A look at the history of /r/ Bitcoin censorship

/r/Bitcoin’s (brief and incomplete) history of censorship

Please do not use /r/bitcoin or bitcointalk, which are censored and deleted. Please use /r/btc instead.

On this community, free and open discussions help individuals and the Bitcoin community find the truth. Everyone participates in the discussion with wisdom or knowledge. Everyone who reads the discussion and grows their knowledge is closer to the truth. This is more effective than the truth proposed by a few moderators or by voters.

-Theymos in a 2003 Bitcointalk post.

Anyone who has been following Bitcoin closely over the past few years should by now be fully aware of the issues at stake, as well as some very prominent censorship issues that exist within the Bitcoin community. For those who are not aware, here’s a primer:

Currently, the Bitcoin network is at maximum capacity, capable of processing about three transactions per second. This was not part of the original design of the Bitcoin protocol. In 2010, Satoshi Nakamoto proposed a 1MB block size limit as a temporary measure to combat spam transactions.

Because Bitcoin was so cheap at the time, and the number of Bitcoin users was so small, transactions on the Bitcoin network were effectively free. People worried that malicious users would flood the Internet with transactions, which would fill up blocks and slow down transactions for legitimate users. Transactions were made at such a low price that it would cost criminals very little to carry out an attack and could cripple the entire Bitcoin network, which was still in its infancy. Gavin Andresen, former chief administrator of Bitcoin, wrote in a blog post:

The block reward was 50 BTC at the time , so miners could sell a block’s worth of digital currency for about $1.50. This gives us a rough idea: in order to disrupt the Internet, attackers spend a dollar or two to create a “poisonous block”. Many people are willing to spend a dollar or two “for pleasure” - they like to cause trouble and are willing to spend a lot of time or money to cause trouble.

The current block reward is 25 BTC , with a price of over $400; miners earn over $10,000 for producing a block . An attacker must spend close to this amount to create a “poison block”.

But at the time, the megabyte limit was virtually unlimited; the average block size at the time ranged from 200 bytes to occasional peaks of 1,000 bytes. The 1 megabyte limit was to handle the influx of new users and peak transactions, which at the time were thousands of times higher than the average daily transaction volume. In October 2010, Satoshi Nakamoto also laid out plans to increase the maximum block size.

It can be done in stages, such as:

If (block count > 115000 )

Maximum block size = greater restrictions

It can start early as a version, so by the time it reaches the block number and takes effect, the old version is out of date.

Pretty simple, right?

One would think that since the limit was introduced in 2010, there have been countless discussions about the need and methods to increase the limit, and the transaction processing capacity of Bitcoin. These attempts have been repeatedly opposed by a small group of developers. In recent years, discussions about increasing the limit have been censored in some of Bitcoin's larger forums. These forums are all moderated by an individual registered as Theymos. Any discussion thread suggesting code changes to increase the limit has been banned.

Some people don’t believe censorship is a problem, or refuse to acknowledge it is censorship. Here’s Adam Back, CEO of Blockstream:

Gregory Maxwell, CTO of Blockstream and a core Bitcoin developer, said:

"The excitement of r/btc at this time only proves that /r/bitcoin is doing the right thing. (Deleting posts) is not just a matter of moderators punishing readers and posters." (Source, archive)

Luke-jr, a contractor at Blockstream and developer of Bitcoin Core, said:

“Manipulating public opinion is not censorship” (source, archive)

“I am not aware of any evidence that Bitcoin has been subject to censorship. (Source, archive)

"/u/theymos is one of the most anti-censorship people I know " (source, archive)

Bitcoin core developer Peter Todd said:

“Roger [Ver] ’s views are not censored, they are just ignored. [sic] ” (source, archive)

/r/bitcoin moderator, /u/frankenmint said:

“From my perspective, we are not involved in any tangible censorship. For example, if I were to remove your content from medium.com , that would be my responsibility… (source, archive)

Based on this support from certain stakeholders, they would almost have you believe that there is no censorship at all. Setting aside the fact that /u/theymos has been proven to have financial ties to Blockstream. Let’s look at the censorship of /r/bitcoin over time:

May 7 , 2015. Using a tool called UnReddit, we can see that comments on the block size increase post were being deleted en masse.

