seems now that such an exclusive shortlist inevitably leads to heated and unconstructive debate and may offend some individuals. These issues quickly became personal, which is somewhat predictable when discussing who can best represent Bitcoin. These discussions often involve broader philosophical questions about Bitcoin and its public image.

Debate Over the Pull Request

The first to raise 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 expressed support for Luke-Jr's position.

「Matonis publicly advocating for tax evasion and other illegal activities is outrageous. Roger Ver has previously been interviewed by publications such as 'The Anarchist Daily,' but I believe some interviews have since been toned down.」

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

The third developer, Greg Maxwell, also agrees with Luke and Jeff's viewpoints:

「I am also very concerned by Mr. Matonis's inclusion. I am glad that Bitcoin has attracted many people with political and philosophical backgrounds, including those I disagree with, but I think those speaking for Bitcoin should be those who can set aside these views, particularly when they see Bitcoin as being contrary to the laws and norms of major states.

While I am pleased that Bitcoin is a big enough tent to include such diversity, I think that names that we put forward as contacts for the press should tend toward the politically moderate. We want and need this diversity for Bitcoin to succeed. If this stance is seen by some as conflicting with honest and legal behavior, so much the better.」

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 influential, so it has been decided to remove Roger Ver and John Matonis from the list. Bitcoin developer Patrick Strateman and others also agree.

Hackers with serious criminal offenses should not appear on the news page.」

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

This statement about serious criminals refers to Roger Ver being convicted in the United States for selling explosives on eBay. As you can imagine, even though this list is essentially 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 advocates in the world, as both the masses on the forums and I personally have made clear.」

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

Luke-Jr then responded,

「Roger Ver, surely you understand how the media could all too easily twist your past into 'Roger Ver, Bitcoin spokesman, once convicted of selling explosives to terrorists' or similar? Your response here completely ignores the issue of conviction, suggesting (perhaps I read too much into it) that you may still not acknowledge your past actions there as wrong — as far as I know, maybe you are right — and if you're defensive about it, that doesn't help either. If your answer to them is 'This only further proves the government is an immoral violent gang and should not be supported in any way,' you would certainly think that doesn’t help Bitcoin.」

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

The Bitcoin.org website developer who submitted the pull request then joined the debate, attempting to defuse 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 have not seen a lot of interviews), you are [energetic], and you seem to provide accurate and relevant answers. But the media does not spare you, and you have a very bad label they can stick on you and the whole Bitcoin. Whatever you are capable of, they will not let you defend yourself, and you (we) will have no recourse. I am also a bit disappointed, but that's the way it is. I trust you mean well, but I'm not sure what good you can do in this case. No matter how frustrating it is. It's not to say you can't interview well or help Bitcoin on your own, it's just linking your name (and your past) with what people see as 'official.'」

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

Many seem somewhat angry and highly suspicious of Roger being excluded from the list due to his political or criminal record. It's somewhat ironic, as if Roger hadn't been nominated in the first place, no one would care, and perhaps no one would have even seen the list. Nevertheless, with Roger now excluded, it has stirred some anger 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 Bitcoin's most professional, articulate public supporters, but just because their discussion did not cater to the lowest common denominator of public perception, they were removed from the media list, which is truly shocking. Yes, some people will be excluded because of their ideology. Yes, some media may try to target them personally in an attempt to tarnish Bitcoin's reputation. So what. Bitcoin is not so feeble that it only needs meek and timid spokespeople, these spokespeople are more like politicians than genuine individuals, they have passion, they have ideology, and most importantly, they have the character to stand up for their beliefs. Bitcoin is not so fragile that it can only be propelled forward by groveling to those awful systems that Bitcoin aims to replace. It is embarrassing to see Bitcoin reduced to seeking permission, too timid to discuss real issues and the true reasons this technology is so important. Bitcoin has formed a global, passionately driven community not because it can lower transaction fees, but because of the philosophical and societal significance of Bitcoin, and Roger and Jon are the two best people at conveying this sentiment in a professional, non-confrontational, and peaceful manner. And now they have been censored. Bitcoin is a movement, and those trying to distill it into a cute new technology are deluding themselves. Bitcoin is a movement, and those trying to distill it into a cute new technology are deceiving themselves, causing serious harm to this community. If you want to market pre-packaged, politically correct PR, then go work at Dwolla.”

