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

[Frozenlock]

Roger Ver has been spreading the ideas of Bitcoin for years with his advertisements on Free Talk Live,
his bold $10 000 bet, his investments in many Bitcoin related projects
(such as blockchain.info and Bitcoinstore.com) and his many public appearances.

Remember this?

Yup, that was also him. (Man, was I excited in 2011 when I saw this!)





Jon Matonis published countless article about Bitcoins (many on Forbes) and has a
professional background in the banking system, making him an excellent liaison
with this otherwise strange world. He also made multiple public appearances.


Both of these individuals are amazingly well spoken and have brilliantly spread
the Bitcoin word for years. And yet, now that Bitcoin is getting more media exposure, they have
been rejected from bitcoin.org as potential interviewees. Apparently, their views are too
"extreme" to be shown on TV, or they have done some things in the past that could be
used against Bitcoin image, even if completely unrelated. (Yeah right, Silkroad and the anonymity aren't enough...)

I think this is a load of crap.
You have potentially the most important invention in the history of mankind, but you try to gift-wrap
it in a nice little politically-correct package. What are you afraid of? If Bitcoin is an efficient system,
it will be adopted regardless of the opinions of some of the speakers.

As this move seemed to have gone mostly unnoticed, I wanted to bring some light to it.

So, any of you appreciates what those two individuals have done for Bitcoin?
Do you think they should be pushed aside to protect Bitcoin's image?
If, like me, you think they are great representatives for Bitcoin, please speak!

[1714834534]

1714834534

[1714834534]

1714834534

[chriswilmer]

I'm not sure I understand why there needs to be <5 people listed as press contacts. If by magical decree there could only be 4 press contacts, then of course there will be great advocates that wouldn't make the cut for one reason or another, but there is no such decree. Jon Matonis and Roger Ver could and should be listed. Bitcoin is not so weak that a less than perfect spokesperson (however perfection is defined) would destroy it. Quite the opposite, in fact.

[Jackten]

Love both these guys and can't have enough appreciation for the sacrifices they've made for bitcoin, but I actually agree that they are a bit too extreme and not very well-rounded thinkers/speakers.  I'm glad bitcoin.org is migrating toward a more moderate and pragmatic representation

[Severian]

Some of the Bitcoin community is claiming to speak for all of Bitcoin. Those that are claiming the voice have an irrational fear of anarchists and other such horrible things that might make Bitcoin look "weird".

Uh...right.

We also can't have Joe Mainstream thinking that the first stateless, decentralized currency is some kind of anti-government/bank statement, even though its creator said:

> You will not find a solution to political problems in cryptography.

Yes, but we can win a major battle in the arms race and gain a new
territory of freedom for several years.

Governments are good at cutting off the heads of a centrally
controlled networks like Napster, but pure P2P networks like
Gnutella and Tor seem to be holding their own.

Satoshi Nakamoto
07 Nov 2008

    

“It’s very attractive to the libertarian viewpoint if we can explain it properly. I’m better with code than with words though.”

    Satoshi Nakamoto
    14 Nov 2008

My own opinion is that it makes no difference if Bitcoin is accepted by the "mainstream" or not. They'll have to use it in two or three years anyway. The more quickly the tools of the mainstreaming banks and governments like MtGox, Coinbase, Coinlab and other centralizing influences are gone, the better off Bitcoin will be.

Bitcoin would also be better off if people didn't claim to speak for Bitcoin.

[chriswilmer]

I will say that I have always thought of Tony Gallippi as the best at pitching bitcoin. Everybody else mixes politics and computer science to various degrees in their bitcoin pitch, but Tony's is 100% business.

[BCB]

Tony Gallippi is by far one of the most articulate bitcoin advocates out there.  Here is a great example: http://youtu.be/hH4rH6wu25U

Roger Ver I don't trust.

Jon Matonis has been and will continue to be a great advocate for bitcoin as a journalist and doesn't need to be on the press list.  Just read any of his articles over the past few years or better yet follow him on twitter.  https://twitter.com/jonmatonis

A real journalists is going to talk to whoever they want if they do a little research,  regardless of whether or not they are listed on the press page.

What's your beef?

[sunnankar]

A real journalists is going to talk to whoever they want if they do a little research,  regardless of whether or not they are listed on the press page.

This is the real issue; assisting journalists in performing their professional responsibilities.

As I commented on the thread:

@Frozenlock, Both Roger Ver and Jon Matonis were pushed aside because of the arguments from Lukejr and gmaxwell as presented earlier in this thread. The Press section needed to be resolved expeditiously and that was the easiest way because those arguments were valid and additional work needs to be done to resolve the legitimate concerns raised.

