Bitcoin Negative Public Image

[Stunna]

It's been annoying me for a while how so many people view bitcoin in such a negative light.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2013/apr/03/bitcoin-currency-bubble-crash-not-rocking-financial-markets


This article in question written by the Guardian no less, describes bitcoins as:

An obscure digital currency – used mostly for running drugs and laundering money for dictators – suffered a sudden crash on Wednesday,

For Bitcoin to begin to grow and reach a true mainstream appeal something needs to be done about its image which is being unfairly portrayed in the media.



Any thoughts on how the public image of bitcoins can improve? And what percentage of bitcoin transactions do you think are illegal?

Would appreciate input,


Thanks.

[Mosper]

Bitcoin needs a presskit and PR system.

[Stunna]

Bitcoin needs a presskit and PR system.

https://www.weusecoins.com/ was a good step in the right direction, the issue currently is that people are more interested in raising awareness rather than making an argument for them. I fully agree with you.

[CurbsideProphet]

The fact that they're using share price ("Bitcoin was a modest $32 a share") indicates the author is clearly uninformed.  However, I think any news is good news at this point.  Word needs to get out and whether that be by Bitcoin surprassing $100 per coin or $1 billion in circulation or a substantial correction or hack, the point is people are talking and that's really what matters right now.

The negative connotations can be dealt with, right now it's about getting more and more people to talk about Bitcoin.  Even if it is at the most basic and erroneous level.  

I got into Bitcoin after hearing about the major spike and the guy who had hundreds of thousands stolen from his wallet in 2011.  It was bad press but you know what?  If it wasn't for that article, I never would have been around back then.  It opened the door for me, the next step was to walk through.  It's all baby steps right now.  Let the press talk and keep on talking, they're our best PR right now.

[justin321]

Those of us who own them and use them, should be active on the posts of the big main stream articles. Not arguing with anyone.
Just stating what types of legitimate & legal applications we are actually using them for. Keep it short.

"I buy magazines with mine."

  

[SgtSpike]

I've thought about going crazy on the comments on every news article that is posted, and debating anyone and everyone who has a negative viewpoint of Bitcoin.  Including the author, of course, if they said something like that.

Then I realized that this would be nearly a full-time job.

[blockbet.net]

Is there any proof of "money laundering for dictators"? Bullshit article and gotta wonder what her agenda is to write something so strongly worded. Also, I had no idea that I have to be online 18 hours a day to "maintain" my money, like it's gonna disappear if I'm away

[edit] Also, "hackers"? This woman still lives in a world where everybody who knows something about computers is a "hacker", making it sound like they're criminals.

[n8rwJeTt8TrrLKPa55eU]

Is there any proof of "money laundering for dictators"? Bullshit article and gotta wonder what her agenda is to write something so strongly worded. Also, I had no idea that I have to be online 18 hours a day to "maintain" my money, like it's gonna disappear if I'm away

[edit] Also, "hackers"? This woman still lives in a world where everybody who knows something about computers is a "hacker", making it sound like they're criminals.

Author is clearly bottom of the barrel.  Probably hired via nepotism or is having sex with someone higher up.

Unfortunately, although Bitcoin brings many benefits to humanity, it's outside of its scope to fix worldwide stupidity, in the UK or anywhere else.  We will simply have to learn to tolerate and laugh at these kinds of articles while our butler serves us caviar in our Learjets.

[nwbitcoin]

It's the Guardian!

Their readership are public sector drones who think everyone should give their money to help the government give pay rises to public sector employees!

You can't convert them, so you are better off ignoring them!

Interesting rumour about the Guardian is that they headline companies they claim don't pay enough tax in the UK with the obvious exception of their own publishers who have millions invested in some tropical island somewhere - no idea if its true!

[cpt_howdy]

I don't know where to start with this one. Is this what journalism has come to? "Ha ha, you're nerds. Ha ha, your little currency experiment is stupid and *pointless*. Ha ha. Bitcoin is a bubble. Ha ha ha"

Her first ever article for Guardian CiF was on the Facebook IPO. (http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/cifamerica/2012/may/18/facebook-ipos)
If you read it while replacing "Facebook" with "Bitcoin", it's almost the same article.

What the fuck is this woman's problem? She clearly hates 'geeks', and appears to be such a gargantuan idiot that she can't tell the difference between a ponzi IPO and the world's first cryptocurrency.

[MysteryMiner]

Bitcoin being great tool for buying drugs and money laundering are selling points that differentiates it from PayPal or similar controlled systems. I see no problem with it.

P.S. Dictators cashing out using Bitcoins must be a joke.

