BitShares Forum
Main => General Discussion => Topic started by: fuzzy on April 30, 2014, 01:57:14 pm
-
People at one time said it was lobbing grenades, while I later apologized and corrected the statement "lobbing grenades" by recoining it "sniping". This was about Ethereum and Hoskinson's motivations compared to Dan's. Well, I will thank you Dan for having a conversation here that vindicates my presumptions.
Many others on this forum have spoken to this topic, but it is nice to see the implied characterization in this link: http://vimeo.com/93168808
With that said, I hope people realize how serious this shit could get in the future. Btw...it would have been a great interview without it.
Unfortunately, we can tell there is a lot of work to do to get average joes and janes up to speed.
-
I can't listen to this, also you're leaving a lot to be inferred... please elaborate
-
Yeah that's long can you let us know the section of the video you're referring to.
-
Basically I've been saying that Dan has the philosophy that Satoshi had intended while other projects like Bitcoin and Ethereum have strayed away from those principles that made cryptocurrency valuable to all people. Hard to believe that people like Hosk didn't see these potential problems with the current state of crypto--yet choose to move forward with these ridiculous plans.
It is worth listening to even if you have to fast forward to the "good parts".
Yeah that's long can you let us know the section of the video you're referring to.
starts about midway. the dude does tend to rant alot for through most of the first half...gives Dan a little more real estate in the second half though. I'd say start it around 30 min.
-
Yeah I listened to it, I think most people here (on the Bitshares forum) already get the controllable/centralising threat Bitcoin and Ethereum pose.
I thought Daniel did a good job explaining stuff but it was interesting to hear how layman link Bithsares & Bitcoin together and that they think Blockchains are tied to Bitcoin too. I think it would be worth working on a real laymans sales pitch to make clear how Bitshares is different.
-
Yea, I'm impressed with Dan's presentation.
Dan's one-on-one explanation on radio is better than his presentations to crowds, IMO.
We need to get him on Joe Rogan. Maybe we could start a tweet campaign for Joe to wake the f*ck up and listen to this cat Dan Larimer.
-
We need to get him on Joe Rogan. Maybe we could start a tweet campaign for Joe to wake the f*ck up and listen to this cat Dan Larimer.
+5%
Joe Rogan, Max Keiser and Tim Ferris. The whole DAC concept would be very appealing to Tim Ferris, as it matches his own philosophies. How do we get his attention?
-
I am not familiar with Tim Ferris. I has to google him but am familar with his book. It seems he likes to apply new things directly to himself. Not so much interviewing though. Am I wrong ? It would be hard for him to apply Bitshares to himself and work it into a show.
Max Keiser would be a good fit. Does he do radio interviews? The guy works for a Russian propaganda machine, but it gets the message out there and to the right crowd.
-
+5% +5% GREAT! I feel better criticizing than praising so! That was real good (I listened to both hours 3 and 4)
The only small problem was that Dan was encouraged to continue prophet-ing instead of designing and coding. And while I can see how he is great at this (too), I would like him to finish securing the profiting part. And securing the profiting means finishing the product. When we have the product he can go and expand the profiting by prophet-ing. (credit for propheting – profiting goes to Stan)
-
If you have to fight, you're doing it wrong.
-- Ernest Hancock
-
If you have to fight, you're doing it wrong.
-- Ernest Hancock
+5%
But the speaking of a truth that another wants to conceal (to the detriment of others) is not fighting. The point is valid though...
-
This was about Ethereum and Hoskinson's motivations compared to Dan's.
Let us be clear. This vindicates nothing about motivations.
What Dan has over everyone else is the ability to change his mind without nostalgic delay.
The people in this space, however intelligent, will cling to POW out of nostalgia, even in the face of grave danger of centralization.
This is because the alternatives are not given honest thought; they suppress the hope of alternatives as they cling to the old - and what then remains?
What remains is that they have to protect POW from all objections, as it is the only (to them) "conceivable" alternative to the current state of the centralized etcetc. world economy.
-
I like the idea of getting Joe Rogan onto this :)
Dan's last public speaking presentation was very good. Aside from a small conspiratorial aside (everyone ignored this warning of mine) at the beginning it was flawless.
It needs to be seen by everyone.
As a final note: I think to rely on alliances with people on the fringe, and even fanboys (like me, etc.), is very dangerous; many people on the forums, and on the fringe etc. are here for singular reasons, and appreciate your ideas etc., for reasons that do not necessarily generalize.
-
I like the idea of getting Joe Rogan onto this :)
Dan's last public speaking presentation was very good. Aside from a small conspiratorial aside (everyone ignored this warning of mine) at the beginning it was flawless.
It needs to be seen by everyone.
As a final note: I think to rely on alliances with people on the fringe, and even fanboys (like me, etc.), is very dangerous; many people on the forums, and on the fringe etc. are here for singular reasons, and appreciate your ideas etc., for reasons that do not necessarily generalize.
Aside from a small conspiratorial aside (everyone ignored this warning of mine) at the beginning it was flawless.
What do you mean?
-
I am not familiar with Tim Ferris. I has to google him but am familar with his book. It seems he likes to apply new things directly to himself. Not so much interviewing though. Am I wrong ? It would be hard for him to apply Bitshares to himself and work it into a show.
Max Keiser would be a good fit. Does he do radio interviews? The guy works for a Russian propaganda machine, but it gets the message out there and to the right crowd.
Tim Ferris is an author/entrepreneur/lifehacker. He recently started a podcast and has a television show coming out too. He runs the second most popular syndicate on AngelList (https://angel.co/syndicates) and has over 222k likes on facebook. His first book, The Four Hour Workweek focused a lot on automation, and how to automate as much of your business and life as possible, which is why I think he'd be all for autonomous companies.
From his AngelList profile (https://angel.co/tim):
Tim Ferriss
Advisor: Uber, Evernote, Shopify, Automattic, etc. Early investor: Twitter, FB, Alibaba, etc. Blog with 1M+ readers/month. Author of three #1 NYT/WSJ bestsellers. Featured by 100+ media outlets (NYT, Dr. Oz, etc.).
And his blog: http://fourhourworkweek.com/blog/
-
My thoughts:
Tim Ferriss: I met the guy and read his book (4 hour workweek) while it was still an unpublished manuscript. I got ahold of it because Tony Robbins had a copy, my girlfriend worked for Tony and brought a copy home saying I'd love it....long story short: I did love it and told Tim it would be a best seller....his response? "I know it will." Went on to be one the HUGE NYT bestseller that it is.... Great book, great guy, not sure he'd be the right fit to interview Dan. I can reach out to him, though its been quite a few years. He's still a rock star in my mind.
Max Keiser: I've already been working on trying to get Dan on Keiser's show for a few months now. Its not easy to get ahold of Keiser and although Ethereum got on the show, I think in general Keiser's people had a hard time understanding Ethereum and perhaps for that reason aren't interested in any other next gen crytpto technologies like bitshares. We're still working on several angles to get an interview on Keiser's show.
Ben Swann: Now this is a possibility. I was approached by someone in the publishing business who said Swann would have an interest in covering us. This isn't as high profile as Keiser, but he does have a big audience. Waiting on further details before we can move forward on that one.
I agree, Dan is getting much better with these interviews, and more focused with the message each time he does one. For a brand new organization less than 6 months old we've had an insane amount of press (hats off to Matt Reynolds for making a lot of it happen). Forbes, WSJournal, Fortune, Economist, etc...we have no lack of coverage, to be fair.
I fully intend to continue taking advantage of press in the future, but I think the focus now should be on execution by Dan and the whole team, a focus on creating, testing and implementing software, launching profitable DACS (with others also launching DACs) and the like, rather than focusing on publicity. We can only toot our own horn so much about how what we're doing is going to change the world before we have to actually go out and do it.
-
+5% +5% +5% +5%
-
Tim Ferris is an author/entrepreneur/lifehacker. He recently started a podcast and has a television show coming out too. He runs the second most popular syndicate on AngelList (https://angel.co/syndicates) and has over 222k likes on facebook. His first book, The Four Hour Workweek focused a lot on automation, and how to automate as much of your business and life as possible, which is why I think he'd be all for autonomous companies.
