Roger Ver and Jon Matonis pushed aside now that Bitcoin is becoming mainstream

[mikegogulski]

I think an interesting solution to these arguments would be to find someone with totally extreme political views who can be absolutely trusted to talk about Bitcoin in a neutral light, and make it clear that it's a project which is made up of many people with different beliefs and backgrounds. Someone who is a hard core anarcho-capitalist but isn't going to claim Bitcoin is inherently anarchist if they're given a soapbox, or imply the point of Bitcoin is being able to evade the law, etc. Then maybe everyone can be equally annoyed together. Perhaps Mike G would take it on

I was about to say "Hey! What are you trying to volunteer me for!?!" but now I'm thinking more along the lines of "What sort of salary do you have in mind?"

[1715306444]

1715306444

[marcus_of_augustus]

I think an interesting solution to these arguments would be to find someone with totally extreme political views who can be absolutely trusted to talk about Bitcoin in a neutral light, and make it clear that it's a project which is made up of many people with different beliefs and backgrounds. Someone who is a hard core anarcho-capitalist but isn't going to claim Bitcoin is inherently anarchist if they're given a soapbox, or imply the point of Bitcoin is being able to evade the law, etc. Then maybe everyone can be equally annoyed together. Perhaps Mike G would take it on

I was about to say "Hey! What are you trying to volunteer me for!?!" but now I'm thinking more along the lines of "What sort of salary do you have in mind?"

Sheriff Gogulski ?

[charleshoskinson]

I think an interesting solution to these arguments would be to find someone with totally extreme political views who can be absolutely trusted to talk about Bitcoin in a neutral light, and make it clear that it's a project which is made up of many people with different beliefs and backgrounds. Someone who is a hard core anarcho-capitalist but isn't going to claim Bitcoin is inherently anarchist if they're given a soapbox, or imply the point of Bitcoin is being able to evade the law, etc. Then maybe everyone can be equally annoyed together. Perhaps Mike G would take it on Smiley

Charles, I think the tea party analogy is an interesting one. Obviously I wasn't there. But perhaps you can see that your analogy is invertible. There are plenty of libertarians that are doing productive and useful stuff with Bitcoin, but there are also a people who are trying to essentially hijack Bitcoin and make it linked in peoples minds with their own agenda. You can see it in these endless threads where some of them claim Bitcoin is inherently anti-government and anyone who disagrees "doesn't get it". They just can't or won't mentally separate the two things.

This is the root cause of the desire to keep Bitcoin and bitcoin.org apolitical, which is something there's a lot of support for. The problem is how to actually do that. A wiki page won't work. Wiki pages on controversial topics just turn into exhausting edit wars in which the final result is decided by who has the most time and zealot-like dedication. That's not a way to achieve an apolitical result, as we learned the hard way with the Trade page.

We could just delete anything that some random forum poster finds controversial. That won't work either. Some people genuinely believe Bitcoin shouldn't have a website at all. Maybe one day that'll be the case (hopefully!), just like how the dollar doesn't have a website, but we're far from that state.

We can rename stuff so it seems less "official", but there's already a very obvious disclaimer on the website saying that the people there aren't official or spokespeople of any kind.

We could just abandon the entire concept of a press center, but there are reasons it was created (oddly, nobody found it controversial when I first proposed it here in this forum). Mostly that a lot of the coverage Bitcoin got was really clueless or riddled with basic errors, and could have benefited from people who knew what they were talking about being involved. It'd suck to give up on trying to fix that.

So we're left with the worst solution except for all the others - have some kind of process for submitting changes, and look for alternatives in cases where there's controversy or people who have a long track record of contribution would be uncomfortable. In this case there are plenty of people who nobody really disagrees on, so there are lots of alternatives available.

Another thing I am confused about is why are you contributing to Bitcoin if your end goal is to have a collection of governments regulate and control it? You've effectively built a better paypal without stock options or founder credit? The whole point of having a system like bitcoin is to abstract commerce to the cloud and outside of any one government's hands. We can agree to reasonable regulation of exchanges, yet I'm getting the feeling the foundation has something broader and more government friendly in mind.

Yes I could be wrong, but why are you then using the very finite resources of the foundation to argue about media relations when you have ignored the single most important entity in this debate- the mainstream prospect. There are significant barriers to entry for normal people into our world. It makes a lot more sense to win the PR battle by focusing on removing those barriers instead of purging certain voices deem to be to extreme. Anyone can be extreme if someone doesn't understand what they are doing.

