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.

Amen! +1

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.


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: )


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.

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.


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.

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.

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.

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.

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.