From his AngelList profile (https://angel.co/tim):
Tim Ferriss
Advisor: Uber, Evernote, Shopify, Automattic, etc. Early investor: Twitter, FB, Alibaba, etc. Blog with 1M+ readers/month. Author of three #1 NYT/WSJ bestsellers. Featured by 100+ media outlets (NYT, Dr. Oz, etc.).
And his blog: http://fourhourworkweek.com/blog/
He has a regular podcast in addition to the the TV show ? I just found the TV show and it appeared it wouldn't really be workable, even if Tim Ferriss's content would dovetail nicely otherwise. My failure to see his podcast on google page #1 is only reason I was skeptical of him as a good fit for a media appearance by Dan. If he has a podcast and does interviews, then seems like a great fit along with Joe Rogan.
MktDirector - I think most of us agree that Dan shouldn't be traveling around at this point. However any radio interviews he could do would be a good thing. He has even expressed within the past week that he "has fun explaining things" when his brain is too frazzled to code. (something like that) Radio interviews would take up minimal time since there is no travel involved. It is also where Dan does his best from what little I've seen.
-
Aside from a small conspiratorial aside (everyone ignored this warning of mine) at the beginning it was flawless.
What do you mean?
Did you ever stop to think about why there is so much confusion over the nature of money? The entire system depends upon the masses not understanding the nature of money. Henry Ford once said:
“It is well enough that people of the nation do not understand our banking and monetary system, for if they did, I believe there would be a revolution before tomorrow morning.”
The general population has been intentionally confused with a million conflicting ideas.
...
After all the powers that be have not spent any effort attempting to confuse the issue of stocks.
-
Max Keiser: I've already been working on trying to get Dan on Keiser's show for a few months now. Its not easy to get ahold of Keiser and although Ethereum got on the show, I think in general Keiser's people had a hard time understanding Ethereum and perhaps for that reason aren't interested in any other next gen crytpto technologies like bitshares. We're still working on several angles to get an interview on Keiser's show.
Actually that's not true at all. Max and Stacy love Ethereum and the bitcoin 2.0 space as a whole. Don't blame your inability to procure interviews on the knowledge of the interviewers. Great projects make the news not ask to be on it.
-
Maybe Max wants to avoid bitcoin related stuff because of the utter fiasco that was Maxcoin's launch.
If Max had waited for Bitshares technology then it would have been a different story.
-
My thoughts:
Tim Ferriss: I met the guy and read his book (4 hour workweek) while it was still an unpublished manuscript. I got ahold of it because Tony Robbins had a copy, my girlfriend worked for Tony and brought a copy home saying I'd love it....long story short: I did love it and told Tim it would be a best seller....his response? "I know it will." Went on to be one the HUGE NYT bestseller that it is.... Great book, great guy, not sure he'd be the right fit to interview Dan. I can reach out to him, though its been quite a few years. He's still a rock star in my mind.
Cool, that your gf worked for Tony Robbins, that's a rock star. I'm a big fan minus the fact that I think he had/has Warren Buffet as long time full on client and I'm not a particular fan of Buffet.
Max Keiser: I've already been working on trying to get Dan on Keiser's show for a few months now. Its not easy to get ahold of Keiser and although Ethereum got on the show, I think in general Keiser's people had a hard time understanding Ethereum and perhaps for that reason aren't interested in any other next gen crytpto technologies like bitshares. We're still working on several angles to get an interview on Keiser's show.
Actually that's not true at all. Max and Stacy love Ethereum and the bitcoin 2.0 space as a whole. Don't blame your inability to procure interviews on the knowledge of the interviewers. Great projects make the news not ask to be on it.
Bit harsh charlesh, but yeah I'd be pretty certain Keiser knows the basics of Bitshares already, at the moment though it's still more of a concept that wouldn't really make a good guest spot, but once profitable DAC's start being launched it's a different story. I also think Daniel is getting better at interviews, coming across a lot more animated and conversational so I'd be pretty surprised if they didn't consider him as a guest when BitsharesXT is launched.
Maybe Max wants to avoid bitcoin related stuff because of the utter fiasco that was Maxcoin's launch.
If Max had waited for Bitshares technology then it would have been a different story.
I think he's still covered Bitcoin and Crypto stuff since then (and still tried to pump Maxcoin multiple times since then too...)
I thought watching him trying to pump other coins (price-wise) in the past was disappointing considering he spends half the show complaining about bankers doing the same thing, but with MaxCoin I find it really sad to watch. Otherwise I'm a huge fan of the show.
-
Great Bad projects make the news not ask to be on it.
Lol, you really didn't think that remark through. Bad projects make the news a helluva lot more than good ones.
Back to how to engage Max Keiser and Stacy Herbert, instead of focusing on interviews, and after bitshares has some DACs up and running, you could offer to help them in some of their ongoing projects. I've heard them talk about trying to set up a media orientated crowd-funding/sourcing platform, which may or may not be a good fit for bitshares, especially if it can be combined with maidsafe like networks. Both because it sounded like it had some similarities to the bitsharesmusic concepts and Max Keiser might have some ideas on his own in relation to stocks and trading and they may be interested in censorship resistant solutions.
I figure Max Keiser especially would be interested in Dan Larimers concept of allowing a DAC/Blockchain to be "bought" by some powerful entity, allowing you to just start a different one with the money you got out of that takeover. Ethereums central blockchain has the same Achilles heel as bitcoin with centralization of mining and by design doesn't have the same flexibility. Having a hostile take-over blow up in the aggressors face is a major selling point and a very personal one for Max Keiser.
-
Max Keiser: I've already been working on trying to get Dan on Keiser's show for a few months now. Its not easy to get ahold of Keiser and although Ethereum got on the show, I think in general Keiser's people had a hard time understanding Ethereum and perhaps for that reason aren't interested in any other next gen crytpto technologies like bitshares. We're still working on several angles to get an interview on Keiser's show.
Actually that's not true at all. Max and Stacy love Ethereum and the bitcoin 2.0 space as a whole. Don't blame your inability to procure interviews on the knowledge of the interviewers. Great projects make the news not ask to be on it.
Very easy to get on big media outlets run by big money when you have "ex" "low level" Goldman Sachs advisers bro.. It isn't the people, but the network to which they connect.
A Hoskinson quote: "Ether will be like Oil to bitcoin's Gold." ---hmmmm sound at all like the petro-dollar scheme? It does to me...
Here are two images of the same pyramid structure are associated with the secret society(s) behind the petro-dollar:
(http://i.imgur.com/tVOmeQ4.png) (http://imgur.com/tVOmeQ4)
Can I be wrong about allllll of this? Yes...and I'd love to be. I would love a place where all these 2.0 techs work together to create something that benefits the investors in their construction and uplifts all of humanity while giving no central authority to anyone without them first competing against each other for it. But the things that turn me off about Ethereum are all little and add up to something else behind the scenes...
As always, prove me wrong so I can say I'm wrong...and start with getting rid of "specialized ASICs" that breed patent monopolies and long-term barriers to entry at the "currency creation" level.
-
mental note: never work for a bank if you don't want to be ostracized by crypto community. even if it frees you to work on crypto full-time afterwards.
-
Great Bad projects make the news not ask to be on it.
Lol, you really didn't think that remark through. Bad projects make the news a helluva lot more than good ones.
I agree with Charles. If Bitshares was making waves in crypto currency he couldn't ignore it.
Bitshares could (I think will probably) be a tsunami, but the truth is it hasn't made any big waves yet.
Max Keiser: I've already been working on trying to get Dan on Keiser's show for a few months now. Its not easy to get ahold of Keiser and although Ethereum got on the show, I think in general Keiser's people had a hard time understanding Ethereum and perhaps for that reason aren't interested in any other next gen crytpto technologies like bitshares. We're still working on several angles to get an interview on Keiser's show.
Actually that's not true at all. Max and Stacy love Ethereum and the bitcoin 2.0 space as a whole. Don't blame your inability to procure interviews on the knowledge of the interviewers. Great projects make the news not ask to be on it.
Very easy to get on big media outlets run by big money when you have "ex" "low level" Goldman Sachs advisers bro.. It isn't the people, but the network to which they
You do know Max Keiser is on RT? He is probably the biggest public nemesis of Goldman Sachs in the world and Russia is the main country standing against the petrodollar.
Not that I'm particularly against either, I just want free competition, but I think you're off base on that one.