Source: https://github.com/bitcoin-dot-org/Bitcoin.org/pull/139#issuecomment-16746792

Mark Lamb, the CEO of the UK Bitcoin exchange Coinfloor at the time, agreed with Eric's point:

“This is disgusting. Bitcoin is not a hierarchical organization. In fact, it is not a company or a formal organization at all. Anyone here, anyone working in Bitcoin, could potentially be blacklisted because of someone's radical ideas, which is completely absurd. Bitcoin is an uncensored protocol, an open P2P network, with no leaders or authorities to muzzle/censor people. If you think it's a good idea to exclude someone from a PR list because of someone's extreme ideas, then I think your thinking is inconsistent with the ethos of directly writing into the Bitcoin code. Furthermore, this stance is also not in line 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 Ver and Mr. Matonis. The debate then moved to BitcoinTalk, where Roger Ver defended his position:

"My position is not extreme. The governmental systems we have today, which have slaughtered billions of innocents, dropped nuclear bombs, imposed sanctions, extorted money through violent threats, controlled the flow of capital, devalued currency, slowed the rate of overall economic growth, and made everyone poorer than they would otherwise be—*that* is extreme. Whether or not I get a mention in the news, I will continue to evangelize Bitcoin at every waking moment, advocating for it as a means to bring us closer to a voluntary world. Apart from my beliefs, I do believe I excel at promoting Bitcoin. I also believe the following individuals should be included on the news page: Jon Matonis, Erik Voorhees, Jeff Berwick. The meaning of Bitcoin is inclusivity, not exclusivity."

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

Subsequently, people continued to discuss, questioning whether such a list should exist. Cypherdoc stated:

"I think this list should be abandoned.

Another user hinted that the news center page might backfire, saying, 'If you're not careful, this foolish debate will inadvertently make the news:

One unintended consequence of this foolish debate will be the focus of the news, rather than the actual technology and its implications. Headlines like 'Bitcoin Community Divided between Liberal and 'Mainstream' Camps.'"

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

Three venerable long-term developers wish to introduce a political litmus test in deciding who to list as potential interviewees in the media contacts list. Why this political litmus test is relevant or necessary has not been explained or justified, appearing largely as an emotional appeal. Let alone how such a political litmus test would be conducted. If there is consensus that we should be using a political litmus test, what kind of test, and why? For example, should we employ 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 views. The issue is that they project their political views onto Bitcoin, such as portraying Bitcoin as a tool for achieving an anarchist state. At least when Matonis talks about Bitcoin, he seems to be encouraging illegal behavior. While my original objections also included Roger Ver, someone pointed out that he (at least recently) has publicly separated his political views--so my objection in this case is limited to Matonis. The general objection to Roger Ver is that he has a criminal history. And not just some debatable offenses (such as drug-related or statutory offenses), but trafficking explosives.」

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

Another user disagreed with Luke's statement that「they project their political views onto Bitcoin」 and replied:

「You do it too」

Luke-Jr quoted one of his famous, somewhat humorous/ridiculous phrases in response:

「Exactly the opposite. While my interest in Bitcoin is indeed to promote a transactional system, I do not pretend that the reason Bitcoin exists is to promote a transactional system.」

Many other users supported the rebellious, revolutionary, and anarchist roots of Bitcoin, claiming, 「Every revolution is illegal」

Luke-Jr denied this, stating:

「But Bitcoin is not a political revolution」

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

「You may need to think more deeply about the meaning of Bitcoin. Currently, money is heavily regulated and controlled by a group of secretive bankers who are accountable to no one. All money is inflationary fiat. Bitcoin is nearly the opposite of the world reserve currency. If it succeeds, it will have a massive impact on the credibility and faith in central banks. Gunpowder was an incredible scientific achievement, but its real impact was forever changing warfare. If Bitcoin succeeds, it will forever change money.」

Bitcoin developer Gavin Andresen even participated in the discussion, seeming to support Ver and Matonis while opposing Luke.

"I think diversity of opinion is a good thing as long as the people expressing the opinions are honest, trustworthy, and deserving of respect. I still think the trouble and controversy Luke brought far outweighed his value. I hope people will stop assuming he is part 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 decider of the website's list at the time because 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 account collaboration works, if Gavin wanted to, he could revoke this web developer's permission. Although the ultimate decision-making power rested with the owner of the Bitcoin.org domain name, which was then Sirius (Martti Malmi). However, ultimately, the domain name seemed to transfer to Cobra, an anonymous individual who was eventually sued by Craig Wright. On May 1, 2013, Sirius did express his opinion, but he never enforced it on others.

"Picking a small group of 'Bitcoin representatives' for the news page is unjust. The bitcoin-press email list is not very democratic and transparent. I support removing it."