On August 9, 2015 , a highly upvoted thread on /r/bitcoin (archive) (705 upvotes, 89% upvote) received three Reddit gildings asking:

Do you believe in an open and permissionless network? Do you think Bitcoin will disappear just because someone released some code? Do you think people should be allowed to know about this?

/r/bitcoin moderator /u/BashCo responded. He received serious backlash when he said the following:

Considering that the block capacity limit discussion has achieved nothing, not even a minimal resemblance to consensus, BitcoinXT contains code that could undermine the blockchain and the existing ecosystem. Treating the BitcoinXT topic as "off topic" is consistent with the actions taken against altcoins such as Litecoin , Dogecoin , Ethereum , etc. I suggest that we should end the inflammatory rhetoric and work hard to find a way to design a Bitcoin that can achieve consensus.

Again for those who don't understand: /r/bitcoin moderators attempted to classify discussion of Bitcoin code changes (only those that attempt to increase restrictions) as off-topic on the basis of "altcoins". Altcoins are completely different currencies with their own ledgers and tokens, and are not interoperable with Bitcoin. BitcoinXT, on the other hand, runs on the same Bitcoin network as other Bitcoin software, uses the same tokens, and the same ledger, and is interoperable. Users running BitcoinXT software and users running Bitcoin Core software can transact Bitcoin perfectly well.

August 13 , 2015. /u/aminok's post (archive) was deleted. In it, he asked mods: "Please do not try to impose your will on the Bitcoin community." He posted to an uncensored Bitcoin subreddit.

August 14 , 2015. The next day, /u/aminok was banned for posting a thread asking "How should the Bitcoin community reach consensus and conduct a hard fork when /r/bitcoin mods prohibit discussion of any hard fork proposals that do not reach consensus?" (archive). After receiving a reply from the first floor of /r/bitcoin, the thread was deleted.

Aminok posted about banning the uncensored subreddit. /r/bitcoin moderator, /u/StarMaged agreed with this reasoning:

The entire exchange between /u/StarMaged and /u/aminok is worth reading

August 15 , 2015. A [deleted] post (archive) on /r/bitcoin calling for moderators to step down received over 2,800 upvotes (91% upvote), making it one of the most upvoted posts in /r/bitcoin history. The community confirms the consensus that the current /r/bitcoin mod group is corrupt, engaged in censorship, and needs to be replaced.

Ironically, in the same thread, /r/bitcoin moderator /u/BashCo said he supported consensus, before admitting to “regrettably” censoring posts.

August 16 , 2015. Moderator /u/BashCo acknowledges mods ' involvement in censorship:

More precisely, I support consensus. In the absence of consensus, the subject of BitcoinXT has unfortunately not been examined. (Archive)

On the same day, user /u/SatoshisGhost was banned for mentioning BitcoinXT.

When the popular Bitcoin web cartoonist /u/raisethelimit tried to publish two of his comic posts, he

"Trolling" was banned for 30 days.

/u/Jackten was banned for 7 days for attempting to discuss Bitcoin-XT. In the comments, user /u/dnivi3 posted that none of his posts had been approved, and then posted a post claiming that he had been banned from /r/bitcoin (presumably because his comments on /r/bitcoin were not moderated).

On the same day, during the mass purge, /r/bitcoin moderator /u/Theymos posted a post titled "Calling for more moderators" (archive). This post was heavily downvoted, with 0 clicks (43% upvote rate). His post contained the sentence "If you don't agree with /r/bitcoin's policies, don't apply."

August 18 , 2015. /u/ SundoshiNakatoto 's post was deleted for encouraging people to upgrade their knowledge of their favorite code (Core or XT) and run a full node. This deletion was discussed in the uncensored subreddit.

On August 19 , 2015 , /r/bitcoin moderator /u/jratcliff63367 published a post titled "Confessions of a /r/bitcoin moderator" in Let's Talk Bitcoin. He stated:

At the very least we should allow discussion and let people "freely express" opinions in whichever client they choose to run. If the Bitcoin network is so fragile that someone running a different client with a different ruleset is a problem, then we have bigger problems.

