On the 16th anniversary of the founding block, what were the previous Bitcoin news centers reporting on?
Reprinted from panewslab
01/03/2025·3M
Overview
In another part of our Bitcoin history series, we go back to April 2013. Previously we have covered the following topics:
London Bitcoin Conference 2012
The 2014 Satoshi Nakamoto email hack
In this article, we discuss the controversy that took place in April 2013 surrounding the media contact list for a page on the Bitcoin.org website called the "Bitcoin News Center". This topic may seem trivial, but it touches on broader Bitcoin cultural issues, such as what Bitcoin is used for, what development strategy should be adopted, and who are the real Bitcoin users. Therefore, we believe that this topic is still worthy of discussion even today, nearly 12 years later.
On March 22, 2013, once-famous Bitcoin developer Mike Hearn posted on the BitcoinTalk forum, proposing the idea of establishing a "Bitcoin News Center" page on the Bitcoin.org website and inviting volunteers to propose themselves as press contacts human candidate. That way, if a journalist wants to write an article about Bitcoin, they can Google Bitcoin, discover this page, and find someone to talk to and their contact information. As Mike said:
" Many of us have been surprised by the varying quality of Bitcoin news coverage over the past few years. Some reporters really get the nitty gritty of it all and dig into it, while others simply rehash what's already been written, or There seems to be a deliberate search for a negative angle, which isn't particularly surprising to me because I've seen how the news is covered during my time working at a large software company. Written by. There's a good reason all major companies have dedicated PR teams, because helping journalists write good stories is a full-time job, and by 'good' I mean accurate and balanced, not necessarily flattering. Positive coverage of the product. Bitcoin doesn’t have a dedicated PR staff, nor should it, but we can do the next best thing by having 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 related pull request was submitted on GitHub proposing the establishment of a news center page. Several people were named as media contacts, two of whom caused a degree of controversy: Mr. Roger Ver and Mr. Jon Matonis. Some Bitcoin developers believe that these candidates are not suitable for the position due to some controversial political reasons, so they are not included in the website's list. It now appears that such an exclusive short list would inevitably spark heated and unconstructive debate and might offend some people. The questions quickly became personal, as is to be expected when discussing who best represents Bitcoin. These discussions often engage with broader philosophical questions about Bitcoin and its public image.
Pull request arguments
The first to raise concerns with press contacts was Bitcoin developer Luke-Jr, who was quick to label Jon Matonis an "extreme anarchist." Another Bitcoin developer, Jeff Garzik, later expressed his support for Luke-Jr’s position.
Matonis goes too far by openly advocating tax evasion and other illegal activities. Roger Ver has been interviewed by media such as "Daily Anarchist", 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, also agreed with Luke and Jeff:
I 'm also very concerned about the addition of Mr. Matonis. I'm glad that Bitcoin attracts many people with political and philosophical backgrounds, including those with whom I disagree, but I think the people who speak up for Bitcoin should be those who can put those views aside. Especially when they believe Bitcoin conflicts with the laws and norms 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 so that Bitcoin can succeed. This is especially true if such a stance is considered by some to be contrary to upright and lawful conduct.
Source:https://github.com/bitcoin-dot-org/Bitcoin.org/pull/139#issuecomment-16429652
The input from Luke-Jr, Jeff Garzik and Greg Maxwell was so valid that it was decided to remove Roger Ver and John Matonis from the roster. Bitcoin developer Patrick Strateman and others agreed.
Felon hackers should not be on news pages
Source:https://github.com/bitcoin-dot-org/Bitcoin.org/pull/139#issuecomment-16429672
The 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 essentially irrelevant and meaningless, Roger Weir himself and many others are unhappy with how and why they were left off 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 forums and myself definitely agree on 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 can spin your past into something like "Roger Ver, Bitcoin spokesperson, was convicted of selling explosives to terrorists" or something like that? Your answer here completely ignores the issue of conviction, which suggests (perhaps 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 --It's no use if you're on the defensive because of it. If your answer to them is "This is more evidence that the government is an amoral, violent organization that should not be supported anyway," then you would definitely think this is bad for Bitcoin.
Source:https://github.com/bitcoin-dot-org/Bitcoin.org/pull/139#issuecomment-16440473
The developers of the Bitcoin.org website who made the pull request later joined the debate in an attempt to calm the situation:
Roger Ver, this actually 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, you have a very bad label that they can put on you and Bitcoin as a whole. No matter what your abilities, they will not let you defend yourself and you (we) will have nowhere to appeal. I'm a little disappointed too, but that's the way it is. I'm sure you want to help, but I'm not sure how much you can help in this situation. No matter how frustrating it is. It’s not that you can’t do a good job of interviewing and helping Bitcoin yourself, it’s just a matter of associating your name (and your past) with what people consider “official.”
