On the 16th anniversary of the founding block, what did the former Bitcoin News Center report?
Original title: The Bitcoin Press Center
Original source: BitMEX Research
In this article on the history of Bitcoin, we look back to 2013 to explore the short-lived “Bitcoin News Center” on the Bitcoin.org website. At the time, it was proposed to list a list of people on the News Center page, which could become a quasi-official list of Bitcoin media contacts. We examine the inevitable debate about who should and who should not be on the list, and how the list is inherently connected to the broader battle over Bitcoin culture. Should Bitcoin remain an underground rebel currency, or should it go mainstream and appeal to the moderate masses?
概要
In another part of our Bitcoin history series, we go back to April 2013. Prior to that, we covered the following topics:
In this article, we discuss the controversy that occurred in April 2013 around a list of media contacts on a page called Bitcoin News Center on the Bitcoin.org website. This topic may seem insignificant, but it touches on broader Bitcoin cultural issues, such as what Bitcoin is used for, what development strategies should be adopted, and who are the real Bitcoin users. Therefore, we believe that this topic is still worth discussing today, even nearly 12 years later.
On March 22, 2013, Mike Hearn, a once famous Bitcoin developer, posted on the BitcoinTalk forum, proposing the idea of creating a Bitcoin News Center page on the Bitcoin.org website and inviting volunteers to put themselves forward as candidates for press contacts. This way, if a journalist wants to write an article about Bitcoin, they can search for Bitcoin on Google, find this page, and then find someone to talk to and their contact information. As Mike said:
“Over the past few years, many of us have been surprised by the uneven quality of news coverage of Bitcoin. Some journalists really understand what it’s all about and dig deep, while others simply repeat what has already been written or seem to deliberately look for a negative angle. To me, this is not particularly surprising because I have seen how news coverage is written during my time working for a large software company. There is a good reason why all large companies have dedicated PR teams, because helping journalists write good coverage is a full-time job. By ‘good’ I mean accurate and balanced, not necessarily positive coverage that touts the product. Bitcoin does not have a dedicated PR staff, nor should it. But we can do the next best thing by providing a really good self-service news center on the website.”
ソース： https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=156364.0;all
About a month later, on April 16, 2013, a pull request was submitted on GitHub proposing a press center page. Several people were nominated as media contacts, two of whom caused a certain degree of controversy: Mr. Roger Ver and Mr. Jon Matonis. Some Bitcoin developers believed that these candidates were unsuitable for the position for some controversial political reasons, so they were not included in the website list. In hindsight, such an exclusive short list inevitably sparked heated and unconstructive debate and may have offended some people. These issues quickly became personal, which is to be expected when discussing who best represents Bitcoin. These discussions often touched on broader philosophical questions about Bitcoin and its public image.
Pull request debate
The first to raise concerns about the news contact was Bitcoin developer Luke-Jr, who quickly called Jon Matonis an extreme anarchist. Another Bitcoin developer, Jeff Garzik, later spoke out in support of Luke-Jrs stance.
“Matonis went too far by openly advocating for illegal activities such as tax evasion. Roger Ver has been interviewed by the Anarchist Daily and other media, but I think some of these interviews have been toned down now.”
ソース： https://github.com/bitcoin-dot-org/Bitcoin.org/pull/139#issuecomment-16426114
A third developer, Greg Maxwell, agrees with Luke and Jeff:
“I am also very concerned about Mr. Matonis joining. I am glad that Bitcoin has attracted many people with political and philosophical backgrounds, including those with whom I disagree, but I think the people who speak for Bitcoin should be those who can put those views aside. Especially when they believe that Bitcoin conflicts with the laws and regulations 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 in order for Bitcoin to succeed. This is especially true if such a stance is viewed by some as inconsistent with upright and lawful conduct.”
ソース： https://github.com/bitcoin-dot-org/Bitcoin.org/pull/139#issuecomment-16429652
“The opinions of Luke-Jr, Jeff Garzik, and Greg Maxwell were very valid, so the decision was made to remove Roger Ver and John Matonis from the list. Bitcoin developer Patrick Strateman and others also agreed.
Hacker felons should not be on the news pages
ソース： https://github.com/bitcoin-dot-org/Bitcoin.org/pull/139#issuecomment-16429672
This felon statement refers to Roger Vers conviction in the United States for selling explosives on eBay. As you can imagine, while such a list is largely irrelevant and meaningless, Roger Ver himself and many others are unhappy about how and why they were excluded from the list. Roger Ver himself also participated in the discussion:
“I believe I am one of the best Bitcoin ambassadors in the world, and the people on the forum and I clearly agree with that.”