As saivann suggested with moving to different requests with issues; Pull request #146 contains a general disclaimer and has received an ACK from jgarzik. This general disclaimer lays the groundwork to clear up the Press's misconception about Bitcoin being a company, remove any confusion that bitcoin.org is endorsing either businesses, political or personal ideas, etc. and will implicitly resolve the arguments presented by Lukejr and gmaxwell.

For example, the general disclaimer should lay the foundation for including other voices from a wide spectrum including Matonis (leaving aside the argument for including Ver since it is slightly more complicated) who is already a member of the Press at Forbes and the Bitcoin Foundation Secretary. Additionally, Matonis has deep payments experience with his corporate work at Visa and is often invited to payments conferences. The press usually wants a wide range of opinions and occasionally organizes debates. For example, I was at an investment conference where the press had setup a debate between a Republican, Democrat and Libertarian.

With a general disclaimer in place if bitcoin.org continues to intentionally limit the range of ideas offered, such as not including Matonis, it is both unprofessional under journalism standards and a disservice to the press because the press wants to find individuals who will fit into the narrative or story they are crafting. If bitcoin.org hides the ball and limits the marketplace of ideas, when they exist within the community, then it only serves to delegitimize the Press Center and runs contrary to its purpose of assisting journalists in performing their role and job.

As always, since Bitcoin is an open-source project, participation is greatly encouraged because it will generally lead to a better outcome so thank you for including your ideas and arguments. And please participate in the future issues and discussions.

[notig]

just a guess but if the press wants to do a story on bitcoin they will probably interview someone actually involved with bitcoin like a business owner? Or a user?

[jimbobway]

I was the first bitcoin blogger and wrote the first press releases, which I believe attracted some of the first users.  As bitcoin grew others have taken my role which I have accepted.

[BCB]

just a guess but if the press wants to do a story on bitcoin they will probably interview someone actually involved with bitcoin like a business owner? Or a user?

notig,

unfortunately this form of journalism is essential dead. 

Most media outlets just reprint what they are feed.

[Matthew N. Wright]

What about Bruce Wagner? </sarcasm>

Personally, I have always understood "press contacts" to be facilitators of information between the working world and the press world. PR managers if you will. That very duty demands someone who is good at presenting things in a factual light, without emotional or financial bias of any kind. Basically, there are probably pretty few people in bitcoin suitable for the job because they're either nerds with no social skills, businessmen who only want to plug their own tools, activists who will scare everyone away, or conspiracy theorists who think that the questions being asked are "attacks on bitcoin". This is kind of why I co-started Bitcoin Magazine in the first place, to give a place where media could go to for information (although that has yet to prove itself as such).

Maybe you should have someone like Adam Back who developed hashcash be a contact, since he talked with Satoshi, understands what Satoshi was trying to do, and has both understanding in the technical topics and an ability to speak with other humans without making everything offensive.

[majamalu]

Governments don't care what the "official representatives" of bitcoin.org say, the only thing that matters to governments is whether they will be able to control Bitcoin. If not, they will say anything to discredit you, even if your "official spokesmen" are politically correct as well as immaculate saints. Deal with it.

[Matthew N. Wright]

Governments don't care what the "official representatives" of bitcoin.org say, the only thing that matters to governments is whether they will be able to control Bitcoin. If not, they will say anything to discredit you, even if your "official spokesmen" are politically correct as well as immaculate saints. Deal with it.

Thank you for establishing that you should also not be on the list. No one said anything about governments. We were talking about press contacts for slimey news organizations who would take something you said and make us all look like kooks. Yes, I suppose it's possible that what's in the news has an affect on laws being created, but your obsession with governments and extremist tone makes me think that you'd be a perfect person for them to interview if their intention were to discredit bitcoin as a joke.

[wumpus]

A time progresses, advocacy needs to be watered-down and dumbed-down to appeal to an ever larger audience. Until at a certain point, Joe Sixpack can explain the advantages of using Bitcoin to Jane Sixpack without mentioning any technical detail. A lot of the early adopters and promoters will think this sucks but are drowned out in the noise of millions of new users.

Government and business people will come up with weird, far-fetched analogies such as series of pipes, and we'll know it's exactly like the internet in the 90's

[Matthew N. Wright]

A time progresses, advocacy needs to be watered-down and dumbed-down to appeal to an ever larger audience. Until at a certain point, Joe Sixpack can explain the advantages of using Bitcoin to Jane Sixpack without mentioning any technical detail. A lot of the early adopters and promoters will think this sucks.