-
I was listening to Howard Stern do an interview and started to hear Vitalik talk about Ethereum . I was like wtfs going on. So I switch back to YouTube and it is a 10 min ad .Thats a lot of dough advertising a open source project. Great or not that is a lot to compete with.
It actually came on a second time during the interview .
-
mental note: never work for a bank if you don't want to be ostracized by crypto community. even if it frees you to work on crypto full-time afterwards.
It's one thing to work for a bank...and quite another to work for criminal enterprises that pose as "banks" because it gets them closest to the centralization of power they need to be above the law. Goldman Sachs is one of the largest of these institutions and the fact that anyone from GS is a part of Ethereum should call them into question. The moment these types of questions become unpopular is the moment the rest of society signs onto something that will inevitably become the world from which we currently are trying to evolve.
-
I was listening to Howard Stern do an interview and started to hear Vitalik talk about Ethereum . I was like wtfs going on. So I switch back to YouTube and it is a 10 min ad .Thats a lot of dough advertising a open source project. Great or not that is a lot to compete with.
It actually came on a second time during the interview .
Interesting. Do you know if that's targeted advertising based on your personal search history (you've probably watched crypto-currency vids) or is it generic for all people watching the interview?
mental note: never work for a bank if you don't want to be ostracized by crypto community. even if it frees you to work on crypto full-time afterwards.
It's one thing to work for a bank...and quite another to work for criminal enterprises that pose as "banks" because it gets them closest to the centralization of power they need to be above the law. Goldman Sachs is one of the largest of these institutions and the fact that anyone from GS is a part of Ethereum should call them into question. The moment these types of questions become unpopular is the moment the rest of society signs onto something that will inevitably become the world from which we currently are trying to evolve.
I thought you were complaining about Keiser's past/advisors.
Yeah I haven't been following Ethereum, but at the time I was I had the same concerns. I'd expect the TPTB to make a big play in this space with a 'one thing to rule them all' model which they would assist with favourable laws. Lately it's looking like that could just as easily be Bitcoin 2.0
-
Great Bad projects make the news not ask to be on it.
Lol, you really didn't think that remark through. Bad projects make the news a helluva lot more than good ones.
I agree with Charles. If Bitshares was making waves in crypto currency he couldn't ignore it.
Bitshares could (I think will probably) be a tsunami, but the truth is it hasn't made any big waves yet.
Max Keiser: I've already been working on trying to get Dan on Keiser's show for a few months now. Its not easy to get ahold of Keiser and although Ethereum got on the show, I think in general Keiser's people had a hard time understanding Ethereum and perhaps for that reason aren't interested in any other next gen crytpto technologies like bitshares. We're still working on several angles to get an interview on Keiser's show.
Actually that's not true at all. Max and Stacy love Ethereum and the bitcoin 2.0 space as a whole. Don't blame your inability to procure interviews on the knowledge of the interviewers. Great projects make the news not ask to be on it.
Very easy to get on big media outlets run by big money when you have "ex" "low level" Goldman Sachs advisers bro.. It isn't the people, but the network to which they
You do know Max Keiser is on RT? He is probably the biggest public nemesis of Goldman Sachs in the world and Russia is the main country standing against the petrodollar.
Not that I'm particularly against either, I just want free competition, but I think you're off base on that one.
I'd also suggest to be friendly with the ethereum guys and Charles in particular to invite them to be the friendly folks they are in the end. Ethereum is no direct competition to all the bitshares DACs anyway! Ethereum might be a good fit for a lot of little projects with no big funding and with a limited need to be competitive.
On that basis a constructive discussion including constructive criticism can take place. I also doubt the economic and social benefit of 'one chain for all' and POW but that should be discussed friendly and openly.
-
mental note: never work for a bank if you don't want to be ostracized by crypto community. even if it frees you to work on crypto full-time afterwards.
It's one thing to work for a bank...and quite another to work for criminal enterprises that pose as "banks" because it gets them closest to the centralization of power they need to be above the law. Goldman Sachs is one of the largest of these institutions and the fact that anyone from GS is a part of Ethereum should call them into question.
Wow really? GS has 30,000 employees, you're saying they should all have quit for moral reasons by now right? So when someone finally does you blacklist them and don't try to work with them...
Should I stop trying to recruit my friends from any big banks or hedge funds? Too late, they've joined the dark side and their programming and mathematics skills have become CORRUPT by the illuminati!
-
People here more than anywhere should understand that entities like GS are incentive structure systems and that 99% of humans just want to make some money and feel good about themselves. If you harass
bank employees ex-bank-employees for what the banks do then I should be able to harass you for supporting ecological destruction or war with your purchasing habits.
-
I agree with Charles. If Bitshares was making waves in crypto currency he couldn't ignore it.
Bitshares could (I think will probably) be a tsunami, but the truth is it hasn't made any big waves yet.
Don't get me wrong I'm not that great of a conspiracy theorist, I'm much to naive for that. I believe just about everything can be explained by people being lazy and egocentrical (which is what the word idiot actually means). But the remark about great projects getting media attention is just a load of BS. Also talk about tooting ones own horn. I would have been less arrogant when you look at the project that got even more attention than Ethereum and was on the same show on the same day, Neo Bee and bitcoin on Cyprus, that didn't turn out to be such a great a project either.
Also the fact that Bitcoinmagazineum is getting more attention in the very, very tiny crypto-pundit-scene is hardly surprising, given that the majority of the crypto pundits are founding members and have a far greater interweb-presence than anyone of the bitshares team.
That doesn't mean that bitshares marketing doesn't leave anything to be desired. I'm also not so certain that that is only because of the lack of things to promote. If that was true Hoskinson would have shut up months ago.
I'm getting the impression there is too much focus on being perfect and getting the perfect looking message out there, like some business trying to sell an image. The points made in the interview by the podcaster in the video and also by Adam Levine on the forums a while ago about how the messages is being delivered are echoing my own thoughts on this matter. Before starting the fundraiser the message should have been clear and some web framework should have been in place first such as a blog.
Also like the podcaster rightly emphasized more effort should be made to prevent confusion. An ugly site with a blog and some clear explanations would have made a hell of a difference. The choice for the word "bit", "bitshares" and the b-logo were major faux pas and part of the marketing now needs to focus on clearing that up as well, before even getting to the message. That alone makes me so frustrated that I only learned about this project so late in the game, since there was no longer any chance to voice my opposition to this choice of brandname.
Not all opportunities are being used to engage and involve the community more even without needing to pay them or put up bounties. And if a bounty is put up, it could be advertised more clearly or made into a competition and communicated to the crypto pundits or crypto watering holes.
Community building is one of the hardest things to do in open-source and when there's money involved it doesn't get easier, but I do think there could be more effort made on the grass roots bottom up community building front. In this regard having a single central entity in the form of Dan Larimer and the perception of a single dev-team/company and the community treatment or attitude as customers is holding things back. The same holds true for bitcoin as well by the way, with the bitcoin-core-devs being treated like a company, but with the size of this project it's hurting it a lot more.
-
Max Keiser: I've already been working on trying to get Dan on Keiser's show for a few months now. Its not easy to get ahold of Keiser and although Ethereum got on the show, I think in general Keiser's people had a hard time understanding Ethereum and perhaps for that reason aren't interested in any other next gen crytpto technologies like bitshares. We're still working on several angles to get an interview on Keiser's show.
Actually that's not true at all. Max and Stacy love Ethereum and the bitcoin 2.0 space as a whole. Don't blame your inability to procure interviews on the knowledge of the interviewers. Great projects make the news not ask to be on it.
Very easy to get on big media outlets run by big money when you have "ex" "low level" Goldman Sachs advisers bro.. It isn't the people, but the network to which they connect.
A Hoskinson quote: "Ether will be like Oil to bitcoin's Gold." ---hmmmm sound at all like the petro-dollar scheme? It does to me...
Here are two images of the same pyramid structure are associated with the secret society(s) behind the petro-dollar:
(http://i.imgur.com/tVOmeQ4.png) (http://imgur.com/tVOmeQ4)
Can I be wrong about allllll of this? Yes...and I'd love to be. I would love a place where all these 2.0 techs work together to create something that benefits the investors in their construction and uplifts all of humanity while giving no central authority to anyone without them first competing against each other for it. But the things that turn me off about Ethereum are all little and add up to something else behind the scenes...
As always, prove me wrong so I can say I'm wrong...and start with getting rid of "specialized ASICs" that breed patent monopolies and long-term barriers to entry at the "currency creation" level.