ソース： 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 could spin your past into “Roger Ver, Bitcoin spokesman, was once convicted of selling explosives to terrorists” or something similar? Your response here completely ignores the issue of conviction, which suggests (maybe 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 — and it’s no use if you’re defensive about it. If your response to them is “this is more proof that the government is an immoral, violent organization that shouldn’t be supported anyway,” then you’re surely going to think that’s bad for Bitcoin.”
ソース： https://github.com/bitcoin-dot-org/Bitcoin.org/pull/139#issuecomment-16440473
The Bitcoin.org developer who made the pull request then weighed in on the debate, trying to calm the situation:
“Roger Ver, this 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 and you have a very bad label that they can put on you and Bitcoin as a whole. No matter what you have, they won’t let you defend yourself and you (we) will have nowhere to appeal. I’m a little disappointed too, but that’s how it is. I’m sure you want to help, but I’m not sure how much you can help in this situation. However frustrating this is. Not saying you can’t do a good job interviewing and helping Bitcoin yourself, it’s just about associating your name (and your past) with what people see as “official.”
ソース： https://github.com/bitcoin-dot-org/Bitcoin.org/pull/139#issuecomment-16464502
Many people seem somewhat angry and highly suspicious of the fact that Roger was left off the list due to his political or criminal record. This is somewhat ironic because if Roger had not been nominated in the first place, no one would have cared and probably never even looked at the list. Still, now that Roger has been left off, some are angry about the decision. Erik Voorhees expressed the anger as follows:
“When I heard about this yesterday, I thought it was a joke. It’s shocking that Roger Ver and Jon Matonis, the most professional and articulate public supporters of Bitcoin, were removed from the media list simply because their discussions did not cater to the lowest common denominator of public perception. Yes, some people will be turned off by their ideology. Yes, some media may try to target them personally and sully Bitcoin’s reputation. So what. Bitcoin is not so weak that it only needs obscure and timid spokespersons who are more like politicians than real individuals with 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 promoted by kowtowing to the people who built the terrible system Bitcoin is meant to replace. It is a shame to see Bitcoin reduced to kowtowing. The knee-jerk permission seekers, too cowardly to talk about the real issues and the real reasons why this technology is so important, are beyond embarrassing. Bitcoin did not form a global, passion-driven community because it lowers fees for transferring money. We did it because of what Bitcoin makes sense on a philosophical and social level, and Roger and Jon are two of the best people at communicating that sentiment in a professional, non-confrontational, and peaceful manner. And now they are being censored. Bitcoin is a movement, and those who try to distill it down to a cute new technology are fooling themselves and doing a grave disservice to the community. If you want to sell pre-packaged, politically correct PR, go work at Dwolla.”
ソース： https://github.com/bitcoin-dot-org/Bitcoin.org/pull/139#issuecomment-16746792
Mark Lamb, then CEO of UK 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 leaders or authority that can muzzle/censor people. If you think it is 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 written directly into the Bitcoin code. Furthermore, this position is also inconsistent 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.”
ソース： 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 participation of Mr. Ver and Mr. Matonis. The debate then moved to BitcoinTalk, where Roger Ver defended his position:
“My advocacy is not extreme. The system of government we have today, which massacres hundreds of millions of innocent people, drops nuclear bombs, imposes sanctions, extorts money with threats of violence, controls capital flows, devalues the currency, slows overall economic growth, and makes everyone poorer than they were before, is extreme. Whether or not I get included in the news pages, I will continue to promote Bitcoin and the voluntary world it will help us get closer to, every waking moment. My philosophy aside, I do think I am doing a good job promoting Bitcoin. I also think the following people should be included in the news pages: Jon Matonis, Erik Voorhees, Jeff Berwick. Bitcoin is about inclusion, not exclusion.”
ソース： https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=181168.msg1893085#msg1893085
The discussion then continued, questioning whether there should be such a list at all. Cypherdoc said:
“I think this list should be abandoned.
While another user suggested the News Hub page could backfire, saying: If youre not careful this stupid argument will make the news:
If we are not careful, this silly debate will become the focus of the news instead of the real technology and its impact. The headline is Bitcoin players are divided into liberals 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 highly respected and long-standing developers want to introduce a political ideology test when deciding who to include on the media contact list as potential interview subjects. Why such a political ideology test is relevant or needed is not explained or illustrated and seems to be largely 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 the mainstream political views in Africa, Pakistan, the United States, or Argentina? Why?
