Author Topic: Dan Larimer to be Keynote Speaker at Inside Bitcoins in Vegas  (Read 16749 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline gamey

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2253
    • View Profile
Good Luck BM!

I suggest also refrain from implying directly that BTC price fall is due to selling pressure from mining ... let people figure it out themselves. also leave room for people to think that bitcoin may just as well bubble again (cuz it might) and leave predictions aside.

Yes. There's not much to be gained by denigrating BTC too harshly. Traders, developers, investors, and VCs will come around soon enough and figure out that there may be something better. Rather than blatantly criticizing, it's best to be constructive and plant positive seeds in people's minds about Bitshares so they will look to it first and not hate/shun it irrationally when they decide to diversify out of BTC.

How do you slip in the fact that btsx is about the only thing to have retained its value the past month. 

Say how you moved development funds from other crypto-equities into bitsharesx and were able to avoid the downswing. 

I speak for myself and only myself.

Offline pendragon3

Good Luck BM!

I suggest also refrain from implying directly that BTC price fall is due to selling pressure from mining ... let people figure it out themselves. also leave room for people to think that bitcoin may just as well bubble again (cuz it might) and leave predictions aside.

Yes. There's not much to be gained by denigrating BTC too harshly. Traders, developers, investors, and VCs will come around soon enough and figure out that there may be something better. Rather than blatantly criticizing, it's best to be constructive and plant positive seeds in people's minds about Bitshares so they will look to it first and not hate/shun it irrationally when they decide to diversify out of BTC.

Offline CLains

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2606
    • View Profile
  • BitShares: clains
Good Luck BM!

I suggest also refrain from implying directly that BTC price fall is due to selling pressure from mining ... let people figure it out themselves. also leave room for people to think that bitcoin may just as well bubble again (cuz it might) and leave predictions aside.
« Last Edit: October 04, 2014, 07:14:44 pm by CLains »

Offline JoeyD

I don't know if mentioning the butterfly lab people is bad per se, because he is not trying to prove the benefits of mining and them being put under FTC-restricted operations might put some extra weight on the risks of mining centralization he's talking about.

Also when mentioning other projects, ethereum is POW (and only a concept as of now) and has no mechanics in place to avoid centralization last time I checked, so why would Bytemaster recommend projects like that in a speech where he wants to convince people to return to decentralization as envisioned by Satoshi?

Offline fluxer555

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 749
    • View Profile

Offline feedthemcake

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 158
    • View Profile
This speech will have even more impact based on this price trend.

Offline jsidhu

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1335
    • View Profile
Usually new smart money will prefer advice from impartial advisers because anyone sho comes off as partial may seem to have an agenda and in general ppl eill prefer not to invest in him her... Essentially people investing in btsx are investing in him so the more impartial and better prepared the higher chance of new whales coming straight into crypto via btsx... Those already in already probably have positions anyways
Hired by blockchain | Developer
delegate: dev.sidhujag

Offline Gentso1

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 931
    • View Profile
  • BitShares: gentso
A few suggestions.

don't say "your" vision use OUR vision. You are a keynote speaker and a leader of the community set the tone and you will bring everyone together under the idea of what bitcoin was meant to be not what it is today.

When mentioning BFL perhaps just qoute the "future of mining presentation" before leading into the mining facts, no need to to mention the speaker as it may be a bit of a sore point.
"In his presentation he pointed out that about 5 people collectively control 75% of the hashing power behind Bitcoin and 2 people control over 51%.   He then made the case that this centralization was good for Bitcoin because it means they could coordinate to rapidly resolve unexpected forks such as the one that occurred in March 2013"
No need to mention Sonny by name or he, use things like during the presentation it was said or a idea that was brought up.....things like that. Its fine and useful to refer to the presentation but you don't want to repeatedly qoute a guy that is a bit of a scum bag. His info good, he as a person avoid.

5) it would be good to mention pos, dpos or any other ecosystems that are not worthy. I know you seem to be trying extra hard to be impartial but you don't want to avoid topics.   

 "Introduction to proof of stake (in general, not DPOS)" again don't push dpos but as a ecosystem it is worth mention along with any other ecosystems. I only say these things because at a certain point it will look like you are avoiding things.

When you get to point 11 introduce nxt, ether and any other that you feel are worth mentioning first and bitshares last. Don't use the words sales pitch, keep the tone positive because anything negative isn't even worth mentioning 8)   

Keep in mind I am offering the above suggestions with the subject "Bitcoin and Beyond"
Good luck and

Offline santaclause102

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2486
    • View Profile
Just for the record... I am making no new announcements in Vegas...

