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

[Mike Hearn]

There's no particular reason there are only 5 people there. There should be more but we wanted the press center to go live as soon as possible in order to try and catch the tail end of this media cycle, and be ready for another one should something dramatic happen and interest flares up again. It's still a work in progress.

Re: who ends up on the site. The initial criteria we used were to find people who would basically stay away from politics and stick to educating journalists about how the system works at a technical and financial level. That's it. Simple as that.

As it happens, I often agree with Jon and have enjoyed Roger's contributions to Bitcoin. But in the end I agreed with the initial version not having them there because the goal is to have people who will be reliably apolitical or, at worst, boringly mainstream.

I'd like the site to evolve over time so that journalists who explicitly want to get the libertarian perspective can easily find such people and nobody will be taken by surprise when their interviewee suddenly starts espousing unusual political views. But it's super important that this clarity exists because the media is an echo chamber - it only takes one or two stories that paint all Bitcoin users as fringe anarcho-capitalists to switch off huge swathes of people who would otherwise consider getting involved.

[hawkeye]

I'd like the site to evolve over time so that journalists who explicitly want to get the libertarian perspective can easily find such people and nobody will be taken by surprise when their interviewee suddenly starts espousing unusual political views. But it's super important that this clarity exists because the media is an echo chamber - it only takes one or two stories that paint all Bitcoin users as fringe anarcho-capitalists to switch off huge swathes of people who would otherwise consider getting involved.

Hasn't this already happened?  Bitcoin users have been painted as illegal drug users and weapons buyers in the mainstream. 

And yet despite this Bitcoin's popularity grew to the point where the price took off.  Who cares what the mainstream media thinks?  They become more irrelevant as each day goes by.

[wumpus]

As it happens, I often agree with Jon and have enjoyed Roger's contributions to Bitcoin. But in the end I agreed with the initial version not having them there because the goal is to have people who will be reliably apolitical or, at worst, boringly mainstream.

Indeed the press page should not be regarded "a shortlist of people that the community respects". It has nothing to do with who we personally respect, just who we trust can explain the concept as boringly and simply journalists as possible, without saying things that the journalists can blow out of proportion.

[marcus_of_augustus]

For anyone who doesn't know me,  I'm Roger Ver.

Since discovering Bitcoin in late 2010,  it has consumed every moment of my life.

My company, Memorydealers.com was the first semi-mainstream business to accept Bitcoin as payment.

I'm directly responsible for

1. National radio advertisements on more than 100 stations for over two years. @ $2,800 / month http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5pV9ptoCMyc
2. A Bitcoin Bilboard for over 2 years.  @ $1,200 / month
3. Bitcoinstore.com
4. The Bitcoin Bet  http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gfydIbhduu0
5. I was the first and only outside investor in Bitinstant.com, Blockchain.info, BuyBitcoin.co.kr and several others.
6. I was part of the seed investment round for  Coinlab.com, Bitpay.com, Kraken.com and several others.
7. I donated over $100,000 USD worth of Bitcoins to the Bitcoin foundation to help get it started. (value at the time of the payment)
8. I've also donated more bitcoins than I can count to various charities, organizations, and groups who's goals I support.

The reason  I have done all of the above is because of the philosophy I hold.
I think that all human interactions should be on a voluntary basis.
I'm opposed to using violence or threats to solve social problems.
I see Bitcoin, combined with the internet, as the best tool the world has ever seen for minimizing the amount of violence in our society.


What I'm advocating isn't extreme.
The governmental systems we have today,  that murder hundreds of millions of innocents,  drop nuclear bombs, enforce sanctions,  extort money under the threat of violence, control capital flow,  debase currencies,  and retard the overall rate of economic growth,  causing everyone to be poorer than they otherwise would have been, is extreme.

Whether or not I end up listed on the press page,  with every waking moment, I will continue to promote Bitcoin and the voluntary world it will help to bring us closer to.

My philosophy aside,  I do think it is clear that I'm great at promoting Bitcoin:

http://video.foxbusiness.com/v/2297014298001/should-bitcoin-be-regulated/

http://live.huffingtonpost.com/r/segment/the-ups-and-downs-of/5037b5b402a76066bd0000da



I also think that the following people should also be added to the press page:

Jon Matonis
Erik Voorhees
Jeff Berwick
 

Bitcoin is about inclusion,  not exclusion.

Hear, hear. Roger Ver has my full support. I've yet to observe him do or say anything that could be called objectionable, extreme or untruthful in any way.