The reality is that people running different versions of the client are not a threat at all. For the community, this is an opportunity to vote on the direction of Bitcoin.

Bitcoin-xt is not a "threat" to Bitcoin. It is an option, a choice, a candidate where people can vote on the community for features they want to see in Bitcoin, rather than features they haven't noticed.

August 24 , 2015. /u / chinawat was taken down for following and raising all the recent bans.

20 Aug 25 , 2015. / u/SwagPokerz explains how / r/bitcoin moderators manipulated the subreddit's CSS to obscure deleted comments.

How deleted comments are usually displayed.

Using /r/bitcoin’s custom CSS (70,000 lines!), deleted comments are masked and new comment trees appear like this:

Notably, Reddit’s moddiquette guidelines tell moderators not to “ use custom CSS to hide rdddit ads or intentionally mislead users. ”

On August 29, 2015 , ten days after the anti-censorship post on Let's Talk Bitcoin, former /r/bitcoin moderator /u/jratcli ff63367 announced that he had been fired. In the post, /u/theymos chimed in to explain why he fired jratcli ff:

He doesn't just express reasonable opinions. For long periods of time, he is extremely unreasonable and unconstructive. Disagreement (even strong public disagreement) is fine, but we can't effectively mitigate disagreement without a certain level of respect and trust between moderators.

September 4 , 2015. /u/hardleft121 announced that he had been removed as a moderator of /r/bitcoin for "inaction" (archive). / u/ hardleft121 was a legendary figure in the Bitcoin subreddits, frequently reporting Bitcoin users, sometimes giving away hundreds of dollars at a time.

On the same day, he published a post on /r/bitcoin (archived), which received 403 hits and a mixture of sympathy and anger from /r/bitcoin users. The post revealed that despite /u/SeansOutpost's inaction as a mod, he was not removed from his moderation duties. When asked about his comments on censorship, /u/SeansOutpost replied:

I don’t understand / agree why we can’t talk about this like adults. I’m not qualified to judge whether XT is the way to go. But at this point in time, it’s clear that block capacity must be increased. I’m not sure why we can’t discuss all options openly. Public discussion seems to be in the spirit of Satoshi ’s ideas.

Soon after, he was removed from his position as moderator.

On November 4 , 2015 , /u/Theymos attempted to explain his censorship policy, writing:

You can promote BIP 101 as an idea. You can't promote the actual use of BIP 101 (on /r/Bitcoin ) . You can only promote it when there is consensus on the idea. (archive)

This again raises the question: how is community consensus supposed to be achieved if discussion is not allowed? Theymos also has a strong tendency to play with words. The difference between "promoting as an idea" and "promoting usage" is very unclear and never clearly defined. The main factor seems to be whether it approves (disallows) or disapproves (allows) discussion.

November 5 , 2015. In a post with -749 downvotes (archive), /u/theymos threatened to ban the excellent Bitcoin company Coinbase and its CEO Brian Armstrong because they supported the BIP101 proposal for a block size increase. Theymos also threatened to remove Coinbase from bitcoin.org (which he controls).

In the same thread, /u/StarMaged chimed in and acknowledged how the thread in question had been deleted by several /r/bitcoin mods without their permission. StarMaged also spoke about the user's comments regarding censorship and the ensuing chaos.

"That's why it's dangerous to keep saying things like that to someone."

Yes, ideas are dangerous.

On December 26 , 2015 , /u/nathan2055 tested the /r/bitcoin moderation system by posting "a completely harmless discussion thread" (archive) asking "What do people think about BitcoinXT and BIP101?" Of course, the post was immediately deleted from /r/bitcoin. Moderator /u/StarMaged had to venture into /r/Bitcoin_Uncensore to explain his reasoning for deleting the post:

/u/Nathan2055 also posted a screenshot of a private message between him and a /r/bitcoin moderator, /u/110101002, in which the moderator explained that discussion of Coinbase was now completely banned from /r/bitcoin because it was off-topic and because the backend they were running was not Bitcoin Core.