In the future, I suggest you to refrain from posting such bullshit. You are making yourself look silly and your hostile position against Ethereum does not help to further your dreams of " I would love a place where all these 2.0 techs work together". Exactly because of people like you all of these community-wars evolved that help us in no way and are a huge waste of resources.
Get your facts straight and start to perceive things more objectively. Instead of tying your opinions to very subjective matter (such as personal investment) and ridiculous conspiracy theories, actually become part of other communities and understand what their intentions are. Only through this way we can hope that some of these amazing 2.0 teams work together on not just returning an investment to its investors, but in actually creating a system that appeals to the 7 Billion around us. But if people keep going on with the same bullshit of "no, we are better!" we are getting nowhere and the dream of a better world vanishes.
Fully agree with Nikolai.
-
mental note: never work for a bank if you don't want to be ostracized by crypto community. even if it frees you to work on crypto full-time afterwards.
It's one thing to work for a bank...and quite another to work for criminal enterprises that pose as "banks" because it gets them closest to the centralization of power they need to be above the law. Goldman Sachs is one of the largest of these institutions and the fact that anyone from GS is a part of Ethereum should call them into question.
Wow really? GS has 30,000 employees, you're saying they should all have quit for moral reasons by now right? So when someone finally does you blacklist them and don't try to work with them...
Should I stop trying to recruit my friends from any big banks or hedge funds? Too late, they've joined the dark side and their programming and mathematics skills have become CORRUPT by the illuminati!
I'm suggesting that anyone intelligent enough to work for an institution with Goldman's track record is also intelligent enough to know what they are signing onto. For this reason, they are either incapable of seeing the big picture and question the "dark side" of their institute's actions and naive enough to believe what they are doing is truly for the greater public good, or they are complicit in the crimes themselves. Noted, it is not always easy to see what is going on behind the scenes but once the 2008 crisis occurred EVERY employee should have started asking some damn questions.
As far as your point to working with them...I suppose they COULD be insiders who would like to help society overcome the crimes of their old employers--but I'm sure that would have been part of their "headlines" campaign if it had happened. On top of that, comments like "specialized ASICs", "Oil to bitcoins Gold", the choice of logo...and Hosk leaving his first "boy genius" (Dan) behind and picking up a NEW "boy genius" (Vitalik)...any of these by themselves, ok--but all of them together? Come on man...and I don't care if it brings ostracism to ask these questions because the stakes are high.
Once again Nikolai, you are no dummy, but you are sorely mistaking Goldman Sachs for a real "bank". Banks and Hedgefunds are not evil...in fact most of them serve vital roles in the economy. But anyone who does even a little research into the "too big to fail" banks will see they are not in any way performing functions that are in the public good. What I suggest is that all the brilliant people working for these institutions have the means of actually helping the world and making far more money if they bypass the system that has been proven to be corrupt. Maybe this was not the case before cryptocurrency, but now it is.
If Ethereum REALLY cared to subscribe to the tenets of crypto (why Satoshi made bitcoin in the first place), they would be looking deeply at what Dan is doing and trying to build upon it...or find an alternative that accomplishes the same effect. Instead they want specialized frigging ASICs and GS ties.
Just for a little taste of what i'm talking about here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ogc-LRWByhY
@Domsch,
My point is not that "we are better". If you pay attention to these things it is clear that Hoskinson in every way implies this--not I. I simply call this "bullshit" out. And yes, you are right--Some things are subjective, but international crimes against humanity are not one of them--and I for one would not invest in bitShares if they were tying themselves to groups like these.
Do I want these techs to work together? Yes... but all this shit adds up to--nothing? come on bro...yeh, I'm sure those fellas in the board meetings talked about in the video above "have no clue" what's going on in the crypto-currency scene. In fact, I am sure it's "bullshit" that they would ever attempt to coop this absolutely wonderful technology to make sure they secure the first-mover's advantage when this market becomes massively adopted. Contrary to your point about me working based on my investment (Adam Levine has done the same), I am amply invested in NXT, Peercoin/Primecoin, Ultracoin and Counterparty. I invest in projects whose founders seem to be working toward what (I perceive) as the intent of crypto in general; I do not invest in projects that I think would turn our world, once again, toward a more robust version of what we have today.
I remember reading how many people thought the internet was incorruptible when it first began. I remember reading people making these exact same statements you make toward me regarding NSA spying and a number of other malevolent forces at work on the internet. "this is a wasted conversation topic" is easy...Look at what we have today. News flash...sometimes progress needs to be stunted so we can ask ourselves tough questions--which is precisely what Bytemaster did before coming up with DPOS for christ's blessed sake man!
Sorry for offending you Domsch. I have respect for you man and appreciate everything you are doing...but it is precisely when a way of thinking becomes unpopular that we should look at it a little more closely.
-
After the "leak" that brought Greg Palast all this attention:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/business/economy/larry-summers-withdraws-name-from-fed-consideration/2013/09/15/7565c888-1e44-11e3-94a2-6c66b668ea55_story.html
-
I agree with Charles. If Bitshares was making waves in crypto currency he couldn't ignore it.
Bitshares could (I think will probably) be a tsunami, but the truth is it hasn't made any big waves yet.
Don't get me wrong I'm not that great of a conspiracy theorist, I'm much to naive for that. I believe just about everything can be explained by people being lazy and egocentrical (which is what the word idiot actually means). But the remark about great projects getting media attention is just a load of BS. Also talk about tooting ones own horn. I would have been less arrogant when you look at the project that got even more attention than Ethereum and was on the same show on the same day, Neo Bee and bitcoin on Cyprus, that didn't turn out to be such a great a project either.
Ok yeah I don't think great projects getting media attention is BS. But that's not to say I don't also agree with you that a lot of shit can get media attention too. I missed that he was referring to Ethereum in that post, yeah that's funny :D Ethereum seems pretty mediocre & unappealing to me, technically Daniel has also pointed out some weak spots that haven't been addressed yet as far as I know but I will probably reluctantly get a small hedge in it.
-
I agree with Charles. If Bitshares was making waves in crypto currency he couldn't ignore it.
Bitshares could (I think will probably) be a tsunami, but the truth is it hasn't made any big waves yet.
Don't get me wrong I'm not that great of a conspiracy theorist, I'm much to naive for that. I believe just about everything can be explained by people being lazy and egocentrical (which is what the word idiot actually means). But the remark about great projects getting media attention is just a load of BS. Also talk about tooting ones own horn. I would have been less arrogant when you look at the project that got even more attention than Ethereum and was on the same show on the same day, Neo Bee and bitcoin on Cyprus, that didn't turn out to be such a great a project either.
Ok yeah I don't think great projects getting media attention is BS. But that's not to say I don't also agree with you that a lot of shit can get media attention too. I missed that he was referring to Ethereum in that post, yeah that's funny :D Ethereum seems pretty mediocre & unappealing to me, technically Daniel has also pointed out some weak spots that haven't been addressed yet as far as I know but I will probably reluctantly get a small hedge in it.
Be sure to really study the proposed distribution model, the first one was rather tilted in favour of a select few.
I'm not saying that great projects showing results don't or shouldn't get media attention, I'm saying that Hoskinsons remark was utter BS. Ethereum is not getting more media attention because it is better or greater, it has also not produced any more results than bitshares.
If it weren't for Hoskinson and his remarks I'd probably still be enthusiastic about Ethereum, but everytime he opens his mouth he's putting me off more and more.
But I digress, any thoughts on my marketing proposals and critiques?
-
I agree with Charles. If Bitshares was making waves in crypto currency he couldn't ignore it.
Bitshares could (I think will probably) be a tsunami, but the truth is it hasn't made any big waves yet.
Don't get me wrong I'm not that great of a conspiracy theorist, I'm much to naive for that. I believe just about everything can be explained by people being lazy and egocentrical (which is what the word idiot actually means). But the remark about great projects getting media attention is just a load of BS. Also talk about tooting ones own horn. I would have been less arrogant when you look at the project that got even more attention than Ethereum and was on the same show on the same day, Neo Bee and bitcoin on Cyprus, that didn't turn out to be such a great a project either.
