Overview
In another part of the Bitcoin history series, we will return to April 2013. Prior to this, we had reported on the following topics:
2012 London Bitcoin Conference
2014 Satoshi's Email Hack Incident
In this article, we discuss the controversy that arose in April 2013 surrounding a media contact list for a page called "Bitcoin News Center" on the Bitcoin.org website. 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 kind of development strategy 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-renowned Bitcoin developer Mike Hearn posted on the BitcoinTalk forum, proposing the creation of a "Bitcoin News Center" page on Bitcoin.org and inviting volunteers to suggest themselves as candidates for media contacts. This way, if a journalist wanted to write an article about Bitcoin, they could Google Bitcoin, find this page, and locate someone to talk to along with their contact information. As Mike stated:
"Over 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 articles are written during my time at a large software company. There is a good reason why all major companies have dedicated PR teams, as helping journalists write good articles is a full-time job. Here, 'good' refers to being accurate and balanced, not necessarily flattering the product. Bitcoin has no dedicated PR personnel, nor should it. But we can make a second-best choice 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 individuals were nominated as media contacts, two of whom sparked a certain degree of controversy: Mr. Roger Ver and Mr. Jon Matonis. Some Bitcoin developers believed these candidates were unsuitable for the position due to certain controversial political reasons, and thus they were not included in the website's list. It now seems that such an exclusive short list inevitably led to heated and unconstructive debates, potentially offending some individuals. 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 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, although 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 conflicts with the laws and norms of major countries.
While I am pleased that Bitcoin is a big enough tent to include such diversity, I think we should lean towards political moderation in the names we choose as media contacts. We want and need various diversities for Bitcoin to succeed. If this 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 John 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 referred to Roger Ver's conviction in the U.S. for selling explosives on eBay. It is conceivable that, although such a list is essentially trivial 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 both the crowd on the forum and I clearly agree on this.
Source: https://github.com/bitcoin-dot-org/Bitcoin.org/pull/139#issuecomment-16435555
Luke-Jr then responded:
Roger Ver, do you not understand how easily the media could spin your past 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 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 -- if you are defensive about it, that is also unhelpful. 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 is detrimental to Bitcoin.
Source: https://github.com/bitcoin-dot-org/Bitcoin.org/pull/139#issuecomment-16440473
The Bitcoin.org site developer who proposed the pull request then joined the debate, trying to calm the situation:
Roger Ver, this actually has nothing to do with your ability to represent Bitcoin. So far, from what I have 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 the entire Bitcoin. No matter what your abilities are, they will not let you defend yourself, and you (we) will have nowhere to appeal. I am a bit disappointed, but that is just how it is. I believe you want to help, but I am not sure what you can do to help in this situation. No matter how frustrating this is, it is not to say that you cannot interview well and help Bitcoin; it is just that your name (and your past) is associated with the "official" in people's eyes.
Source: https://github.com/bitcoin-dot-org/Bitcoin.org/pull/139#issuecomment-16464502
Many seemed somewhat angry and highly skeptical about Roger being excluded from the list due to his political or criminal record. This is somewhat ironic, as if Roger had not been nominated in the first place, no one would have cared, and perhaps no one would have ever looked at this list. Nevertheless, now that Roger was excluded, it sparked anger from some individuals regarding this decision. Erik Voorhees expressed the following anger:
Yesterday, when I heard about this, I thought it was a joke. Roger Ver and Jon Matonis are two of 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. This is truly shocking. Yes, some people will be excluded due to their ideologies. Yes, some media may try to target them personally, thereby tarnishing Bitcoin's reputation. So what? Bitcoin is not weak enough to only require meek, timid spokespeople who are more like politicians than real individuals with passion, ideology, and, more importantly, the character to stand up for their beliefs. Bitcoin is not fragile enough to be advanced by bowing to those who have established the terrible systems that Bitcoin aims to replace. It is embarrassing to see Bitcoin reduced to a meek seeker of permission, too cowardly to discuss the real issues and the true reasons why this technology is so important. Bitcoin did not form a global, passion-driven community merely because it can lower transaction fees. We do this because of Bitcoin's philosophical and social significance, and Roger and Jon are the two individuals best at conveying this sentiment in a professional, non-confrontational, and peaceful manner. And now they have been 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, then go work for 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 potentially be censored because of someone's radical ideas, which is completely absurd. Bitcoin is a non-censorable protocol, an open P2P network with no leaders or authorities to silence/censor people. If you think it’s a good idea not to include someone on the PR list because of their extreme views, then I think your thinking is inconsistent with the principles that Bitcoin code is written on. Furthermore, this position 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 Mr. Ver and Mr. Matonis. The debate then shifted to BitcoinTalk, where Roger Ver defended his position:
My claims are not extreme. The government system we have today kills billions of innocents, drops nuclear bombs, imposes sanctions, extorts money through violent threats, controls capital flows, devalues currencies, slows overall economic growth, and makes everyone poorer than before—that is extreme. Whether or not I am included in the news page, I will continue to promote Bitcoin at every waking moment, advocating for a world closer to voluntary cooperation. Setting aside my ideology, I do believe I am excellent at 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 continued, questioning whether such a list should exist. Cypherdoc stated:
I think we should abandon this list.