It may be more a sign of the times and current society that we live in that a message of peace and non-violence is found to be "unspeakable". These are not times for lily-livers and weak of heart who fear speaking the truth to power.

Just tell the truth, how hard can that be?

[sunnankar]

The initial criteria we used were to find people who would basically stay away from politics and stick to educating journalists about how the system works at a technical and financial level. That's it. Simple as that.

This is the issue; the standard for inclusion and it is likely determined based on the strategy for the Press Center.

Trace Mayer pushed for the standard for inclusion to be competence, professionalism and generally good reputation in the Bitcoin community. This would be to further the strategy that the Press Center should assist journalists in finding competent and professional individuals for whatever stories or segments they are producing.

Jeff Garzik, gmaxwell and Lukejr turned this into an issue by moving to strike Jon Matonis and Roger Ver, two established Bitcoin community members who present themselves competently and articulately, based solely on their political ideas. Now, instead of discussing the topic of strategy and purpose for the Press Center, jgarzik wants to silence any debate. I think that determining the press strategy is very important.

I think the goal of this Press center should be to make the press's job easier and the standard used for inclusion should be competence and professionalism along with established reputations in the Bitcoin community. I do not see why political ideology is relevant or should be used for any type of test or standard for inclusion.

It appears, implicitly in their argument, that they want to politicize the Press center by making political ideology relevant as a test for inclusion. As a professional journalist myself I think that using political ideology as a test or standard for inclusion will be a disservice to the other journalists who visit this page seeking guests or commentators for pieces they are writing or segments they are producing.

Since the argument against inclusion is politically motivated, using political ideas as a standard for inclusion, therefore I doubt this issue will just go away after a 'cool-down period' and therefore needs to be addressed by logic and reason. Consequently, if Jeff Garzik, gmaxwell and LukeJR could please present the reasoning for their argument I think it would go a long way.

[Arto]

I think the goal of this Press center should be to make the press's job easier and the standard used for inclusion should be competence and professionalism along with established reputations in the Bitcoin community. I do not see why political ideology is relevant or should be used for any type of test or standard for inclusion.

Indeed. As someone who was persuaded to adopt Bitcoin by Jon Matonis's voluminous and eloquent output on the subject, and as someone who holds Roger Ver in the highest esteem for his integrity and significant contributions to the project, I think any effort to censor these two eminent gentlemen based on political views can be considered nothing short of shameful.

Both Matonis and Ver are excellent and effective spokesmen for the project and, self-evidently, ought to be featured in any press section on Bitcoin.org.

[kiko]

I typed a whole spiel about the importance of guests not only handling themselves well, but crucially being invited back by the media; but after watching the clip again I just want to leave this here:

Katherine Mangu-Ward of Reason magazine on Fox.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L6kRZo63IPE

Katherine's composure and answers were even better than I remembered them; and should remind everyone that it is possible to have a sensible MSM discussion between adults on the politics of bitcoin and its effect on the scope of government.

Having said that, it's better to keep bitcoin.org focused on a new and interesting payment protocol and currency. The politics and implications can be handled elsewhere (Bitcoin Political Action Comittee: BitPAC??), by passionate people like Roger, Erik, Jeff B, Katherine and others.

It's incredibly tangled right now, but we do need at some point to draw a line between the steel and the weapon. Leaving one set of people to get on with (and help explain) the technical stuff, and another group to convince the world that bitcoin can help construct a future you might actually enjoy living in. With each making a concerted effort not to step on each others turf. Gavin already has done a pretty good job of remaining apolitical in media interviews. People can contribute to one or both groups as they so choose but bitcoin.org should be a useful informational resource, not an ideological one IMHO.

PR is hard, and for bitcoin it could be going a lot worse than it currently is. Let's at least be thankful for that.

[TheKoziTwo]

Roger Ver and Erik Voorhees, are the only people that can defend and show there passion for bitcoin at the same time. That is what we need in the press. They both kill it every interview, and really can explain bitcoin to the people that are techies correctly and to regular people. Yet both of them are not on the list. This is why the foundation is horrible, the best speakers aren't even ON THE PRESS LIST. Come on!!!! You have people that can't even speak on there but yet people who are amazing bitcoiners, they don't even make it. I am sorry but this is why the foundation is a useless, entity in the community and Gavin should be ashamed every time he get a pay check.