A brief outline of my talk:

1) What Bitcoin is *to me*.... an idea, a vision, .... other things like the american dream...
2) What Bitcoin isn't to me...  a specific technology, blockchain, mining, or network effect.
3) Like the constitution of the US was meant to secure life, liberty, and property... so to was Satoshi's implementation of the Bitcoin vision.
4) Like the constitution either permits or is powerless to prevent world empire and global economic extortion... so too will Satoshi's Bitcoin unless we act to prevent it.

  Bitcoin is a new frontier and we are pioneers hoping to re-establish the land of the free and the home of the brave.   Satoshi set out to create a system without any centralized points of control and where the currency was distributed on an equal opportunity basis to anyone and everyone with a computer.  Mining was meant to simulate the discovery of gold that was evenly distributed across the world.   

But like the Constitution of the United States the ideal and the reality have diverged and Satoshi’s Bitcoin has fallen to the immutable laws of economics. Efficiencies gained by centralization and economies of scale has made decentralized mining unprofitable.

   What will Satoshi’s Bitcoin do then?   Is it safe to say, “we will deal with it if it becomes a problem”?   Should we not have a plan in place today the free Bitcoin from the risk of centralized control that mining poses?    Should Bitcoin adopt a different proof of work?   Sadly, the same immutable laws of economics will apply to all proof of work schemes.   

   Last year at Inside Bitcoin  the CEO of Butterfly Labs did a presentation on “The Future of Mining”.   In his presentation he pointed out that about 5 people collectively control 75% of the hashing power behind Bitcoin and 2 people control over 51%.   He then made the case that this centralization was good for Bitcoin because it means they could coordinate to rapidly resolve unexpected forks such as the one that occurred in March 2013.     According to Sonny Vleisides, without this centralization in mining Bitcoin would have died 18 months ago as decentralized clients would have been unable to reach a consensus on which fork to follow in a timely manner.

Whether or not you agree that Bitcoin would have died,  Sonny Vleisides has effectively admitted that Bitcoin has become centralized, that a small handful of powerful pool operators can unilaterally decide which block chain fork is the “official” fork, that they all know each other and that they effectively vote on which chain to support.

    I was in line to ask a question that day, but unfortunately it had to wait until this years event to be asked.   If the major mining pool operators form a small group of insiders that are voting on which fork to follow and this is good for Satoshi’s Bitcoin, then why must we spend a half billion dollars per year to generate an insecure, forgeable, proof-of-work hash signature when these same individuals could simply provide a cheap, secure, unforgeable elliptic curve signature?    Are we claiming that the ability for todays wealthy elite to buy enough mining hardware to challenge this small group of individuals is worth $500 million dollars?   That wealthy outsiders will come to the rescue of Bitcoin by investing in enough hardware to break the monopoly of the mining incumbents?   

5) Shift in ecosystem toward proof of stake (new coins, many of the top 10)

6) Bitcoin as a company

7) Economic analysis of Bitcoin

8) Introduction to proof of stake (in general, not DPOS)

9) Profitability = Sustainability and Growth

Given two systems each attempting to realize the Bitcoin Ideal we have a choice between Satoshi’s Bitcoin where a half dozen self-appointed people vote on the ledger while charging the coinholders 10% per year and pocketing 5% for themselves or any one of a dozen different proof of stake systems that offer greater privacy, faster blocks, lower transaction fees, and most importantly the ledger is voted on by thousands of regular users while paying a positive yield?

Satoshi’s Bitcoin has the infrastructure advantage, the name recognition, and the network effect to garner a 5 billion dollar market cap,  but this market cap is being built on the backs of thousands of small businesses that are integrating Satoshi’s Bitcoin by investing millions in infrastructure. 

This infrastructure is not tied to Bitcoin and could quickly pivot to newer, better realizations of the Bitcoin Ideal for a fraction of the cost it took to setup initially. 

So all you in the audience who own tens of millions of Satoshi‘s are faced with the same delimia that shareholders of all companies face, sell or vote in new management to pivot the business and return to profitability.  Imagine the possibility if $500 million per year could be directed to building infrastructure rather than combatting global cooling?

10) Bitcoin is challenged by lacking a consensus mechanism for large changes to the network such as eliminating mining

Fortunately the free market is the ultimate form of decentralization and we can vote with our wallets, our investments, and our businesses.  My message for you today is to look beyond Satoshi, beyond the hype, and hold fast to the vision and ideal that Bitcoin stands for.