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

Andreas Antonopoulos

No one was more livid about the media list incident than Mr. Andreas Antonopoulos. Promoting Bitcoin to a wider audience was evidently a key topic for Antonopoulos, who quickly became arguably the world's best Bitcoin speaker, proven to be very engaging, inspiring, and passionate when discussing Bitcoin. Andreas definitely knows how to communicate about Bitcoin, so he was frustrated by the erroneous decision to exclude Mr. Matonis and Mr. Ver from the list. On April 26, 2013, Andreas Antonopoulos created a new pull request on GitHub hoping to "start with Jon Matonis" and add more people to the news center page. Again, fellow Bitcoin developers opposed, with Greg Maxwell hoping for "moderate voices." Andreas Antonopoulos countered,

「We need more diverse opinions, not narrowly deciding what is politically correct based on one person's idea.」

Andreas continued:

「Now, can we, as this page claims, strive to achieve the goal of expanding the list 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 dissents and seven assents (excluding my own opinion). I believe this addresses the Matonis community review issue.」

Andreas also attempted to arrange a vote on adding more candidates to the list, stating that 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:

「Matonis, Veer, or anyone else will not be added through this process. Even if they were added, the entire process loses all credibility (which wasn't much to begin with), and the relevant developers have [shown] no regard for their own manufactured (and repeatedly manufactured as needed) 'process.' Even if one or two candidates were now added, the damage has been done—the list in the News Center should be as broad as possible, as community-oriented as possible, and as minimally exclusionary as possible. None of this is now possible in this process. It turns out it's all a complete joke. Keeping the current list won't work either. Every list is tainted, not their own fault but due to the inconsistency 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 people agreed with Andreas' point of view since this doesn't seem to be a technical issue but rather a political issue, so many expressed that it was not the developers' decision. In addition to the above content, Andreas is said to have also sent the following message to Greg Maxwell:

「Go to hell, you little yellow-bellied weasel. You have no shame, no integrity, and no courage. You can't even handle public discourse, so you lose and then find some sycophants to cover for you. Go to hell, you cactus.」

Source: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=181168.msg1973254#msg1973254

On May 2, 2013, Andreas announced that he would be launching a new website, bitcoinpresscenter.org, to address this issue.

“I am hoping to get help from everyone and offer a beta version of the website I am building, bitcoinpresscenter.org, to replace the current one. It will have one purpose: to provide a comprehensive resource list packaged for the press (short blurbs, high-resolution photos, attributions, etc.). We have a way to solve this constructively and leave the mess behind. The news center I envision will have dozens of spokespeople, each with different areas of expertise, roles in the community, languages, and a wide range of opinions. Nominations will be open. Voting and acknowledgment 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 success for the news center and made the following statement:

“Despite controversies over the personnel list for managing the news center, after several months of postmortem, I think the news center was a very valuable thing. I don't regret setting up that news center. The media really did use it, and we improved the quality of a lot of Bitcoin reporting. What makes me happiest is a CNN story that, at first, was leading with ‘Bitcoin blockchain used for hosting child pornography,’ and we successfully worked with the relevant reporter, and by the time it was published, child pornography was just covered in a small section towards the end, and the whole thing was much more neutral and balanced. Just last week, Jeff and I were teaching a journalist working for the Financial Times about how proof-of-work and Bitcoin's design work. We have indeed come a long way from the dark times of 2011.”

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

Over the next months, several more people were appointed as media contacts. Vitalik Buterin later went on to create Ethereum and became the primary media contact a few months after this event.

Note: Felix Moreno de la Cova also briefly made the list

By January 2014, just around seven months later, the News Center page was taken down as Sirius had suggested earlier. On that page, the Bitcoin.org site suggested that for queries, one should visit the Bitcoin Foundation. Andreas' website was also listed as a recommended resource, which contained a longer list of Bitcoin news contacts. It is known that there were over 50 media contacts or "Bitcoin experts" listed, with an emphasis on providing media contacts in various languages. This may have been a better outcome. With specific individuals no longer listed on the Bitcoin.org site, it was more decentralized. This also meant no arguments about an exclusive list. If that list were still around, it's easy to imagine the pointless debates and entanglements over who should be on it over the years. It was an interesting experiment, and we quickly got the result, which was a bad idea for Bitcoin. However, as far as we know, the bitcoinpresscenter.org site never gained significant traction. Today, reporters may not even face the issue of finding Bitcoin experts, and a centralized list will never be a scalable solution to help reporters find "real experts."

Writing about such a small matter from many years ago may seem like a waste of time. It may be true, but on the other hand, it may 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 debate and controversy. In Bitcoin, such a centralized system cannot function, so it was either abolished or became irrelevant, descending into undignified chaos. However, Bitcoin itself continues to exist.

Original Article Link

欢迎加入律动 BlockBeats 官方社群：

Telegram 订阅群：https://t.me/theblockbeats

Telegram 交流群：https://t.me/BlockBeats_App

Twitter 官方账号：https://twitter.com/BlockBeatsAsia