[blockgenesis]

Pointing it to the Bitcoin Foundation seems reasonable.  If other press centers grow organically, maybe just a link.

That moves the press stuff off bitcoin.org at least, which doesn't seem unreasonable.  Many of us have been saying that bitcoin.org should focus more on the open source project and technical aspects.  Let's put those words to the test.  I certainly prefer a more apolitical bitcoin.org myself.

Moving interviewees elsewhere than bitcoin.org can help on one thing. In a space that is not perceived as being "authoritative", there is more room for diversity without controversy. Thus probably fixing the Matonis/Roger issue. But still, even if it mitigates the issue, Mike Hearn is right that it won't be fixed regardless of the approach, edit wars will happen. Choosing interviewees will always remains a challenge. And not everyone can speak of Bitcoin clearly and accurately, so a "anyone is a Bitcoin PR expert" press center doesn't make sense.

Personally, I like the idea of a dedicated community-driven press center, managed by an independant team, with transparent guidelines and discussions. And I think that as long as such a community press center is well organized, that it is clear that it is community-driven and that it has decent guidelines, we could link to it. And we could remove most interviewees from bitcoin.org and only keep a few "boring ultra-neutral technical ones" like developer, Patrick Murck for legal questions. And/or link to https://bitcoinfoundation.org/contact . I've encouraged such an idea since a few days.

That said, I would also like to point out that as Mike said, this drama appeared only after the project has been reviewed and published. Roger and Matonis were more civilized and calm themselves than most people on the forums and most moderate voices seems to be exausted. I would personally prefer to let enough time for a good solution to appear than to rush things and cause even more outcry. Because the current press center also have many supporters. And it is not arbitrary, even though the process is too selective to some.

[RationalSpeculator]

When I heard about this yesterday, I thought it was a joke.

It is appalling that Roger Ver and Jon Matonis, two of the most professional and eloquent public proponents of Bitcoin, would be removed from a press list, merely because they don't cater their discussion to the lowest common denominator of public perception.

Yes, some out there would be turned off by their ideology.
Yes, some press might try to target them personally and thus tarnish Bitcoin's reputation.

So what.

Bitcoin is not so weak and pathetic that it requires only tacit, cowed spokesmen who are more like politicians than real individuals with passion and ideology and, importantly, the character to stand up for that in which they believe. Bitcoin is not so fragile that it can only be advanced by grovelling to the very people who built the terrible systems it seeks to replace.

It is embarrassing to see Bitcoin reduced to sniveling permission-seekers, too cowardly to speak about the real issues and the real reasons why this technology is so important. There is not a global, passion-driven community around Bitcoin because it offers lower money transfer fees. We do this because of what Bitcoin means on a philosophical and societal level, and Roger and Jon are two of the best at conveying this sentiment in a professional, non-confrontational, level-headed manner.

And now they've been censored.

Bitcoin is a movement, and those trying to distil it into nothing more than a cute new technology are kidding themselves and doing a terrible disservice to this community. If you want to sell pre-packaged, politically correct PR, go work for Dwolla.

Amen! +1

[aantonop]

I would appreciate help and beta testers for the bitcoinpresscenter.org which I am building as the inclusive alternative to the existing site. It will have only one purpose: to provide a comprehensive list of resources, packaged for press consumption (short bios, multi-res photos, attribution text, etc).

There is a way to fix this constructively and put the mess behind us. The press center I envision will have dozens of spokespeople with varying areas of expertise, a variety of roles in the community, a variety of spoken languages and a broad array of opinions. Nominations will be open and public. Votes and endorsements will be open and public.

I will have the prototype ready by Friday or Saturday this week. I could use help in testing the UX and also proposals on how to manage the registration, nomination and voting process.

[caveden]

You can see these arguments as just a third round of the same dynamic. A bunch of anarchists turn up and want the project to explicitly support their viewpoints, often by promoting illegal activities. A bunch of other people who are actually forming businesses or writing software turn up and want the project to stay apolitical and certainly steer clear of illegal activity.

Wow... totally distinct sets, huh? Anarchists don't ever form business or write software. Brilliant.

I'm sorry Mike... I strongly admire your work, you're the source of a bunch of really bright ideas in Bitcoin world. And you work hard for its improvement. I thank you for that. But this post of yours was pathetic and filled with prejudice. Perhaps the worst of yours I've read so far.

