The problem is that they project their political ideas on Bitcoin, with things such as representing Bitcoin as being a tool used to bring about anarchy. Matonis, at least, seems to be encouraging people to break the law almost every time he talks about Bitcoin.
The general objection against Roger Ver is that he has a criminal history. And not just some debatable crime (eg, drug-related or statutory), but selling explosives.s.
See, this is what is hypocritical in this approach.
You have a tool that was
explicitly created to give power to individuals.
If you were to weed out people based on their political views, it should be those who don't adhere to this view.
This would be a bad idea, because discarding people because of their political views is just intellectually dishonest.
We had the Cyprus story. Did anyone here said "Oh c'mon guys, what they did in Cyprus was chosen by their government;
we should not encourage them to use Bitcoin to save some of their saving." ?
Is there anyone here saying that we shouldn't emphasize how Bitcoin can help those in Argentina with their 30% inflation?
*crickets*
Their was some arguments recently that Bitcoin could be used in China because of their capital control.
Again, did someone raised up and said that it was bad for the image of Bitcoin?
No, of course not. You don't want to openly say that Bitcoin can be used to circumvent bad laws
only when it's in your country.
Of course, I would not defend these gentlemen if they weren't great speakers, but they are!
give power to individuals. Nobody can stop Roger Ver or me or you or anyone else saying what we want about Bitcoin to whomever we want, including press.