11) Overview of BitShares..

I am not here today to do a sales pitch but only to open your eyes to what kind of things are possible and to carry the flag of the Bitcoin Ideal to the moon.

Love it! Referring to the ideal of Bitcoin and the analogy of the constitution makes total sense to me.
 
Feedback:

In order to create as little resistance among bitcoiners (=them shutting their brains as Max W. would say):

I'd try to avoid that people say "he is just trying to dramatize the centralization of mining for his coin": "2 people control over 51%" sounds unrealistic to me because why would there then be pools which control 75%? Such big miners do not need a pool. https://blockchain.info/de/pools
And I would make the distinction between 2 people controlling 51% of the hashing power by owning the miners and 2 people controlling 51% of the hashing power by being pool operators. There is a difference: Actual miners could control and harm the network long term. Mining pool operators can do it as long as the miners "vote" against the mining pool by going to another one.

Quote
Whether or not you agree that Bitcoin would have died
I'd leave out the word "died". This just scares them and makes them subconsciously think you want to scare them for your own benefit.

This part
Quote
then why must we spend a half billion dollars per year to generate an insecure, forgeable, proof-of-work hash signature 
  I would leave out "insecure" here, again because it is not obvious why it is insecure and to not create resistance.

Quote
half dozen self-appointed people
I'd say "appointed by their capital investment in mining equipment" ....anything that is not correct and at the same time puts Bitcoin in a bad light (even if it is only 1% if the talk) will make all that are seeking yes/no // black/white answers disagree with the whole talk.

Quote
10) Bitcoin is challenged by lacking a consensus mechanism for large changes to the network such as eliminating mining
Adding "DPOS has one" might make sense here but could make it too complicated.

Quote
I am not here today to do a sales pitch but only to open your eyes to what kind of things are possible and to carry the flag of the Bitcoin Ideal to the moon. 
I'd say "I am here today to open your eyes to what kind of things are possible with blockchain technology and to carry the flag of the Bitcoin Ideal to more people than we reached up to now"
Saying you are not making a sales pitch brings in the word "sales pitch" anyway and there does not have to be a contradiction between perusing the idealistic goals of Bitcoin with an own project although it is not at the center of the talk.
Blockchain technology is a useful buzzword everyone can agree on.
Everytime I here moon in commbination with crypto currency I tend to run.
« Last Edit: October 03, 2014, 04:44:51 pm by delulo »

Offline donkeypong

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2329
    • View Profile
Quote
You should try to refrain from mentioning BFL or  Sonny Vleisides as they are being investigated and charged by the FED for illegal business practices that we all knew were happening. Finally caught up... probably not a good idea to quote these people, if you were intending to anyways.

I will probably mention the talk but not the speaker.  So quote them anonymously.

Unless you are trying to undermine their statements somehow, in which case some demonization may be OK.

Offline bytemaster

Quote
You should try to refrain from mentioning BFL or  Sonny Vleisides as they are being investigated and charged by the FED for illegal business practices that we all knew were happening. Finally caught up... probably not a good idea to quote these people, if you were intending to anyways.

I will probably mention the talk but not the speaker.  So quote them anonymously.
For the latest updates checkout my blog: http://bytemaster.bitshares.org
Anything said on these forums does not constitute an intent to create a legal obligation or contract between myself and anyone else.   These are merely my opinions and I reserve the right to change them at any time.

Offline James212

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 312
    • View Profile
That looks like a great plan for your speech. I might suggest that in #11, when you are introducing BitShares, you also might also mention Ethereum and NXT, etc., as other examples of doing more with the blockchain. That might be a diplomatic transition to just mention them once, though not describe them any more than that. And then then go into BitShares. Best of luck; it's going to be great!

 +5%   I agree.  This is a good idea.
BTS: theangelwaveproject

Offline zhao150

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 606
  • 老子早就不想当代表了
    • View Profile
老子早就不想当代表了

Offline jsidhu

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1335
    • View Profile
Just for the record... I am making no new announcements in Vegas...

A brief outline of my talk:

1) What Bitcoin is *to me*.... an idea, a vision, .... other things like the american dream...
2) What Bitcoin isn't to me...  a specific technology, blockchain, mining, or network effect.
3) Like the constitution of the US was meant to secure life, liberty, and property... so to was Satoshi's implementation of the Bitcoin vision.
4) Like the constitution either permits or is powerless to prevent world empire and global economic extortion... so too will Satoshi's Bitcoin unless we act to prevent it.