So that's why these days we have a website that tells people to pay their taxes, doesn't talk about the Silk Road, and has people listed as press contacts who have a track record of not encouraging illegal activity. That's actually as apolitical as it gets.

Oh no no, that's not apolitical at all, and you know it very well. All this is already a political choice - that of being a state-lover and "law-abiding" person. That's obviously a political standpoint (and imho, a sort of religious belief too).

And by the way, about "always following the law", perhaps you should read what Falkvinge has to say about it (he's a socialist statist, by the way): http://falkvinge.net/2012/07/19/debunking-the-dangerous-nothing-to-hide-nothing-to-fear/ (it's item 3 if you're in a hurry)
(I can also quote Larken Rose, but I suppose you'll discredit him right away:

The upstanding, church-going, law-abiding, tax-paying citizen who votes Democratic or Republican is far more despicable, and a bigger threat to humanity, than the most promiscuous, lazy, drug-snorting hippie. Why? Because the hippie is willing to let others be free, and the voter is not.

)

What would NOT be apolitical, is to have a wiki page that would turn into the Trade page circa 2011

I agree, pointing to a wiki page is probably not a good idea either. A true attempt of making bitcoin.org less biased would be to remove this Press Center entirely. Just remove the Press Center from bitocoin.org, and journalists will keep doing whatever they do to search for information.

[caveden]

It is embarrassing to see Bitcoin reduced to sniveling permission-seekers, too cowardly to speak about the real issues and the real reasons why this technology is so important. There is not a global, passion-driven community around Bitcoin because it offers lower money transfer fees. We do this because of what Bitcoin means on a philosophical and societal level, and Roger and Jon are two of the best at conveying this sentiment in a professional, non-confrontational, level-headed manner.

Do you see this, folks? Can you find somebody that writes better than this guy on this forum? And he's not even on the damn press list!

Please, just remove this pity attempt of "censorship of ideas" from bitcoin.org.

[Mike Hearn]

Just to clear up some confusion on this point, I don't have any direct influence over the Foundation or what it does. I'm just a member like many others. The Foundation exists was created to solve a few different problems like be able to pay Gavin, to have an umbrella org for Bitcoin supporters to chip in financially, to organise conferences and to handle cases where the system needs a central body (like owning the trademark). It doesn't have an Illuminati-like agenda or set of opinions on every possible topic.

Another thing I am confused about is why are you contributing to Bitcoin if your end goal is to have a collection of governments regulate and control it? You've effectively built a better paypal without stock options or founder credit? The whole point of having a system like bitcoin is to abstract commerce to the cloud and outside of any one government's hands. We can agree to reasonable regulation of exchanges, yet I'm getting the feeling the foundation has something broader and more government friendly in mind.

Do I need write up an FAQ on my political and economic views, or something?

One of the reasons these debates are so tiring is the insistence people sometimes have on seeing everything as black or white. There's only "anti government freedom lovers" or "pro government snivelling permission seekers" and nothing in between. That's not how the world works.

I could write at length on my views around size of government, financial regulation and so on. You'd probably find it quite boring. Suffice it to say I think if Bitcoin were to take off, it'd place some much needed restrictions on government power. For instance, it'd prevent governments and central banks from inflating the currency to pay for short-term vote buying, which would be an improvement. It would resolve the problem of opaque government blacklists (like the US SDNL) which are merely abusive sidesteps of the judicial system. A lot of the ways government and banks are integrated is excessively bureaucratic and poses problems for civil liberties, I think Bitcoin will have impact on that too. At the same time, I don't think Bitcoin will (or should) bring about some kind of anarchist total collapse of the state. Taxes will still be collected. Judges will still judge. Police will still police.  Voters will still vote. Some people, somewhere, will have to engage in many challenging conversations with regulators and law enforcement to enable Bitcoin to thrive because these people aren't just going to go away and they cannot be "beaten" by just ignoring them.

I wrote this on the Foundation forum too, but I'll repeat it here. I think a lot of these excessively vitriolic debates boil down to a misunderstood geographical divide. Libertarianism hardly exists in Europe. Anarchism is what people do on May 1st when idiots dressed in black leather set bins on fire, it's not a political position. Agorism sounds like something people do with plants. I don't remember the last time I met someone who thought their government was oppressive or described taxation as theft. These positions are so far to the right that they're practically alien in large chunks of the world.