Source: https://github.com/bitcoin-dot-org/Bitcoin.org/pull/139#issuecomment-16464502
Many seemed somewhat angry and highly suspicious of the fact that Roger had been left off the list because of his political or criminal record. This is somewhat ironic, because if Roger hadn't been nominated in the first place, no one would have cared, and probably no one would have ever looked at the list. Still, Roger's now being left out has caused some outrage over the decision. Erik Voorhees expressed his outrage as follows:
When I heard about this yesterday, I thought it was a joke. Roger Ver and Jon Matonis are the most professional and eloquent public supporters of Bitcoin, but only because their discussions do not cater to the lowest common denominator of public perception. , was removed from the media list, which is really shocking. Yes, some people will be turned off by their ideology. Yes, some media outlets may try to tarnish Bitcoin’s reputation by targeting them personally. So what. Bitcoin is not so weak that it only needs obscure, fearful 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 furthered by kowtowing to those who built the terrible system that Bitcoin is meant to replace. It’s embarrassing to see Bitcoin reduced to a groveling permission-seeker too cowardly to talk about the real problems and the real reasons why this technology is so important. Bitcoin didn’t create a global, passion-driven community because it lowered transfer fees. We do this because of what Bitcoin means on a philosophical and social level, and Roger and Jon are two of the best at communicating that sentiment in a professional, non-confrontational, and peaceful way. And now they are being censored. Bitcoin is a movement, and those who try to distill it into a lovely new technology are fooling themselves. Bitcoin is a movement, and those who try to distill it into a lovely new technology are doing themselves a disservice and a grave disservice to the community. If you want to sell prepackaged, 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 British 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 anyone 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 leader or authority that can muzzle/censor people. If you think it 's 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 of writing it directly into the Bitcoin code. Furthermore, this stance is not consistent 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 involvement of Mr. Ver and Matonis. The debate then moved to BitcoinTalk, where Roger Ver defended his position:
My claims are not extreme. We have a government system today that kills billions of innocent people, drops nuclear bombs, imposes sanctions, threatens violence to extort money, controls capital flows, devalues currencies, slows overall economic growth, and leaves everyone poorer than before. , this is the extreme. Whether or not I’m on the news page, I will continue to promote Bitcoin every waking moment and the voluntary world it will help bring us closer to. My philosophy aside, I do think I 'm great at promoting Bitcoin. I also think the following people should be added to the news page: Jon Matonis, Erik Voorhees, Jeff Berwick. Bitcoin is about inclusion, not exclusion.
Source:https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=181168.msg1893085#msg1893085
Discussions then continued, questioning whether there should be such a list. Cypherdoc says
I think this list should be abandoned.
While another user suggested the News Center page could be counterproductive, saying: "If you're not careful, this stupid argument will make the news:
If you’re not careful, this silly debate will dominate the news instead of the real technology and its impact. Title "Bitcoin players 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 well-respected long-time developers want to introduce a political ideology test when deciding who to put on media contact lists as potential interview subjects. Why this political ideology test is relevant or needed is not explained or stated and seems to be essentially 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, what type of test is it and why? For example, should we use 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 politics. The problem is that they project their own political ideas onto Bitcoin, such as describing Bitcoin as a tool used to achieve anarchy. At least when Matonis talks about Bitcoin, he seems to be encouraging people to break the law. While my initial objection also included Roger Ver, it was pointed out that he (at least recently) has kept his political affiliations separate in public -- so my objection in this rationale was limited to Matonis. A common objection to Roger Weir is that he has a criminal history. And not just some questionable crime (e.g. drug-related or statutory offences), but trafficking in explosives
Source:https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=181168.msg1896810#msg1896810
Another user took issue with Luke's statement that they were projecting their political views onto Bitcoin, replying:
the same as you
Luke-Jr responded with one of his famous and somewhat ridiculous/funny quotes:
Quite the opposite. While it is true that my interest in Bitcoin is to facilitate the Tonar system, I do not pretend that the raison d 'être of Bitcoin is to facilitate the Tonar system.
Many other users supported Bitcoin’s rebellious, revolutionary and anarchist roots, claiming: “Every revolution is illegal”
Luke-Jr denied this, claiming:
But Bitcoin is not a political revolution
Later, Charles Hoskinson, the eventual founder of Ethereum and Cardano, also joined the debate:
You might want to think a little deeper about what Bitcoin is. Currently, the currency is heavily regulated and controlled by a secretive group of bankers who answer to no one. All currencies are inflationary fiat currencies. Bitcoin is almost the polar opposite of the world’s monetary system. If it succeeds, 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 to change warfare forever. Bitcoin, if successful, will change currency forever.
Bitcoin developer Gavin Andresen even weighed in on the discussion, appearing to support 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 brings more trouble and strife than he 's worth. I wish people would stop implying that he was part of the core development team.