Ok yeah I don't think great projects getting media attention is BS. But that's not to say I don't also agree with you that a lot of shit can get media attention too. I missed that he was referring to Ethereum in that post, yeah that's funny :D Ethereum seems pretty mediocre & unappealing to me, technically Daniel has also pointed out some weak spots that haven't been addressed yet as far as I know but I will probably reluctantly get a small hedge in it.
Be sure to really study the proposed distribution model, the first one was rather tilted in favour of a select few.
I'm not saying that great projects showing results don't or shouldn't get media attention, I'm saying that Hoskinsons remark was utter BS. Ethereum is not getting more media attention because it is better or greater, it has also not produced any more results than bitshares.
If it weren't for Hoskinson and his remarks I'd probably still be enthusiastic about Ethereum, but everytime he opens his mouth he's putting me off more and more.
But I digress, any thoughts on my marketing proposals and critiques?
Might bring you heat by giving this to you JoeyD, but your post is deserving:
+5%
-
Be sure to really study the proposed distribution model, the first one was rather tilted in favour of a select few.
I'm not saying that great projects showing results don't or shouldn't get media attention, I'm saying that Hoskinsons remark was utter BS. Ethereum is not getting more media attention because it is better or greater, it has also not produced any more results than bitshares.
If it weren't for Hoskinson and his remarks I'd probably still be enthusiastic about Ethereum, but everytime he opens his mouth he's putting me off more and more.
But I digress, any thoughts on my marketing proposals and critiques?
Yeah that first distribution model was... ???
I'm getting the impression there is too much focus on being perfect and getting the perfect looking message out there, like some business trying to sell an image. The points made in the interview by the podcaster in the video and also by Adam Levine on the forums a while ago about how the messages is being delivered are echoing my own thoughts on this matter. Before starting the fundraiser the message should have been clear and some web framework should have been in place first such as a blog.
I don't think anything needs to be anywhere near perfect but would say I think the brand image is quite important in the beginning and I think the first DAC's have to be pretty strong.(so for example I was a bit concerned about the Zenith Music thing which has since been sorted out. Also if we were given shares in really weak DAC's and we sold heavily, it may reflect badly on the idea that PTS & AGS are good supporters and donors.) Most of the DAC's in the pipeline look really strong + exciting though so it shouldn't be a problem and Bitshares XT is a great one to start with imo.
Also like the podcaster rightly emphasized more effort should be made to prevent confusion. An ugly site with a blog and some clear explanations would have made a hell of a difference. The choice for the word "bit", "bitshares" and the b-logo were major faux pas and part of the marketing now needs to focus on clearing that up as well, before even getting to the message. That alone makes me so frustrated that I only learned about this project so late in the game, since there was no longer any chance to voice my opposition to this choice of brandname.
Yeah that seems like it's true, I brought up a similar thing
...it it was interesting to hear how layman link Bithsares & Bitcoin together and that they think Blockchains are tied to Bitcoin too. I think it would be worth working on a real laymans sales pitch to make clear how Bitshares is different.
It's one of those things that seems obvious now, but tbh I think I was around at the time and I didn't pick it up that something different might have been better.
-
I don't think anything needs to be anywhere near perfect but would say I think the brand image is quite important in the beginning and I think the first DAC's have to be pretty strong.(so for example I was a bit concerned about the Zenith Music thing which has since been sorted out. Also if we were given shares in really weak DAC's and we sold heavily, it may reflect badly on the idea that PTS & AGS are good supporters and donors.) Most of the DAC's in the pipeline look really strong + exciting though so it shouldn't be a problem and Bitshares XT is a great one to start with imo.
Well I agree that I'm very impressed with many of the choices Dan Larimer and his team have made, such as how he setup the AGS-fundraiser and his flexible approach to problem solving instead of just putting out crap and see where it floats. Also his solution in the shape of bitsharesX was very clever if also very ambitious for a first DAC, but I can see how it is an essential one to help get loads of other decentralized projects up and running and a brilliant way to circumvent subjective gatekeepers and reinstate free traffic. I'm also hearing some other so called "2.0" projects starting to repeat a lot of things that Dan Larimer has worked out, so I hope he gets his ideas up and running before some of the others beat him to it and take credit for his work.
Yeah that seems like it's true, I brought up a similar thing
[...]
It's one of those things that seems obvious now, but tbh I think I was around at the time and I didn't pick it up that something different might have been better.
Yeah hindsight is 20/20 and seeing how new I am to the crypto scene I probably wouldn't have been outspoken enough even if I had known earlier.
@Delulo: Sorry man I missed your post, didn't want to ignore you, but the showdown between Toast and Fuznuts made your remark a bit harder to notice.
I'm not trying to drive a wedge between Ethereum and Bitshares working together, hell Ethereum's smart contracts are a very nice fit for an idea of a DAC. But, I do take offence to a lot of things Hoskinson has been saying and repeatedly so. I'll give you a couple of examples.
On several occasions he has described alt-coins and free experimentation as bad thing and signs of a disease, which is one of the most used FUD rhetorics used by convicted monopolists and patent trolls to counter open source software and licensing. This tells me he either doesn't understand how open-source software and business works or that he is not of the open-source mentality. When he then starts to muse about being a Microsoft stake holder and being the new app-store, that does not give me confidence that this man is focused on decentralization and removal of gates, walls and restrictions.
He uses mud-slinging on other projects (just like he did with his comment here) to promote his own, while at the same time stealing the ideas and results of those "diseased" experiments and trying to take credit for them. I also find his use of the term Turing-completeness disturbing in the way that he's trying to suggest other projects are not or incapable of being "complete". This rhetoric trick to try to suggest that other projects would be lacking (Turing completeness) is very misleading if not a complete deception. I've also heard him put words in Satoshi Nakamotos mouth and twisting it as if the plan behind bitcoin was to make Ethereum all along, while that is most definitely not why the deliberate choice for limited scripting options in bitcoin was made. Instead of informing potential investors of the risk, this instead pulls away attention of the big security and stability issues that a Turing complete scripting language introduces.
And before I receive flack about this, I have tried to point out the things I've said above and a few others repeatedly on several public channels (I do not have a personal connection to anyone on the Ethereum team) and even in a personal discussion with one of Ethereum core developers on bitcointalk. But after me personally pointing out this behaviour to one of his colleagues who's so close to him that he has assured me he's shared the same sleeping quarters with Hoskinson on several occasions and then seeing that post by Hoskinson here, that really rubs me the wrong way and does not look like he has any intentions of changing his methods.
So my take on Ethereum is that I like some of their ideas, but I'm not convinced that everyone behind the project has freedom and decentralization as their main goals. I don't believe the world needs another monopoly and I'm certainly not willing to subsidize the exact same problem that I think the decentralized blockchain-invention is supposed to solve.
When I hear Dan Larimer talk about making it as easy as possible to fork, compete and experiment to your hearts content and even describing solutions in the event one blockchain gets taken over by a single (hostile) power, then that inspires me with a lot more confidence about his motivations and focus. I also like that there is a social contract instead of a walled-garden/vendor-lockin/patent-troll "solution". Also other than pointing out the risks of mining and centralization I have not heard Dan Larimer talk shit about other projects or dismissing them as inferior concepts in public interviews or channels.
But should Dan Larimer ever turn into Gates or Windows or some other form of limitation or this community ever stray from the path into a beautiful closed compound, then I'm out no matter how profitable it may be or how many losses I'll concur.
-
I honestly don't consider it a showdown between myself and nikolai. It just scares me that people actually put Goldman Sachs in the same place as smaller, "not-too-big-to-bail" institutions. That is a misinterpretation of my statement so I had to explain.
It is really hard because people who have a background that took them into war zones get to see uncut footage of the aftermath. Unfortunately, most of the world lives in a bubble and the television programming is produced by people who are paid by the very interests who benefit from war...the result is a framing of reality that separates us from the broader consequences of our system. People should read "Confessions of an Economic Hitman": http://www.amazon.com/Confessions-Economic-Hit-John-Perkins/dp/0452287081
I only suggested to Nikolai (and everyone here) that Satoshi Nakamoto's work was meant to give us a way to rise above the current system of economic slavery...and to see people in the industry (potentially) working the most dangerous institutions back into the fabric of this new and wonderful technology is concerning on its own, but terrifying when one sees the business models growing around the tech that wants to do so. I'm not saying Hang people who worked for Goldman Sachs...I'm suggesting we not include them in the construction of the base layer of the new system that is intended to move us away from those centralization of power issues. I'm also suggesting that as intelligent as the Ethereum people are with regard to marketing their product, it is hard to believe they would overlook this obvious connection with symbolism that has largely become unpopular with a growing portion of the population.