Government and business people will come up with weird, far-fetched analogies such as series of pipes, and we'll know it's exactly like the internet

I wonder if half of bitcoiners realize that arguments on reddit and other places caused by someone's inaccurate depictions of bitcoin aren't due to actual ignorance, but are in fact intentionally inaccurate to draw out the emotional and overly defensive crazies for comedic value. Bitcoin or not, crazy is never good.

[Severian]

No one said anything about governments. We were talking about press contacts for slimey news organizations

There's little to any difference between slimy media and slimy government these days, especially in the US.

make us all look like kooks.

Anyone using Bitcoin is a kook by default to the mass media. Anyone with more than 100 posts on this board would be considered a kook in the mass perception.

[blockgenesis]

I am the one who pushed the press center without Roger Ver and John Matonis. If they were still on the page, the page wouldn't be online at all because there was legitimate discussions and disagreement on them. Not only from developers, most criticisms came as comments from contributors I don't know, and they presented good arguments. So I took action to make sure that this wouldn't block the whole project for two interviewees that we can add later if needed.

As said in the github issue, civilized criticisms and arguments are welcome. An issue for Roger Ver has been opened already.

However, choosing interviewees will always generate accusations and criticisms no matter what is the final choice. I don't mind being a target for criticisms. What matters to me is that we have a press center with great quality content for journalists and we didn't have it yesterday. We can continue to improve it. The current interviewees list is really just a beginning, we want much more.

If you want to participate in the press team, there it is : https://groups.google.com/forum/#!forum/bitcoin-press-team

[benjamindees]

Jesus, this is ridiculous.  I can barely even read it.  It's like a bunch of five-year-olds fighting over who gets to be the prettiest princess.  Ironically, if any of them should be kept far away from the media, it's Jeff Garzik.  He's the only one of those mentioned who repeatedly says stupid things to the press, and generally looks like a hobo while doing so.

I have been as skeptical about Matonis and Ver as anyone, probably moreso, but no one can deny that they are doing an effective job of representing Bitcoin in the media.  Hell, even Matthew, who is a complete idiot otherwise, would make a decent media spokesperson.  It's not a skillset that tends to coincide with software development.  It requires a quick wit, wide understanding of the topic at hand, and most importantly an alpha personality.

And, Luke-Jr, buddy... lol.  At least try to remember that you wouldn't even be on the dev team if it were a popularity contest, and keep the statist obstructionism to a minimum.

[wumpus]

I wonder if half of bitcoiners realize that arguments on reddit and other places caused by someone's inaccurate depictions of bitcoin aren't due to actual ignorance, but are in fact intentionally inaccurate to draw out the emotional and overly defensive crazies for comedic value. Bitcoin or not, crazy is never good.

I remember that, too, from the early internet. Many mass media tried to trivialize and belittle the internet, its impact on society, and its users. And when the dotnet bubble burst it was all over, the internet was dead, we'd go back to the old ways. That mostly went away as years passed Good ideas won't go away when people are laughing at them. But there is an initial hostility toward new technologies, what Michio Kaku calls "The caveman principle": If it wouldn't appeal to our early ancestors, it won't appeal to random people now.

Anyway, the earlier advocated were very different from the latter ones. Take for example another idea that was severely belittled and underestimated in the beginning: free software. Though he was great at pitching the idea to software developers and idealists back in the day, most news outlets are not going to invite Richard Stallman to an interview about the subject. He's just too extreme.

As a latter-day advocate you need someone that is likable in the eyes of the masses, doesn't make them think too much, doesn't say anything too politically incorrect (or idealistic), wears a suit and tie and makes great promises, tells you why *thing* will make your friends and family love you more, makes your skin look younger, improve the taste of your food and improve your sex life. Only that, and generational shifts, will conquer the caveman principle.

[Severian]

most news outlets are not going to invite Richard Stallman to an interview about the subject. He's just too extreme.

And Bitcoin probably might not exist but for some of the foundational work put down by Stallman. It doesn't matter what the mass of mediocrity that is mainstream culture thinks about Stallman or Bitcoin. Free software and Bitcoin keep on rolling, don't they?

Wanna know what sells Bitcoin to those in my life that come to me wanting to know about it? They can hide their money from banks and governments. That's what will sell Bitcoin to people, not the fluffy bullshit about "yes sir! so happy to be regulated" and "tax me, please!".