  Bitcoin is a new frontier and we are pioneers hoping to re-establish the land of the free and the home of the brave.   Satoshi set out to create a system without any centralized points of control and where the currency was distributed on an equal opportunity basis to anyone and everyone with a computer.  Mining was meant to simulate the discovery of gold that was evenly distributed across the world.   

But like the Constitution of the United States the ideal and the reality have diverged and Satoshi’s Bitcoin has fallen to the immutable laws of economics. Efficiencies gained by centralization and economies of scale has made decentralized mining unprofitable.

   What will Satoshi’s Bitcoin do then?   Is it safe to say, “we will deal with it if it becomes a problem”?   Should we not have a plan in place today the free Bitcoin from the risk of centralized control that mining poses?    Should Bitcoin adopt a different proof of work?   Sadly, the same immutable laws of economics will apply to all proof of work schemes.   

   Last year at Inside Bitcoin  the CEO of Butterfly Labs did a presentation on “The Future of Mining”.   In his presentation he pointed out that about 5 people collectively control 75% of the hashing power behind Bitcoin and 2 people control over 51%.   He then made the case that this centralization was good for Bitcoin because it means they could coordinate to rapidly resolve unexpected forks such as the one that occurred in March 2013.     According to Sonny Vleisides, without this centralization in mining Bitcoin would have died 18 months ago as decentralized clients would have been unable to reach a consensus on which fork to follow in a timely manner.

Whether or not you agree that Bitcoin would have died,  Sonny Vleisides has effectively admitted that Bitcoin has become centralized, that a small handful of powerful pool operators can unilaterally decide which block chain fork is the “official” fork, that they all know each other and that they effectively vote on which chain to support.

    I was in line to ask a question that day, but unfortunately it had to wait until this years event to be asked.   If the major mining pool operators form a small group of insiders that are voting on which fork to follow and this is good for Satoshi’s Bitcoin, then why must we spend a half billion dollars per year to generate an insecure, forgeable, proof-of-work hash signature when these same individuals could simply provide a cheap, secure, unforgeable elliptic curve signature?    Are we claiming that the ability for todays wealthy elite to buy enough mining hardware to challenge this small group of individuals is worth $500 million dollars?   That wealthy outsiders will come to the rescue of Bitcoin by investing in enough hardware to break the monopoly of the mining incumbents?   

5) Shift in ecosystem toward proof of stake (new coins, many of the top 10)

6) Bitcoin as a company

7) Economic analysis of Bitcoin

8) Introduction to proof of stake (in general, not DPOS)

9) Profitability = Sustainability and Growth

Given two systems each attempting to realize the Bitcoin Ideal we have a choice between Satoshi’s Bitcoin where a half dozen self-appointed people vote on the ledger while charging the coinholders 10% per year and pocketing 5% for themselves or any one of a dozen different proof of stake systems that offer greater privacy, faster blocks, lower transaction fees, and most importantly the ledger is voted on by thousands of regular users while paying a positive yield?

Satoshi’s Bitcoin has the infrastructure advantage, the name recognition, and the network effect to garner a 5 billion dollar market cap,  but this market cap is being built on the backs of thousands of small businesses that are integrating Satoshi’s Bitcoin by investing millions in infrastructure. 

This infrastructure is not tied to Bitcoin and could quickly pivot to newer, better realizations of the Bitcoin Ideal for a fraction of the cost it took to setup initially. 

So all you in the audience who own tens of millions of Satoshi‘s are faced with the same delimia that shareholders of all companies face, sell or vote in new management to pivot the business and return to profitability.  Imagine the possibility if $500 million per year could be directed to building infrastructure rather than combatting global cooling?

10) Bitcoin is challenged by lacking a consensus mechanism for large changes to the network such as eliminating mining

Fortunately the free market is the ultimate form of decentralization and we can vote with our wallets, our investments, and our businesses.  My message for you today is to look beyond Satoshi, beyond the hype, and hold fast to the vision and ideal that Bitcoin stands for.

11) Overview of BitShares..

I am not here today to do a sales pitch but only to open your eyes to what kind of things are possible and to carry the flag of the Bitcoin Ideal to the moon.

You should try to refrain from mentioning BFL or  Sonny Vleisides as they are being investigated and charged by the FED for illegal business practices that we all knew were happening. Finally caught up... probably not a good idea to quote these people, if you were intending to anyways.
Hired by blockchain | Developer
delegate: dev.sidhujag

Offline onceuponatime

I didn't say he wasn't being diplomatic. It would smooth the transition, since everyone knows he's going to talk about his baby, BitShares, at the end.

Agree.