If people are honest here, they would realize that I say very similar things about bitcoin and all POW "coins" in general. The difference is that Ethereum doesn't just want to be a cryptocurrency, but wants to be the base platform to which all crypto would be chained. Others have railed against the prevailing currents in the crypto-ecosystem for quite awhile with similar points, and have started to make an effect--I recently read a tweet with Adam B. Levine noting the importance of moving away from POW. Only problem is that in large part much of the damage is already done if we still consider POW schemes to be in line with the general tenets of crypto.
When I see Dan working on DPOS it brings to mind the long hours of consideration and (often heated) deliberation that was the toil of writing the Bill of Rights (the meat of what we call the U.S. Constitution). And the best thing about Dan, is that he is trying to set it up so others can build upon it in a way that competes with other interpretations. When Ethereum's proponents speak it brings to mind a far different system--much closer to the one we see today, where the Bill of Rights is "Outdated" and to be a part of the system you have no alternatives. There are many more intelligent than I who have been called upon to speak on this topic, including the founder of the GNU project himself--Richard Stallman, so it is hard to see how people think that these considerations are ridiculous...though they will naturally be divisive (@Domsch).
Of course we all have the right to our own opinions, but I for one am glad to have brought it up.
As for Delulo. 100% agree. If this project starts looking like it's intent has become corrupted, you will not walk away from it alone.
“In the beginning of a change the patriot is a scarce man, and brave, and hated and scorned. When his cause succeeds, the timid join him, for then it costs nothing to be a patriot.” ~ Mark Twain
-
mental note: never work for a bank if you don't want to be ostracized by crypto community. even if it frees you to work on crypto full-time afterwards.
It's one thing to work for a bank...and quite another to work for criminal enterprises that pose as "banks" because it gets them closest to the centralization of power they need to be above the law. Goldman Sachs is one of the largest of these institutions and the fact that anyone from GS is a part of Ethereum should call them into question.
Wow really? GS has 30,000 employees, you're saying they should all have quit for moral reasons by now right? So when someone finally does you blacklist them and don't try to work with them...
Should I stop trying to recruit my friends from any big banks or hedge funds? Too late, they've joined the dark side and their programming and mathematics skills have become CORRUPT by the illuminati!
I'm suggesting that anyone intelligent enough to work for an institution with Goldman's track record is also intelligent enough to know what they are signing onto. For this reason, they are either incapable of seeing the big picture and question the "dark side" of their institute's actions and naive enough to believe what they are doing is truly for the greater public good, or they are complicit in the crimes themselves. Noted, it is not always easy to see what is going on behind the scenes but once the 2008 crisis occurred EVERY employee should have started asking some damn questions.
I think your visual comparison of the pyramid in the dollar (Which does have the origins you infer) to the Ethereum pyramid is very thin/flimsy and therefore over the top. (As a result it slightly clouds/undermines your later valid points.)
As for the rest of the debate I guess I come out somewhere in the middle. I don't think every employee knows what is up. I also think that employees that are around Toast's age can be excused by their youth and/or ignorance. However I do think that the majority of employees over 30 that could be described in any way as 'talent' would really have to be walking around with 'eyes wide shut' not to understand that they have to some degree made a specific moral choice working with Goldman/JPM in particular. The incentive structures are there for a wide range of abhorrent activities in this world but that's not a valid excuse for participating in them. I think your suggested reading of 'Confessions of an Economic Hitman' is a good one.
-
As much as Goldman Sach's provides incentives for people to work for them to do their evil deeds, it is a moral thing to ostracize all current and former GS employees to create an incentive in the other direction. So even if it isn't fair to a particular person who was innocently "putting food on the table", it is quite reasonable in my mind to call out Ethereum and any former Goldman Sach's ex-employees for what they are.
Whether I would do it or not? Not sure, but it sure wouldn't be beneath me.
-
People can change so it is not wise to judge someone by their past beliefs. Just their current beliefs.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk (http://tapatalk.com/m?id=1)
-
One can state fake beliefs without any real repercussions. Thats why you judge people on their actions or you are asking to be misled in life.
Actions usually have a cost associated where lying doesn't until you are caught.
Look at politics....
I have no beef with Ethereum. I think it is a neat project. Don't really care to promote conspiracies. However, if someone wants to go around claiming a Goldman Sachs tie-in, then shrug. That is to be expected and not unreasonable. You reap what you sow.
Most people don't get how small actions of such a large entity can negatively impact so many people. Far more than criminals doing life behind bars. It requires actually quantifying the damage, which is hard for anyone to do. If the only tool we as a society has is to ostracize these people, then it seems reasonable and just to me.
-
I agree with the premise shunning people for the harm they have done as this is in-fact the premise of a just society and non-violent resolution.
I also agree with shunning those who associate with someone who has done wrong. It serves as a way of discouraging association with that individual.
So shunning ethereum for working with ex-GS employees is perfectly legitimate way of expressing your disapproval of GS and encouraging others to avoid GS in the future.
Whether it is 'fair' or not to the 'ex-GS' employee is not actually relevant as all individuals have a right to shun others for any reason.
-
mental note: never work for a bank if you don't want to be ostracized by crypto community. even if it frees you to work on crypto full-time afterwards.
It's one thing to work for a bank...and quite another to work for criminal enterprises that pose as "banks" because it gets them closest to the centralization of power they need to be above the law. Goldman Sachs is one of the largest of these institutions and the fact that anyone from GS is a part of Ethereum should call them into question. The moment these types of questions become unpopular is the moment the rest of society signs onto something that will inevitably become the world from which we currently are trying to evolve.
You sound like such an idiot when you say things like this.
-
No doubt the current banking system is rotten to the core and Goldman Sachs is the epitome of that rottenness. I also found it very strange why Ethereum would tout connections to Goldman Sachs as part of their marketing campaign. At the very least they didn't hide the connection, but I don't know what they wanted to achieve by doing that. GS is a big no-no in the crypto community in general and I wouldn't exactly call Vitalik a fan when I read some of his articles.
Personally I suspect that quite a few former bank-employees who've gotten sick to their stomachs because of what they've done, might actually be especially interested in projects like these, and could very well be highly motivated, valuable and knowledgeable people with an incomparable personal stake in trying to remedy the encrusted financial systems. Doesn't mean people shouldn't keep their eyes peeled, but the whole point of these decentralized systems is that they are supposed to be resistant even to manipulation by big players like GS.
A few months ago I saw this documentary (http://youtu.be/OIUPWWwEclc) which wasn't only shocking, but also shows how easily even intelligent people can get sucked into a downward whirlpool where nobody dares to take responsibility and everyone is trying to outcompete the other in a race to Davy Jones' Locker. Sadly though I've not been able to find an online watchable version, but if you ever have a chance, that documentary comes highly recommended.
-
mental note: never work for a bank if you don't want to be ostracized by crypto community. even if it frees you to work on crypto full-time afterwards.
It's one thing to work for a bank...and quite another to work for criminal enterprises that pose as "banks" because it gets them closest to the centralization of power they need to be above the law. Goldman Sachs is one of the largest of these institutions and the fact that anyone from GS is a part of Ethereum should call them into question. The moment these types of questions become unpopular is the moment the rest of society signs onto something that will inevitably become the world from which we currently are trying to evolve.
You sound like such an idiot when you say things like this.
"The United States fought the American Revolution primarily over King George III's Currency act, which forced the colonists to conduct their business only using printed bank notes borrowed from the Bank of England at interest."
All Wars are Banker Wars (documentary)
http://topdocumentaryfilms.com/all-wars-are-bankers-wars/
-
People can change so it is not wise to judge someone by their past beliefs. Just their current beliefs.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk (http://tapatalk.com/m?id=1)
Unfortunately most people don't change (not that they can't, they just rarely do). Also you can't ever really know what anyone's current beliefs are. So what we are left with as the next best way to infer someone's current beliefs is to examine their past actions.