In the same post, StarMaged went on to explain:

December 27 , 2015. Theymos fulfilled what he had said before and removed Coinbase from bitcoin.org , along with other companies that dared to speak out and support larger blocks. (As shown in this Github delegation).

The post calling out this behavior received 419 likes (87% upvote), with the usually polite Erik Voorhees even saying:

December 28 , 2015. A rough / r/bitcoin mod with username /u/CensorshipIsTheWorst

The following conversation was leaked from /r/Bitcoin mod-mail:

Sent to /r/Bitcoin 1 day ago by Aussiehash [M]

https://np.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/3ycayp/brian_armstrong_on_twitter_coinbase_is_now/ I have deleted this post. I have deleted this post. Let other moderators reverse it at will.

11 hours agoThemmos [M] to Aussiehash [M] via /r/BitcoinI agree with removing it since it's mostly about XT . However, AFAICT Coinbase is still using Bitcoin, so overall it should be allowed on /r/Bitcoin for now . Coblee said so in the pull request to bitcoin.org , so I'm inclined to trust him. (Perhaps Cobra doesn't know coblee 's reliability, or he [IMO reasonably ] thinks it's too dangerous / incompetent / reckless for Coinbase to be listed on bitcoin.org , even though they currently use Bitcoin.)

5 hours ago StarMaged [M] sent to themos [M] via /r/Bitcoin

Honestly, it seems to me that they were still a Bitcoin company until the moment of the split. They were just buying and selling two currencies at a time instead of one. I find it really disturbing that this system encourages companies to quietly support XT and then not tell us until the last minute. Yes, of course, those posts are deleted for promoting altcoins, but people outside of the subreddit should be allowed to make an informed decision without us scaring them into censorship. I feel like this is probably where the term "censorship" really ties in, because our actions on this issue will affect what other companies can say who are afraid of blowback from the subreddit . It's worth thinking about.

A few hours later, /u/colsatre was removed from his moderator position, leading some to speculate that he was a rogue mod. /u/CensorshipIsTheWorst did not post again.

January 9 , 2016. Despite overwhelming consensus among Github users on the pull request (only three users "rejected" the request), Github's pull request to restore the delisting of Coinbase and other companies was ignored. The post discussing this (archive) received 926 likes (89% upvote rate).

JoinMarket is a vehement censorship supporter and /u/belcher developer. Of course, his -53-point "top comment" insists that because the pull request is "brigaded," the vote is invalid. You'll notice similar suppression whenever /r/Bitcoin mods delete posts that don't fit their status quo: the post was upvoted, therefore it was "brigaded," therefore we had to delete it.

The vote was completely brigaded. If it weren't for all the brigadiers, the three "no" votes would have been a majority.

Interestingly, a comment with a negative 53 points appeared at the top of the comment thread. In addition to hiding the scores of new posts for 8-12 hours to obscure voting activity, /r/bitcoin moderators set up default comments to categorize their actions in the thread as "controversial." So the most downvoted comments appear at the top of the thread, tricking users who are not familiar with the exercise into thinking that unpopular opinions are actually the most popular.

March 8 , 2016. Long -time bitcoin user and mining pool inventor /u/slush0 says moderators of /r/bitcoin censored a video he made in which he explained how users of his mining pool vote on which software to run.

Despite calling himself an anarchist, Slush seems to be suffering from Stockholm syndrome. Today he was spotted actively participating in the discussion /r/Bitcoin, calling for the destruction of Bitcoin’s security model.

On the same day, /u/BeYourOwnBank pointed out that /r/bitcoin moderators deleted posts that quoted Satoshi Nakamoto. (Example 1, Example 2)

On March 9, 2016 , / u/alwayswatchyoursix made the allegation that /r/bitcoin mods were actively searching /r/btc to ban users. /r/bitcoin former moderator /u/MineForeman confirmed that this is exactly what he had been doing, and admitted that it was an automated process.

/u/ MineForeman went on to explain his approach to banning bots.