I grew up in the UK and now live in Switzerland, neither of which have oppressive governments. About the most oppressive thing the Swiss government does is organise street parties from time to time. Taxes are low. Business is good. The rule of law is strong. It's a pretty nice place. There's no need to overthrow any states. When people here learn about Bitcoin they tend to think, oh cool, a way to take the banks down a peg. Or maybe, great, I pay too much in credit card fees. They don't think "finally a way to bring about an anarcho-capitalist utopia!".

Unfortunately, I repeatedly see a failure to recognise this amongst some people who come to the Bitcoin community. Anyone who isn't on the extreme hard right politically "doesn't get it" or "isn't true to the cause" or whatever. This is especially ridiculous because the introduction to Satoshi's paper is not a political manifesto, it talks about the problems of accepting credit card payments online. To the extent that he cared about politics he was interested in the power of the banks and inflationary policies (one reason amongst several I suspect he might be a Brit). So it'd be nice if people chilled out and respected others views a little more.

[aantonop]

Unfortunately, I repeatedly see a failure to recognise this amongst some people who come to the Bitcoin community. Anyone who isn't on the extreme hard right politically "doesn't get it" or "isn't true to the cause" or whatever. This is especially ridiculous because the introduction to Satoshi's paper is not a political manifesto, it talks about the problems of accepting credit card payments online. To the extent that he cared about politics he was interested in the power of the banks and inflationary policies (one reason amongst several I suspect he might be a Brit). So it'd be nice if people chilled out and respected others views a little more.

you keep creating a strawman for the people who offer reasonable opposition to your political litmus test.

I'm a lefty liberal who grew up in Europe. I find anti-government AnCap philosophy to be very far from my experience or political leanings.

I still think Matonis is more mainstream that people on the press list, that the attempt to exclude him is odious, the criteria inconsistent and the desire to limit opinions misguided. That's even though I disagree 100% with anti-government libertarians.

You are not a moderate, sorry. Censorship by exclusion is a radical position, despite all the rationalizations we have heard.

That's my opinion, and I am non-anarchist, mainstream, tax-paying, business person who sees bitcoin as a mainstream, yet also radically disruptive technology, just like the Internet. I disagree with your attempt to exclude.

[darkmule]

The Bitcoin community should ignore the Bitcoin "Foundation" just like it ignores other forms of government.  It is increasingly obvious that the "Foundation" is attempting to dictate.

Treat it as the Internet has always treated censorship, by routing around it.

That might involve making sure to denounce it at every opportunity, or at the very least, to ensure that it is obvious that this "Foundation" does not speak for the community, but merely speaks for itself and the vested interests of its corporate ownership.

[blockgenesis]

Could you please pay attention to the people actually working on solutions?

aantonop at least is working, and not only complaining.

All these philosophical discussions are becoming off-topic. And this thread has been poisoning enough for a lot of contributors. We've got enough people trying only to accomodate their own personal opinion or to attack the reputation of each other. This is just creating division, and it is a harm to the Bitcoin community. If you are not willing to recognize the value of what has been done, identify existing problems, consider the opinion of others, search for a better compromise and explain your thoughts in a constructive way, then it's probably not worth complaining.

[Bitcoin Oz]

Bitcoin has nothing to do with taxation or what people choose to use it for its simply a protocol and to ostracise people because of the way they think is odious. In fact mentioning paying taxes at all is more political than you would think because of the division this will cause. The foundation shouldn't hold any personal viewpoints nor push them forward but should stay apolitical and focus on the technology solely.

Telling people to pay taxes or not isn't their job. Im sure if Matonis speaks as a member of the foundation he would make it clear the difference between personal opinions and official policy of the foundation.

[RationalSpeculator]

I would appreciate help and beta testers for the bitcoinpresscenter.org which I am building as the inclusive alternative to the existing site. It will have only one purpose: to provide a comprehensive list of resources, packaged for press consumption (short bios, multi-res photos, attribution text, etc).

There is a way to fix this constructively and put the mess behind us. The press center I envision will have dozens of spokespeople with varying areas of expertise, a variety of roles in the community, a variety of spoken languages and a broad array of opinions. Nominations will be open and public. Votes and endorsements will be open and public.

I will have the prototype ready by Friday or Saturday this week. I could use help in testing the UX and also proposals on how to manage the registration, nomination and voting process.

That's how you solve these problems, you create a better alternative. You rock!