-
Why would Ethereum want to associate themselves with Goldman-Sachs? Well, despite any perceived ethical wrongdoings on their behalf, they've proven themselves resilient in the face of financial adversity. Not defending their actions, but at least in my particular demographic of starry-eyed university students, most would kill to work at a premier investment bank like GS, even if they don't necessarily agree with their actions. Working at a place like GS grants high pay, status, and more than anything, a bargaining chip for jockeying the corporate ladder. If anyone in my class landed a job there, I would gladly congratulate them.
I suspect that there are many fantastic people working for Ethereum, and even more for GS. Not everyone reaches the same conclusions about the world at the same time. Would you really condemn and alienate those who haven't necessarily 'seen the light' yet? Sure seems like it.
Fuznuts, you have made some solid contributions to our community. However, you often raise what I believe to be a false us-vs-them dichotomy (imo) that only truly exists at c-level strategy. If you believe that middle management and lower really give a two schilling shit about a global financial takeover, I think you may be mistaken. Sure, there are definitely some Patrick Bateman's out there, but I'm not entirely convinced that it is fair nor productive to lump all of these cats into a single ominous entity.
TL;DR dont hate the player hate the game
-
I think those are valid points solaaire.
Yeah I've seen my fair share of those students around me as well. And the common line of thought was, that once they've climbed the corporate ladder high enough, they'll change things and make everything better from the inside out, but first you need to be high up and the end justifies the means. Apparently it didn't occur to them that the current higher-ups that they were looking down on, very likely started with the exact same mindset and that it was that mindset that might have made them the way they are today.
I'm not that convinced that banks, certainly not upper management, are very interested in small potatoes like the crypto-currencies at the moment. I'm also very doubtful about the level of coordination in large companies, my belief is that things get out of hand rather fast and there is no fixing it anymore. Just imagine trying to do something coordinated with a bunch of your relatives to see what I mean, now imagine doing that with a couple of strangers who not only don't care about you, but want you out of their way so they can move up more easily.
Your point about creating an us versus them mentality is indeed a dangerous pitfall and we should be very wary of not falling in it. There is the risk that when you focus on one point of view long enough, that you start to lose sight of the people who are unfamiliar with your concepts. I think that was a very important point of the discussion in the podcast.
There is also the hurdle of DPoS being so brand new that it does not have the trust of a bitcoin-like PoW solution. Also to be honest it is a very experimental new solution, which we cannot say for certain will work without issues. Maybe it's time for a wiki or a comparison list easy enough for a layman to get their heads around. Things like why DPoS does not suffer the same problem as other PoS coins like the nothing-at-stake-issue. And vice-versa why mining is a bad idea and causes centralization and points of failure. I know Dan Larimer mentioned these things in videos, but not everyone is watching all the videos. Clicking a link requires a lot less a "effort" and might make referencing certain points more easy.
There are also things that the Ethereum team/project is doing better than the bitshares project. I'm not a coder so I'm unable to make any judgements by reading their code or their proposed solutions. But I do notice their marketing and community building is on a whole different level compared to bitshares and I don't think it would hurt to figure out why that is. They seem to be getting a lot more attention eventhough for a layman like me they do not appear further on in development. Although I have heard many say the exact opposite and that ethereum is making way more progress than bitshares in a shorter amount of time. If this is a marketing trick or not I'm unable to confirm or dismiss because as I said I can't read code and I don't know anyone who can, so I can't tell how far they've gotten.
EDIT
It seems it was Adam B. Levine who made those criticisms in the last alinea on the bitshares reddit. He seems to be very pissed off for some reason, but other than him mentioning "saying" things and "warning" I can't really follow what he's talking about. I've tried searching his post history on this forum, but I have been unable to find the discussions he's referring to or the point he is trying to make.
-
I'm not that convinced that banks, certainly not upper management, are very interested in small potatoes like the crypto-currencies at the moment.
They are interested...trust me on that.
http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2013-12-10/chasing-bitcoin-jpm-preparing-unveil-its-own-electronic-currency
Although most of them will take separate paths to reach the same desired end to help ensure at least one of them accomplishes it--called a multipronged attack.
I'm also very doubtful about the level of coordination in large companies, my belief is that things get out of hand rather fast and there is no fixing it anymore. Just imagine trying to do something coordinated with a bunch of your relatives to see what I mean, now imagine doing that with a couple of strangers who not only don't care about you, but want you out of their way so they can move up more easily.
http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/blogs/taibblog/why-is-nobody-freaking-out-about-the-libor-banking-scandal-20120703
Links...always say it best.
-
Actually the last link illustrates the point I was trying to make and what I fear has become irreversible, the whole thing has gotten completely out of hand. Nobody controls anything anymore, they are just keeping up appearances and all the while the deceptions keep on going and misconduct and problems keep piling up one after the other. I have no trust in banks being able to regulate themselves and I am completely abhorred by the invention of the too-big-to-fail principle. However, I do not see it as the acts of a disciplined, controlled well thought out strategy, such as for example causing disruption along the old-silkroad while maintaining control of the sea-trading-routes (The old England rules the waves strategy). But I look at it as the reaction of a gambling addict trying to hide the fact that he has messed up, while at the same time trying to get more cash to feed his addiction. Junkies won't kick the habit on their own volition, but they never stop talking about how clean they are.
I also wasn't trying to say that money does not corrupt, or that banks would not want to have a stake in the crypto-action as well. But not at the current minuscule market caps, the current evaluation of the entire crypto scene wouldn't cause them to bat an eleyid. The points I was trying to make was that the new systems we are trying to setup, should be resistant to them doing bad things. Disillusioned bankers might actually be a great help in this space, because of their unique insights and expertise.
Although I do think you went a bit far with the triangle comparison, I do agree with you that people should pay attention to who is paying the bills and what kind of effect that might have on the choices being made by the development team. I just listened to the LTB-show with Amir Taaki today and in the few moments he got to speak, he said some very interesting things on the subject. Another strange thing that was mentioned during that show in regards to single entities being able to influence centralized dev-teams, was them mentioning that Ethereum was the platinum sponsor of the conference and that they had loads of marketing and goodies, with piles of t-shirts and such. That does make me wonder how truthful their claims are about being entirely self-funded and that they sleep in a single room because they have no more money. Then again I don't know how wealthy the team-members are and how much being a platinum sponsor of a conference would cost, but I did find that a very strange observation in light of the topic of the discussion. I was under the impression that the IPO had not yet begun.
-
I also wasn't trying to say that money does not corrupt, or that banks would not want to have a stake in the crypto-action as well. But not at the current minuscule market caps, the current evaluation of the entire crypto scene wouldn't cause them to bat an eleyid. The points I was trying to make was that the new systems we are trying to setup, should be resistant to them doing bad things. Disillusioned bankers might actually be a great help in this space, because of their unique insights and expertise.
To me, the fact that I think 20+ central banks have issued warnings over Bitcoin suggests that they are batting an eyelid. Also JPM actually filed for that patent Fuznuts linked to over 170 times, so I'd say they were pretty keen. Goldman has also made a play in the space via Circle I think. I would also contend that the current valuation of crypto has been deliberately limited by central bank & gov intervention. Limited big bank access as well as access to Wall Street $. (See Fidelity + Bitcoin for example.)
Actually the last link illustrates the point I was trying to make and what I fear has become irreversible, the whole thing has gotten completely out of hand. Nobody controls anything anymore, they are just keeping up appearances and all the while the deceptions keep on going and misconduct and problems keep piling up one after the other. I have no trust in banks being able to regulate themselves and I am completely abhorred by the invention of the too-big-to-fail principle. However, I do not see it as the acts of a disciplined, controlled well thought out strategy, such as for example causing disruption along the old-silkroad while maintaining control of the sea-trading-routes (The old England rules the waves strategy). But I look at it as the reaction of a gambling addict trying to hide the fact that he has messed up, while at the same time trying to get more cash to feed his addiction. Junkies won't kick the habit on their own volition, but they never stop talking about how clean they are.
The Bank of England was implicated as being complicit in the LIBOR rigging by a few Bloomberg reports if I recall. I think they've denied it, but that would indicate the central over-arching manipulation you're referring to. Also bear in mind that the Gold Fix has almost certainly been manipulated by the major banks colluding. Deutsche Bank has just finally relinquished their prestigious seat on the Gold Fix in the last week, too bad no-one wants to touch it with a barge pole.
