It's always interesting stopping by to see how divergent opinions are dealt with, it's unsurprising but sad to see nothing has changed.
Newmine is one of the very last dissenting voices that has had his warnings about the project ignored and suffered abuse at the hands of an overly protective community for quite some time.
I'd also like to hear the answers to empiricals questions but given how many projects we've now seen partner with bitshares and then produce....nothing..... I have to ask what the value is of adding more partners when it's all just vapor? Any planned launch date for Bitshares Music/Muse?
Every time I check this forum I see no useful progress on the projects that took funding and haven't yet delivered anything usable but lots more dreams about what could be done in the future. It would be great to see some working product instead of more promises and funding requests.
Hi Adam
Some questions about the purpose of LetsTalkBitcoin is it to:
Argue a subjective case for Bitcoin's importance and survival, if so might there be a risk you use your platform to influence continued support for unassailable initiatives, potentially encouraging your flock to chase a fading rainbow.
or
Reflect objectively the evolution of blockchain initiatives with the risk that you might have to support arguments that conflict with the sustainability of your show as you could find yourself having to acknowledge that the independent movement for anonymous currencies is failing
or
Influence outcomes by subjectively criticising projects, criticisms that might be wrong and misleading and as a result you risk undermining initiatives that are constructive and have valid arguments for why and how to realise the potential of independent projects.
or ideally
LTB might be focused on how each initiative might succeed, investigating the weaknesses and offering constructive suggestions, intent on identifying and where possible eliminating fatal flaws and contributing to success of of diverse projects designed to disrupt and disintermediate the inefficient.
I am grateful to you and the LTB crew for the education you and your visitors have provided and until I read this put down of the Bitshares community I would have thought at a minimum you were interested in investigating possibilities, surprisingly it seems that you are more interested in undermining decentralised initiatives that strive to navigate a path to disruption that you, without investigation, deem inappropriate.
You better than anyone know the staying power and the commitment displayed by the Bitshares team, it seems a shame you are prepared to casually undermine the credibility of Bitshares, Bitshares projects, LTB by default and those that have respected you from the pulpit of credence you have established.
While I have considered your voice at times somewhat condescending, I viewed you as opinionated and insightful. Now it appears you are prepared to casually undermine those those making every effort to disintermediate the corrupt and inefficient when their perspective differs from yours.
Adam I am keen to be wrong and open to all thoughts but first up let's not support or throw insults. This isn't an easy road we all have chosen and whether it's your way, the Bitshares way or the Identabit way, we all have a common objective, that is to slay the dragons of corruption, contain over reach and serve society.
Your narrative might be anonymity and ours privacy but surely we shouldn't make it a zero sum game, we can disagree but wish our respective objectives every success.
Right now we have a considered opinion that differs from yours, an opinion founded on a perfect storm. A storm created when a publicity seeking regulator saw a $500m publicity campaign, this storm, gave Bitcoin undue prominence prior to it finishing its insidious journey to infiltrate consumer recognition and national boundaries.
As the storm settled in, whether we liked it or not, it became increasingly obvious to us that Bitcoin's journey to become a ubiquitous medium of exchange was over and at best it was going to remain a leveraged asset that underpins associated opportunities.
For us this was a major disappointment because along with Bitcoin, all anonymous currencies including Remitabit, a venture we had spent near a year on, were thrown under the bus. So we began a journey to counter our disappointment and to succeed rather than die along with all those crying 'hail anonymity', 'hail anonymity'.
We are guilty of being pragmatic but from our perspective it was either 'get real or die'.
At the same time we had a new son, we named Snowden, named for our respect for privacy and the man sacrificing his freedom for others, and like many parents of a newborn I became more sensitive to the plight of children. As I watched a news story about the distraught parents of a kidnapped toddler, I zoned in on the magnitude that true anonymous transactions represented to society, the capability truly anonymous currencies have to empower extortion and the exploitation of children with impunity in a way never before possible, and I asked myself that if I had Snowden's life in one hand and anonymous transactions in the other which would I choose?
Of course it wasn't ever a real question, is was in fact a realisation that any digital currency must have build in safeguards, not only to prevent overreach and financial exploitation but also to protect society from the crazy's down the road.
That's the history behind the journey that required we find a genuine solution to building a decentralised identity ensured currency. I say genuine because as you know it's easy to say but near impossible to build, we needed blockchain auditability, hidden addresses, hidden transaction values, ease of use, ease of engagement, decentralised governance, sustainable issuance and conditional transaction inspection that didn't expose the blockchain to government and yet would enable AML/CTF compliance and we needed brilliance, brilliance that until Identabit was, like you, dedicated to an opposing perspective.
I am sure you will agree that the task of satisfying the above goals was a tall order.
Today we have a genuine solution that respects first and foremost privacy to a far greater degree than Bitcoin, the need for institutional support by way of governed compliance, governed sustainable issuance and adoption and usage mechanisms that address engagement, accuracy of transfer, ease of use and widespread adoption. None of which would have been possible without the combined efforts and perseverance of our respective teams.
I suspect that you have joined this thread because folk have shown respect for our argument, and yet disappointingly your first words aren't questions but implied criticism. I can understand the automatic cynicism, talk of building an identity ensured alternative to Bitcoin brings, given the counterintuitive nature of the project and the smell of ill considered opportunism, but we are the real deal as time will tell.
So if you wish to put us down without due process you can, or if you are inclined, I offer to sacrifice my credence should you, Andreas and Stephenie wish to rip me apart.
We know this is a long game and will take strategic thought and considerable effort but I believe that unless we dispense with partisanship and take unified strategic action, we (you and I) will be watching the banks become the real beneficiaries of your efforts to raise awareness in blockchain technology.
Topic: Identabit Hangout w/ John Underwood (Read 27743 times)