Source:https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=181168.msg1897036#msg1897036
It’s worth noting that, as far as we know, Gavin Andresen was the final decider on the site’s roster at the time, and since Gavin was the ultimate owner of the repository on GitHub, he likely sublicensed this part to The latter decided not to include Ver and Matonis, but based on our incomplete understanding of how GitHub accounts work, Gavin could revoke 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 name, who at the time was Sirius (Martti Malmi). But ultimately, the domain appears to have been transferred to Cobra, an anonymous individual who was eventually sued by Craig Wright. May 1, 2013 Sirius did make his point known, but he never enforced it on others.
It’s unfair to single out a small group of “Bitcoin reps” for news pages. The bitcoin-press mailing list is also not very democratic and transparent. I 'm in favor of removing it.
Source:https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=181168.msg1996365#msg1996365
Andreas Antonapoulos
No one was more outraged by the media list incident than Mr. Andreas Antonopolous. Educating Bitcoin to a wider audience is obviously an important topic for Antonopoulos, and he has quickly become perhaps the best Bitcoin speaker in the world. He has proven to be very knowledgeable when it comes to talking about Bitcoin. Engaging, inspiring and passionate. Andreas must know 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 to add more people to the News Center page "starting with Jon Matonis." The same Bitcoin developers objected again, with Greg Maxwell hoping for a “moderate voice.” Andreas Antonopolous retorted
We need more diversity of opinion rather than narrowly following what one person thinks is politically appropriate.
Andreas continued:
Now, can we work toward the goal of expanding the list to include more geographies, languages, experiences, and ideas, as this page claims? I believe you all heard your comments. Some people agree, some don 't. In my opinion, the overwhelming consensus is to add Matonis. I saw two dissenting opinions and seven concurring opinions (not including my opinion). I believe this solves Matonis' community moderation issue.
Andreas also tried to arrange a vote on adding more candidates to the list, in which he said he won (17 votes to 7), but the website developers did not implement the results. A few days later, on April 26, 2013, Andreas seemed to be losing patience with the process:
Matonis, Weir or anyone else will not join through this process. Even with their addition, the entire program loses all credibility (there wasn 't much credibility to begin with), and the developers involved have [shown] that they respect what they made up (and made up again and again as needed)." "Procedure" without any scruples. Even if one or two candidates are added now, the damage has already been done -- the News Center's list should be as broad as possible, with as much input from the community as possible and as little exclusion as possible. In the process, these are no longer possible. Turns out, this was a complete joke. Nor will keeping the existing list work. Each list is tainted, through no fault of their own, but by 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 power games on bitcoin.org." Many agreed with Andreas that after all this was not a technical issue but seemed to be a political one, so many said it was not the developer's decision. In addition to the above, Andreas allegedly sent the following message to Greg Maxwell:
Go to hell, you little weasel. You have no shame, no integrity, and no courage. You can 't even handle a public discussion, so if you lose, you find some sycophants to silence you. Go to xxx's cactus.
Source:https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=181168.msg1973254#msg1973254
On May 2, 2013, Andreas announced that he would launch a new website, bitcoinpresscenter.org, aimed at solving this problem.
I'm hoping to get your help and provide a beta version of the bitcoinpresscenter.org website I'm building to replace the existing one. It will have only one purpose: to provide a comprehensive list of resources, packaged for use by the press (short bios, multi-resolution photos, attribution text, etc.). We have ways to address this issue in a constructive way and leave the chaos behind. The news center I envision will have dozens of speakers with different areas of expertise, different roles in the community, speaking different languages and expressing a wide range of opinions. Nominations will be made publicly. Voting and endorsements will be public.
Source: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=181168.msg2002317#msg2002317
in conclusion
By July 2013, the discussion had finally come to an end. Mike Hearn claimed the press center was a success and issued the following statement:
Although there is controversy about how to manage the news center 's staff list, after several months of hindsight, I think the news center is a very useful thing. I don’t regret setting up the press centre. The press is really using it, and we've improved the quality of a lot of Bitcoin coverage. The one that pleased me the most was a CNN report that started with the headline "Bitcoin Blockchain Used to Host Child Pornography." We successfully worked with the reporters involved and when the report was finally published, the child pornography was Placing it in the last few paragraphs makes the entire report 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 is designed the way it is. We've come a long way since the bad days of 2011.
Source:https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=181168.msg2684368#msg2684368
Over the next few months, several more people were appointed as media contacts. Vitalik Buterin, who later founded Ethereum, became the main media contact months after the incident.
Note: Felix Moreno de la Cova was also briefly on the list
By January 2014, only about seven months later, the News Center page was taken down as Sirius had 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. It is even more decentralized since 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 incident that happened many years ago. This may be true, but on the other hand, it may also be a small part of the broader Bitcoin story. The brief story from the News Center as part of Bitcoin.org can be considered similar to the Bitcoin Foundation story. It was too centralized and led to too much controversy and scandal. In Bitcoin, such a centralized system could not function, so it was abolished or became irrelevant and fell into an undignified mess. However, Bitcoin itself continues to exist.
jinse