ソース： https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=181168.msg1895322#msg1895322
Luke-Jr then responded:
“No, the problem [in this case] is not their political ideas. The problem is that they project their political ideas onto Bitcoin, such as describing Bitcoin as a tool to achieve anarchy. Matonis at least seems to be encouraging people to break the law when talking about Bitcoin. While my original objection also included Roger Ver, it was pointed out that he has (at least recently) publicly separated his political stance – so my objection in this reasoning is limited to Matonis. The general objection to Roger Ver is that he has a criminal history. And not just some debatable crime (e.g., drug-related or statutory offense), but trafficking in explosives”
ソース： https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=181168.msg1896810#msg1896810
Another user disputed Luke’s assertion that they are projecting their own political views onto Bitcoin, replying:
the same as you
Luke-Jr responded with a famous and somewhat ridiculous/funny quote of his:
“Quite the contrary. While it is true that my interest in Bitcoin is to facilitate the Tonar system, I do not pretend that the reason for Bitcoin’s existence is to facilitate the Tonar system.”
Many other users support Bitcoin’s rebellious, revolutionary, and anarchist roots, claiming: “Every revolution is illegal.”
Luke-Jr denied this, stating:
“But Bitcoin is not a political revolution”
Charles Hoskinson, the eventual founder of Ethereum and Cardano, then joined the debate:
“You might want to think a little deeper about what Bitcoin means. Currently, currency is heavily regulated and controlled by a group of secretive bankers who are accountable to no one. All currencies are inflationary fiat currencies. Bitcoin is almost the opposite of the world’s monetary system. If it succeeds then 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 changing warfare forever. Bitcoin, if it succeeds, will change money forever.”
Even ビットコイン developer Gavin Andresen weighed in, seemingly supporting 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 causes far more trouble and strife than he’s worth. I wish people would stop suggesting he’s part of the core development team.”
ソース： https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=181168.msg1897036#msg1897036
It is worth noting that Gavin Andresen was the final decision maker on the site list at the time, as far as we know, since Gavin is the ultimate owner of the repository on GitHub, and he may have sublicensed this section to others, who decided not to include Ver and Matonis, but based on our incomplete understanding of how GitHub accounts work, Gavin could have removed the web developers permissions if he wanted to. Although the final decision on this matter was made by the owner of the Bitcoin.org domain, Sirius (Martti Malmi) at the time. But in the end, the domain seems to have been transferred to Cobra, an anonymous individual who was eventually sued by Craig Wright. Sirius did express his views on May 1, 2013, but he never enforced it on others.
“It is unfair to have a small group of “bitcoin reps” hand-picked for the news page. The bitcoin-press mailing list is also not very democratic or transparent. I am in favor of removing it.”
ソース： https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=181168.msg1996365#msg1996365
Andreas Antonapoulos
No one was more outraged about the media list incident than Mr. Andreas Antonopolous. Educating a wider audience about Bitcoin was obviously an important topic for Antonopolous, who quickly became perhaps the best Bitcoin speaker in the world, proving to be very engaging, inspiring, and passionate when talking about Bitcoin. Andreas must have known 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, hoping to add more people to the News Center page starting with Jon Matonis. The same Bitcoin developers objected again, with Greg Maxwell hoping for moderate voices. Andreas Antonopolous retorted
We need more diversity of opinion, rather than a narrow focus on what one person thinks is politically appropriate.
Andreas went on to say:
“Now, can we please work toward our goal of expanding the list to include more geographies, languages, experiences, and ideas, as this page claims? I’m sure you’ve all heard your comments. Some agree, some disagree. It seems to me that the overwhelming consensus is to add Matonis. I saw two dissenters and seven in favor (not including mine). I believe this resolves the community review issue for Matonis.”
Andreas also tried to arrange a vote on adding more candidates to the list, which he said he won (17 votes to 7), but the website developers did not implement the vote. A few days later, on April 26, 2013, Andreas seemed to lose patience with the process:
“There’s no way Matonis, Vill, or anyone else will get in through this process. Even if they were added, the whole process loses all credibility (there wasn’t much to begin with), and the developers involved have [shown] they have no qualms about respecting the ‘process’ they made up (and keep making up as much as necessary). Even if one or two candidates are added now, the damage is already done — the News Center list is supposed to be as broadly determined as possible, with as much input from the community as possible, and as little exclusion as possible. None of that is possible anymore with this process. It’s proven to be a complete joke. Nor is keeping the existing list. Every list is tainted, through no fault of their own, but rather the inconsistency shown in the decision-making process.”