On March 27, 2016 , / u/blockologist made two posts in /r/bitcoin. One post was titled "Vote - Classic or Core" (Classic was another attempt to increase block capacity since BitcoinXT was effectively terminated by a DDoS attack), and the other was titled "Cooperation Requires Communication" from Gavin Andresen's blog. Both posts were deleted. The moderator of /r/bitcoin explained:

On May 18 , 2016 , /u/Annapurna317 was banned from /r/bitcoin for 15 days for posting the following comment:

July 24 , 2016. /u/chinawa , who has been a member of /r/bitcoin for three years and has been posting on it for a long time, said that his replies to accounts with only one day of history were selectively hidden.

August 29 , 2016. People can use a tool called "ceddit" to see deleted comments in spam posts. Here's an example from today :

October 23 , 2016. /u/andromedavirus provides evidence that one of his comments was censored on /r/bitcoin. The original comment that was censored was news of a Bitcoin miners conference in China, where over 300 attendees voted overwhelmingly in favor of increasing block capacity. News of the conference was censored from /r/bitcoin until a day later, when a dismissive, inaccurate tweet by Samson Mow was allowed to remain:

The next day, /u/andromedavirus, the “lying troll”, was banned from /r/bitcoin.

Chengdu Miners Conference

On October 31, 2016, /u/BeijingBitcoins published (archive) his own article in /r/bitcoin: There will be no Bitcoin split. It had just appeared at the top of the subreddit before the mod locked the comments.

After realizing what was happening, /u/BeijingBitcoins attempted to respond to the comments and then posted an uncensored thread on /r/btc about how to lock comments. That thread quickly gained traction. Within an hour, it was noticed and censored by /r/btc, and the original thread on /r/bitcoin was completely deleted.

The next day, /r/bitcoin moderator /u/Frankenmint/r/btc posted a thread announcing that he had locked the comments and then deleted the thread. He explained that he had to lock the comments to prevent it from being "moved" (moved to what, exactly?). I had a brief exchange with him, and I asked:

JB : Do you think communities are incapable of self-regulation?

FM: To be honest… no, I don’t think so… it will just split into factions with their own special interests within them.

JB : If so, do you think a complex system like Bitcoin can self-regulate?

FM : No - Bitcoin still has software maintainers who follow and enforce the rules, and participants who seek to adjust the rules when they see fit - and that would be a breaking change to the core protocol. These participants have now split off into a new group.

His response here sums up the position of the entire management team of /r/bitcoin. While Bitcoin was originally invented as a toy for anarchists and initially attracted the attention of staunch libertarians, /r/bitcoin is now overrun with paternalistic dictators such as /u/themmos, /u/BashCo, and /u/frankenmint. These "gentlemen" rule with an iron fist, deleting posts they believe "endanger" the community, and believe that online communities and Bitcoin itself cannot regulate themselves. Instead, they feel that only through their own self-proclaimed paternalistic wisdom can Bitcoin succeed.

While harsh censorship is now accepted as a fact of life by angry members of the Bitcoin community, it wasn’t always this way. The examples collected here are few and far between, gathered from just two hours of research. While censorship is now accepted as standard, you can see from some of the examples above that it was once a very contentious issue in the community.

Sadly, many members of the Bitcoin community, including those who often call themselves cryptanalysts, libertarians, and anarchists, have become content with the status quo. Rather than attempting to resist this tyranny, they casually accept it, defend it, and continue to participate in heavily censored forums where large swaths of the community at large are not heard. What is happening is gas-lighting of the highest order.

John Blocke implored these people to take action: denounce censorship and do not join censored forums. Reddit administrators have repeatedly stated that they do not intend to disrupt a $10 billion open source software movement, so we must take matters into our own hands. Do not let Bitcoin perish in the hands of tyrants like Theymos.

Addendum: This post disappeared from /r/bitcoin within minutes. /u/BitcoinGuerrilla posted it here.

…

Take another look at some of Reddit's Moddiquette guidelines under the "Please Don't" section:

Delete the content based on your opinion.

Use custom CSS to hide reddit ads or intentionally mislead users.

Unilaterally make significant revisions to the rules, sidebars, or style sheets.

Take on the role of moderator in subreddits that you can't handle.

Serve as a moderator in situations where your expertise, profession, or bias might cause a direct conflict of interest between neutrals and the user-driven nature of the situation.

Ban users who have not violated any subreddits rules.