[Driice]

Yellow journalism at its finest

[VforVictory]

Bitcoin being great tool for buying drugs and money laundering are selling points that differentiates it from PayPal or similar controlled systems. I see no problem with it.

P.S. Dictators cashing out using Bitcoins must be a joke.

Have you seen just how many drugs you can buy with bitcoin? Also, you are more likely to be tracked with paypal, than with bitcoin. I wouldn't be too surprised if "dictators" and a few other rulers jumped in as well, as it is a fairly good way to funnel funds in for mercenaries, hint hint. <_< >_>

Ironically, if the US and other countries blacklist them for aid and stuff they can just create underground server bunkers, mine Bitcoin, and funnel that around for everything their country needs to win a war.

[Bitzing]

People first hear about it they think it's nuts. Everyone needs to do there own research and create an opinion on the information. They need to stop judging it off of what journalists say.

[Stunna]

I don't know where to start with this one. Is this what journalism has come to? "Ha ha, you're nerds. Ha ha, your little currency experiment is stupid and *pointless*. Ha ha. Bitcoin is a bubble. Ha ha ha"

Her first ever article for Guardian CiF was on the Facebook IPO. (http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/cifamerica/2012/may/18/facebook-ipos)
If you read it while replacing "Facebook" with "Bitcoin", it's almost the same article.

What the fuck is this woman's problem? She clearly hates 'geeks', and appears to be such a gargantuan idiot that she can't tell the difference between a ponzi IPO and the world's first cryptocurrency.

Nice find, and very true. I just can't believe someone who writes articles for the guardian can just make up such blatant lies about dictators hiding their money in bitcoins etc.

[Elwar]

We have a negative public image against those who are threatened by Bitcoin's success.

I like the ones who live so deep in the world of people controlling the economy over math that they discount Bitcoin based upon the fact that they cannot find out more about Satoshi. The whole Bitcoin concept is a black hole to them without the ability to judge a system based upon the personality of its creator.

[Carlton Banks]

As a publication, the Guardian comes across politically as:

-anti war
-anti corporatism
-anti poverty
-anti corruption
-pro big government
-pro innovation

And so, when a technology comes along which actually has a chance to succeed at achieving all but one of their principles, and the Guardian morphs into an ignorant mis-information troll? Totally surreal.

[Herodes]

It's been annoying me for a while how so many people view bitcoin in such a negative light.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2013/apr/03/bitcoin-currency-bubble-crash-not-rocking-financial-markets

While theoretically it can be used for respectable online purchases, it is too complicated to buy and maintain for people who aren't online 18 hours a day

Haha, I stopped reading right there. Did you see the picture of the journalist ? Typical fat negative woman, sipping her cofee and spewing status quo propaganda. The intelligent read will see through that bullshit. News are supposed to be objective, this is highly subjective with a negative twist. I don't even understand that she bothers. She's probably the same type of ladies you find everywhere in Britain, not very attractive, but very quick to thrash-talk anything that's great, be it bitcoin or a beautiful woman. This piece, although I just read a few paragraphs was so bad, that I would be really ashamed if I had her in my newspaper if I was the boss. Luckily, the media coverage has indeed changed for the better, and I hope most people do not believe everything that's on the news. This was hoghwash deluxe.

On another note: I think media overall is more positive to bitcoin now. Great things are happening, not just hacks and scams.

[Herodes]

Author is clearly bottom of the barrel.  Probably hired via nepotism or is having sex with someone higher up.

Oh dear god, what an unlucky man!

[repentance]

Bitcoin has had a ton of positive publicity recently and nobody ever complains when positive publicity is based on hyperbole rather than fact.

Bitcoin is absolutely being traded like a commodity at the moment.  It's naive to believe that the majority of people speculating on Bitcoin prices right now intend to hold them long term or use them to purchase things.  Many of them will dump their coins when there's little volatility.

Yes, there's a lot of lazy journalism.  This applies to both the good and the bad.  Time after time inaccurate articles start off on arstechnica or wired and nobody does any fact-checking before they start appearing everywhere else.  That's equally true of mainstream news stories.

For every person who wants Bitcoin to "go mainstream", there's another Bitcoin user who thinks that could kill Bitcoin and that the emphasis should be on it being a disruptive technology.

There's no cohesive "Bitcoin agenda".  Nor does there need to be.  People want and expect different things from Bitcoin and they use it for different reasons and in different ways.  It's not surprising, then, that media reporting regarding Bitcoin is all over the place and rarely balanced.

It's pretty much up to each of the groups with an agenda (whether it's the "mainstreamers" or the crypto-anarchists), to take responsibility for getting the kinds of stories they'd like to see about Bitcoin published - bearing in mind that each group will likely be displeased by a report regarded as "positive" by the other.