So while there will be a lot of messy, uncoordinated gambling and rigging going on out there, don't forget our current fiat & debt based money system will fail by design (none has lasted more than 50 years) So for all the major banks not to be colluding behind the scenes on the next system would actually be quite irresponsible. Unfortunately their preferred system is even worse for us - as if having national currencies controlled by central banks isn't bad enough - what they're pushing for is a global currency (or basket of currencies) based on SDR's issued by the IMF.
I'll try add some relevant links in a bit -
Edit: Love Zerohedge...
http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2013-12-15/jpmorgans-bitcoin-alternative-patent-rejected-175-times
http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2013-12-28/bitcoin-catches-attention-goldman-sachs-and-walmart-and-cisco-goldman-director-joins
http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2013-12-12/fidelity-bans-ira-bitcoin-investments-days-after-permitting-them
http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2014-04-29/gold-fix-manipulation-crackdown-deutsche-officially-resigns-london-fix-seat
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MRswPAz_Rnk 0:20-01:05 (Just Rotschild broadly referring to single currency, but thought I'd add it.)
-
I also wasn't trying to say that money does not corrupt, or that banks would not want to have a stake in the crypto-action as well. But not at the current minuscule market caps, the current evaluation of the entire crypto scene wouldn't cause them to bat an eleyid. The points I was trying to make was that the new systems we are trying to setup, should be resistant to them doing bad things. Disillusioned bankers might actually be a great help in this space, because of their unique insights and expertise.
To me, the fact that I think 20+ central banks have issued warnings over Bitcoin suggests that they are batting an eyelid. Also JPM actually filed for that patent Fuznuts linked to over 170 times, so I'd say they were pretty keen. Goldman has also made a play in the space via Circle I think. I would also contend that the current valuation of crypto has been deliberately limited by central bank & gov intervention. Limited big bank access as well as access to Wall Street $. (See Fidelity + Bitcoin for example.)
Actually the last link illustrates the point I was trying to make and what I fear has become irreversible, the whole thing has gotten completely out of hand. Nobody controls anything anymore, they are just keeping up appearances and all the while the deceptions keep on going and misconduct and problems keep piling up one after the other. I have no trust in banks being able to regulate themselves and I am completely abhorred by the invention of the too-big-to-fail principle. However, I do not see it as the acts of a disciplined, controlled well thought out strategy, such as for example causing disruption along the old-silkroad while maintaining control of the sea-trading-routes (The old England rules the waves strategy). But I look at it as the reaction of a gambling addict trying to hide the fact that he has messed up, while at the same time trying to get more cash to feed his addiction. Junkies won't kick the habit on their own volition, but they never stop talking about how clean they are.
The Bank of England was implicated as being complicit in the LIBOR rigging by a few Bloomberg reports if I recall. I think they've denied it, but that would indicate the central over-arching manipulation you're referring to. Also bear in mind that the Gold Fix has almost certainly been manipulated by the major banks colluding. Deutsche Bank has just finally relinquished their prestigious seat on the Gold Fix in the last week, too bad no-one wants to touch it with a barge pole.
So while there will be a lot of messy, uncoordinated gambling and rigging going on out there, don't forget our current fiat & debt based money system will fail by design (none has lasted more than 50 years) So for all the major banks not to be colluding behind the scenes on the next system would actually be quite irresponsible. Unfortunately their preferred system is even worse for us - as if having national currencies controlled by central banks isn't bad enough - what they're pushing for is a global currency (or basket of currencies) based on SDR's issued by the IMF.
I'll try add some relevant links in a bit -
Edit: Love Zerohedge...
http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2013-12-15/jpmorgans-bitcoin-alternative-patent-rejected-175-times
http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2013-12-28/bitcoin-catches-attention-goldman-sachs-and-walmart-and-cisco-goldman-director-joins
http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2013-12-12/fidelity-bans-ira-bitcoin-investments-days-after-permitting-them
http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2014-04-29/gold-fix-manipulation-crackdown-deutsche-officially-resigns-london-fix-seat
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MRswPAz_Rnk 0:20-01:05 (Just Rotschild broadly referring to single currency, but thought I'd add it.)
"None Dare Call it Conspiracy" -- A good read: http://www.amazon.com/s/ref=nb_sb_noss_1?url=search-alias%3Daps&field-keywords=none%20dare%20call%20it%20conspiracy&sprefix=none+da%2Caps&rh=i%3Aaps%2Ck%3Anone%20dare%20call%20it%20conspiracy
An excerpt from the first chapter:
1. DON'T CONFUSE ME WITH FACTS
Most of us have had the experience, either as parents or youngsters, of trying to discover
the "hidden picture' within another picture in a children's magazine. Usually you are
shown a landscape with trees, bushes, flowers and other bits of nature. The caption reads
something like this: "Concealed somewhere in this picture is a donkey pulling a cart with
a boy in it. Can you find them?" Try as you might, usually you could not find the hidden
picture until you turned to a page farther back in the magazine which would reveal how
cleverly the artist had hidden it from us. If we study the landscape we realize that the
whole picture was painted in such a way as to conceal the real picture within, and once
we see the "real picture," it stands out like the proverbial painful digit.
We believe the picture painters of the mass media are artfully creating landscapes for us
which deliberately hide the real picture. In this book we will show you how to discover the
"hidden picture" in the landscapes presented to us daily through newspapers, radio and
television. Once you can see through the camouflage, you will see the donkey, the cart
and the boy who have been there all along.
Millions of Americans are concerned and frustrated over mishappenings in our nation.
They feel that something is wrong, drastically wrong, but because of the picture painters
they can't quite put their fingers on it.
Maybe you are one of those persons. Something is bugging you, but you aren't sure what.
We keep electing new Presidents who seemingly promise faithfully to halt the worldwide
Communist advance, put the blocks to extravagant government spending, douse the
tea of inflation, put the economy on an even keel, reverse the trend which is turning the
country into a moral sewer (http://cdn.24.co.za/files/Cms/General/d/2499/9bec1c2bf59b40f78f124b9ef7fd1e27.jpg), and toss the criminals into the hoosegow where they belong.
Yet despite high hopes and glittering campaign promise these problems continue to
worsen no matter who is in office. Each new administration, whether it be Republican or
Democrat continues the same basic policies of the previous administration which it had
so thoroughly denounced during the election campaign. It is considered poor form to
mention this, but it is true nonetheless. Is there a plausible reason to explain why this
happens? We are not supposed to think so. We are supposed to think it is all accidental
and coincidental and that therefore there is nothing we can do about it.
FDR once said "In politics, nothing happens by accident. If it happens, you can bet it was
planned that way." He was in a good position to know. We believe that many of the
major world events that are shaping our destinies occur because somebody or somebodies
have planned them that way. If we were merely dealing with the law of averages, half of
the events affecting our nation's well-being should be good for America. If we were
dealing with mere incompetence, our leaders should occasionally make a mistake in our
favor. We shall attempt to prove that we are not really dealing with coincidence or
stupidity, but with planning and brilliance.
P.S. Love zerohedge too ;)...you should also check out a guy named brotherjohnf--Marine, Silver Bug and prior Series-7. Have reached out to get him onto the Mumble someday for a chat with us. We'll see if that happens...Here is a link to his latest video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oGtjzH2wqrY
-
Just wanted to revisit...
Maybe it is good for everyone to read up. I think soon enough we will have something like free energy...which will take away a great deal of the bluster out of Proof of Work opponents' sails. If this is the case, then miners will be the new, technocratic arm of the banking cartels...
Can I predict the future...or am I crazy? Well I suppose we'll just have to see...
The symbology is always present, because they know they have the channels of public discourse and can frame those who call it out as crazy conspiracy theorists...
Whoever is behind this symbology knows quite well they are putting it out there....and they believe (rightly so) that most of the public are too much of sheep to look at it themselves and make out the patterns.
Sometimes it feels like it would be more worthwhile to join the dark side.
-
P.S: It would be nice if zerohedge posts a nice article about bitshares at some point..
-
P.S: It would be nice if zerohedge posts a nice article about bitshares at some point..
Probably coming with the marketing push. I already see a podcast on the Beyond Bitcoin Soundcloud.
Other than our hangouts--of course :)
-
Everyone here is crazy Fuzz. That is why it is so much fun. And why at least one of us has to be right on the nose. ;)
-
Everyone here is crazy Fuzz. That is why it is so much fun. And why at least one of us has to be right on the nose. ;)
Indeed. I love you all, even if many of you are crazy. :P