[justusranvier]

One of the reasons these debates are so tiring is the insistence people sometimes have on seeing everything as black or white. There's only "anti government freedom lovers" or "pro government snivelling permission seekers" and nothing in between. That's not how the world works.

Of course that's how the world works.

When you strip away all the lies, euphemisms, and obfuscation, it all comes down to a basic moral question. Threatening violence in order to compel other people to obey is either morally justifiable or it isn't. There is no in between. Whether you're talking about threatening violence in order to compel someone to have sex, or threatening violence in order to compel them to surrender money, the underlying principle is the same.

Some people are willing to call the evil out for what it is. That's fine. Other people people are too afraid to speak up. That's fine too. The very worst sort of people are the ones who can see the evil, recognize it, and are afraid to speak up but instead of just remaining silent help give it intellectual and linguistic cover. They help to blur the lines by spreading lies, euphemisms and obfuscation.

[RodeoX]

One of the reasons these debates are so tiring is the insistence people sometimes have on seeing everything as black or white. There's only "anti government freedom lovers" or "pro government snivelling permission seekers" and nothing in between. That's not how the world works.

Amen. As a member of the middle ground, I'm looking forward to meeting you and the other grown-ups at the conference.

[charleshoskinson]

I'm just sensitive to takeovers by a few. Forgive me if I'm seeming a bit extreme. I love bitcoin. I don't want to see bitcoin become paypal 2.0. It's a bigger idea.

[Herodes]

I'm just sensitive to takeovers by a few. Forgive me if I'm seeming a bit extreme. I love bitcoin. I don't want to see bitcoin become paypal 2.0. It's a bigger idea.

+1 million

[blockgenesis]

I'm just sensitive to takeovers by a few. Forgive me if I'm seeming a bit extreme. I love bitcoin. I don't want to see bitcoin become paypal 2.0. It's a bigger idea.

I understand, and it's not going to happen regardless of what people say or think about Bitcoin, all that matters for it to remains the same is in the code and all levels of decentralization. If you are thinking otherwise, I think you are not realizing that you are loosing faith on what Bitcoin really is.

I think it's time for the community to enter in a maturity phase and realize a few things. Including that Bitcoin is in a decisive turning point right now. Journalism might sometime represent free speech, but mass medias are not free speech at all. It's a big strategic game. And any businesses that is confrounted to this world must have a good strategy or fail.

The current press center has been developed not as an open recognition board for community members we all respect, but as a PR strategy. Like it or not, the overwhelming majority of the people are either not really politicized or have diverse views opposed to whatever you'll say. And about no business in this world is doing philantrophy. That means that associating Bitcoin to any ideology or "bad thing" in the mass medias most likely equates to prevent Bitcoin to develop. As simple and cruel as that. There is a lot of room to speak about politic, but there is a difference between that and making Bitcoin "an ideological battle" not every Bitcoin user agrees on.

So if you care about Bitcoin to develop for ideological reasons, you most probably have no choice but to be wise enough to help Bitcoin to "change the world peacefully". It's much less exciting and it's more pragmatic and efficient. Most future Bitcoin users don't want to approve anything political when they are using fiat money, and they want to use Bitcoin the same way. Even though we all know that every choice we do in life has political consequences, that is how most people and businesses work. If Bitcoin is perceived as "the money of criminals", or then again "the money of anarchists" or "libertarians" every people using it will feel like they will be perceived either as criminals, or as anarchists or as libertarians. Those are a very restrictive part of the world population, and it remains inaccurate to say Bitcoin is exclusive to any of these ideology.

Hopefully, in a few years, a press team will be fully obsolete and people associating Bitcoin to any political idea will not scare new users. But right now, it's different. Bitcoin is confusing for most people and it is about to become either a niche for activism, or a global innovation with no borders. What is going to be the turning point will be the public perception and adoption of Bitcoin. Just for the picture, Internet at its beginning was not labelled as a "political tool for free speech and individual freedom" but as a competitive technology. And that is how it became both.

So before you interfere with this process, please keep in mind that it is being done by involved people having a long-term view. Constructive work in order to improve or change things is always appreciated. And it starts with questionning what's being done before fighting it.

A lot of interesting issues has been raised and there is constructive work being done right now. Please learn to do some compromise and understand valid issues pointed by others. I've been doing this all days despite the hostile environment during weeks.

[tvbcof]

... As simple and cruel as that. ...

My rough translation would be:

  "STFU and be happy.  There are things you don't need to know right now."

I'll go ahead an '+1' but neglect to explain my rational.