Another user suggested that the news center page might backfire, saying, "If you're not careful, this stupid debate will become the news:"
Accidentally, this stupid debate will become the focus of the news, rather than the actual technology and its impact. Headline: "Bitcoin Players Divided into Liberals and 'Mainstream'."
Trace Mayer, one of the uncontested media contacts on the list, also joined the debate, siding with Mr. Ver and Mr. Matonis:
Three respected long-term developers want to introduce a political ideology test when deciding who to include as potential interview subjects on the media contact list. Why this political ideology test is relevant or necessary has not been explained or justified; it seems fundamentally an emotional appeal. Not to mention how such 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 ideologies. The issue is that they project their political ideologies 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 has been 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 history. And not just some questionable crimes (like drug-related or statutory offenses), but selling explosives.
Source: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=181168.msg1896810#msg1896810
Another user contested Luke's statement about "they project 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 a tonalist system, I do not pretend that the reason for Bitcoin's existence is to promote a tonalist system.
Many other users supported the rebellious, revolutionary, and anarchistic roots of Bitcoin, claiming: "Every revolution is illegal."
Luke-Jr denied this, asserting:
But Bitcoin is not a political revolution.
Then Charles Hoskinson, the eventual founder of Ethereum and Cardano, also joined the debate:
You might need to think more deeply 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 participated in the discussion, seemingly supporting Ver and Matonis while opposing Luke.
I think diversity of opinion is a good thing, as long as the people expressing those opinions are honest, credible, and respected. I still believe that the trouble and strife 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 at the time was Martti Malmi. Ultimately, this domain seems to have been transferred to Cobra, an anonymous individual who was eventually sued by Craig Wright. On May 1, 2013, Martti did express his opinion, but he never enforced it on others.
Appointing a small group of "Bitcoin representatives" for the news page is unfair. 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 Antonopoulos
No one was more outraged by the media list incident than Mr. Andreas Antonopoulos. Promoting Bitcoin to a wider 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 felt 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 adding more people to the news center page, beginning with Jon Matonis." The same Bitcoin developers opposed this again, with Greg Maxwell hoping for "moderate voices." Andreas Antonopoulos countered:
We need more diverse opinions, rather than narrowly deciding what is politically correct based on someone's ideas.
Andreas continued:
Can we now, as this page claims, strive to expand 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 objections and seven approvals (not including my opinion). I believe this resolves the community review issue regarding 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 are added, the entire process has lost all credibility (which it had very little of to begin with), and the relevant developers have [indicated] that they are utterly unconcerned with respecting the "process" they fabricated (and have repeatedly fabricated as needed). Even adding one or two candidates now, the damage has already been done—the news center list should be as broadly defined as possible, taking as many community opinions 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 an option. Every list has its blemishes, not due to their own fault, but due to the inconsistencies displayed 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, leading many to state that this was not the developers' decision. In addition to the above, Andreas reportedly sent the following message to Greg Maxwell:
F* you, you little weasel. You have no shame, no integrity, and no guts. You can't even handle a public discussion, and when you lose, you find some sycophants to silence. Go f* 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 media (brief bios, multi-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 speakers 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 endorsements will be public.
Source: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=181168.msg2002317#msg2002317
Conclusion
By July 2013, the discussion had finally come to a close. Mike Hearn claimed the news center was a success and made the following statement:
Despite the controversy over how to manage the personnel list for the news center, after months of reflection, I believe the news center is a very useful thing. I do not regret establishing the news center. The media 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," 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 old days 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 primary media contact a few months after this incident.
Note: Felix Moreno de la Cova was also briefly on the list.
By January 2014, just about seven months later, the news center webpage was removed as Sirius had previously suggested. On that webpage, Bitcoin.org 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 news 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 have been a better outcome. Since the Bitcoin.org website no longer listed a small number of specific individuals, it became more decentralized. This also meant there was no longer a debate over an exclusive list. If that list had still existed, it is easy to imagine the unproductive arguments and entanglements over who should be on that list for years to come. This was an interesting experiment, and we quickly got results that were a bad idea for Bitcoin. However, as far as we know, the bitcoinpresscenter.org website never gained significant influence. 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. Such a centralized system cannot function in Bitcoin, so it was abolished or became irrelevant, falling into disreputable chaos. However, Bitcoin itself continues to exist.
免责声明：本文章仅代表作者个人观点，不代表本平台的立场和观点。本文章仅供信息分享，不构成对任何人的任何投资建议。用户与作者之间的任何争议，与本平台无关。如网页中刊载的文章或图片涉及侵权，请提供相关的权利证明和身份证明发送邮件到support@aicoin.com，本平台相关工作人员将会进行核查。