+1 Roger Ver and Erik Voorhees are definitely the best speakers for bitcoin. Jon Matonis does great articles, I have only seen one interview with him, but from what I can remember he did a great job. Looking at that press center list, there are people I wouldn't mind replacing, like Jeff Garzik who seems very pro government and Arwa Mahdawi who I honestly have not even heard of. Also, in addition to Roger, Erik & Jon, I would like to see Jeff Berwick on that list.

[johnyj]

Being a digital asset doesn't make it a tax evasion tool, those who buying houses actually get tax deduction 

[BTC Books]

We need spokespeople and educators with impeccable crime-free credentials and moderate political and religious views, if any at all.

We need people above reproach so that the media has absolutely no ammunition to attack the messengers of this amazing milestone in technology.

I believe you're mistaken.  I prefer to be attacked - it's the only way we will learn to defend ourselves effectively.

Trace is right:

Quote from: sunnankar on Today at 12:06:34
I think the goal of this Press center should be to make the press's job easier and the standard used for inclusion should be competence and professionalism along with established reputations in the Bitcoin community. I do not see why political ideology is relevant or should be used for any type of test or standard for inclusion.

This is an important and interesting thread - and quite revealing.

The only thing I have to add to it is this old piece of wisdom, not of my devising; which I would urge everyone to consider well:

We become what we hate.

[Severian]

Jeff Garzik, gmaxwell and Lukejr turned this into an issue by moving to strike Jon Matonis and Roger Ver, two established Bitcoin community members who present themselves competently and articulately, based solely on their political ideas. Now, instead of discussing the topic of strategy and purpose for the Press Center, jgarzik wants to silence any debate. I think that determining the press strategy is very important.

This decreases my trust in jgarzik, gmaxwell and Luke Jr. A shame, as they're otherwise brilliant people.

Bitcoin itself is a political tool developed by someone with an obvious bias against censorship and narrow mindedness. It's too bad the heirs of Bitcoin's first developer aren't capable of displaying some of the same large mindedness and backbone.

[Severian]

We become what we hate.

Repeated for emphasis.

[Matthew N. Wright]

If Roger Ver, Jon Matonis and Erik Voorhees are not listed as press contacts, that reflects very poorly on the judgment of those maintaing the list.

There would be no harm having several categories of press contact, e.g.:
"For a technical perspective..."
"For a legal perspective..."
"For a societal perspective..."
"For a business perspective..."

I was thinking the same thing:

"The bitcoin project has widely ranging views and beliefs but they all converge on one single point-- the furthering of the Bitcoin proejct. If you'd like more information on bitcoin from a certain perspective, we recommend the following people based on their knowledge of specific aspects of it.

• Libertarian contact
• Technical contact
• Economics contact
• Technology contact
• Community development contact
• Pattaya Cruise contact (No misleading statements, please)

etc.

[Matthew N. Wright]

If you want *everyone* in the world to love Bitcoin, you need a way to explain it that everyone can love. If that explanation can be given by everyone, then everyone can give the same explanation. It's as simple as that.

I wouldn't feel like I would be the right person to explain Linux for any group of Linux developers to the general public, because I would obviously miss some things (I don't use Linux regularly). I also don't feel that Linus Torvalds is the right person to explain Linux to the average person. Someone like James Rolph (Angry Video Game Nerd) is probably more suitable for that. Fuck it, I elect James Rolph as the publicity contact for Bitcoin.

"Fiat fucking sucks, it sucking fucks, it fucking fucks, it's shit..and I don't like it.....ASSSS!!!!"

[Bitcoin Oz]

Think we need an anarcoin where statists are banned from representing it.

[BTC Books]

Think we need an anarcoin where statists are banned from representing it.

Yes!

You'd have to institute some governing body to consider the circumstances for the ban, and then all you'd need would be an enforcement arm of that body to deal with miscreants.  Oh yeah, also some kind of incarceration format to...

This is perfect!  When do we start?

[cypherdoc]

I think the list should be abandoned.

[Zeke_Vermillion]

If you're not careful, this stupid controversy will become the story instead of the actual technology and its implications. Headlines: "bitcoiners split between libertarian and 'mainstream' factions".

[Severian]

If you're not careful, this stupid controversy will become the story instead of the actual technology and its implications. Headlines: "bitcoiners split between libertarian and 'mainstream' factions".

The split is far more interesting than the Fluffy Bullshit Factory that is being setup by those bitcoiners with a tendency to centralization.

[Come-from-Beyond]

Pushing Jon Matonis aside will lead to half-measures and to the fail of Bitcoin in the nearest future. It seems to me bitcoin.org guys prefer to lick political asses than to fight for freedom.