ソース： https://github.com/bitcoin-dot-org/Bitcoin.org/pull/162#issuecomment-17150513
Andreas accused the developers of playing politics on bitcoin.org. Many people agreed with Andreas, after all, this was not a technical issue, but seemed to be a political issue, so many people said that this was not a decision made by the developers. In addition to the above, Andreas also reportedly sent the following message to Greg Maxwell:
Fuck you, you little weasel. You have no shame, no integrity, and no guts. You cant even handle an open discussion, and when you lose you just find some sycophants to silence you. Fuck the cactus.
ソース： https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=181168.msg1973254#msg1973254
On May 2, 2013, Andreas announced that he would launch a new website, bitcoinpresscenter.org, which aims to address this issue.
“I’m hoping to get your help and offer a beta version of the bitcoinpresscenter.org website I’m building as a replacement for the current one. It will have one purpose: to provide a comprehensive list of resources, packaged for the press (short blurbs, multi-resolution photos, attribution text, etc.). There are ways to solve this problem in a constructive way, leaving the chaos behind. The press 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 open. Voting and endorsements will be public.”
ソース： https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=181168.msg20 02317 #ms g20 02317
結論は
By July 2013, the discussions had largely come to an end. Mike Hearn declared the press center a success, issuing the following statement:
Despite the controversy over how to manage the Newsroom staffing, after a few months of hindsight, I think the Newsroom was a very useful thing. I dont regret setting it up. The press is really using it, and weve improved the quality of a lot of Bitcoin coverage. The one that made me happiest was a CNN report that started out with the headline Bitcoin blockchain used to host child pornography. We successfully worked with the reporter involved, and when the report was finally published, the child pornography was relegated to the last few paragraphs, and the whole report was 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 was designed the way it was. Weve come a long way from the bad old days of 2011.
ソース： https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=181168.msg2684368#msg2684368
In the following months, several more people were named as media contacts. Vitalik Buterin, who later founded Ethereum, became the primary media contact a few months after the event.
Note: Felix Moreno de la Cova was also briefly on the list
By January 2014, just seven months or so later, the Press Center page was taken down, just as Sirius had suggested. On that page, the Bitcoin.org website recommended that if you had questions, you visit the Bitcoin Foundation. Andreas’s website was also listed as a referral, which had a longer list of Bitcoin press contacts. From what we can tell, there were over 50 press contacts or “Bitcoin experts,” with a focus on providing press contacts in multiple languages. This was probably a better outcome. Since the Bitcoin.org website no longer lists a small number of specific individuals, it is more decentralized. It also means there are no arguments for an exclusive list. If the list was still there, it’s easy to imagine years of unproductive arguments and entanglements about who should be on that list. It was an interesting experiment, and we got the results pretty quickly, which was a bad idea for Bitcoin. However, from what we can tell, the bitcoinpresscenter.org website never gained significant influence. Today, journalists probably don’t have a problem finding Bitcoin experts, and a centralized list will never be a scalable solution to help journalists find “real experts.”
It seems like a waste of time to write about such a small thing that happened many years ago. This may be true, but on the other hand, it may also be a small part of the wider Bitcoin story. The brief story of the news center that is part of Bitcoin.org can be considered similar to the story of the Bitcoin Foundation. It was too centralized and caused too many arguments and scandals. In Bitcoin, such a centralized system could not work, so it was abolished or became irrelevant and fell into an undignified mess. However, Bitcoin itself continues to exist.
This article is sourced from the internet: On the 16th anniversary of the founding block, what did the former Bitcoin News Center report?
In the last NFT project inventory (related reading: 8 new NFT projects worth paying attention to recently ), we mainly reviewed some new opportunities on the Abstract chain. You may feel that new projects on the Abstract chain are now more competitive, and many NFT content creators are posting inventories on Twitter to try to take the lead in the whitelist war, which is becoming more and more difficult. When the difficulty of obtaining a white ticket is not increased by a single project but by the entire ecosystem, the odds space will naturally be compressed. In this article, we will focus on the Monad NFT, which is gaining momentum, and Story Protocol. What are the things that are worth our attention? Monad NFT First, go and do @monadverse s…
相关文章
日本語 
English 
繁體中文 
简体中文 
Français 
Deutsch 
Русский 
Español 
ไทย 
Tiếng Việt 
العربية 
한국어 
Bahasa Indonesia 
हिन्दी 
اردو 
Türkçe