Topic: Any recent word from Bill Gates? (Read 1893 times)
Of course he dosent need, but that dosent mean it might not interest him.
Im sure he has some, how many? who knows
Bill Gates has never been an innovator. Remember that he wrote a book in the early 90's called "The Road Ahead" about the future of computers that failed to mention the internet at all.
Billy is a vehement supporter of the cashless economy. He claims cash is an enabler of criminality and corruption. Naturally, I would expect him to hate Bitcoin.
I believe megacorporations, crony capitalists and totalitarian governments are responsible for the lion's share of harm done to the people, not petty criminals and corrupt cops. A cashless society where the rulers can supervise all economic dealings of the populace and deny trade and property to anybody they select is a dream for Stalin, Pinochet or Mobutu. Governmental corruption is not deterred by lack of cash, corrupt officials will mask transactions as legitimate business dealings, deeds for land, offshore accounts, "consultancy contracts" etc.
I believe megacorporations, crony capitalists and totalitarian governments are responsible for the lion's share of harm done to the people, not petty criminals and corrupt cops. A cashless society where the rulers can supervise all economic dealings of the populace and deny trade and property to anybody they select is a dream for Stalin, Pinochet or Mobutu. Governmental corruption is not deterred by lack of cash, corrupt officials will mask transactions as legitimate business dealings, deeds for land, offshore accounts, "consultancy contracts" etc.
So why has he shown little to no interest (publicly, at least)? It just seems like a man so famous in software would actively support one of the greatest software initiatives in the world.
He keeps himself busy with Philanthropy these days, and I respect him a lot because of it. I could imagine it would be harder for him to justify spending time investing in bitcoin when he is actively working to improve third world living conditions.
Actively? Actively doing what? Sterilizing them all to stop them from breeding?
EDIT: http://archive.org/details/WipeOutHumans-BillGates-VaccinesArebestWayToDepopulatePlanet
This guy is part of the wealthy elite, that solely center their lives around FIAT, and being above the masses. If FIAT didn't exist I'm pretty sure we would of sorted the problems in the third world out a long long time ago. Why are so many human feats restricted by cash?
So why has he shown little to no interest (publicly, at least)? It just seems like a man so famous in software would actively support one of the greatest software initiatives in the world.
He keeps himself busy with Philanthropy these days, and I respect him a lot because of it. I could imagine it would be harder for him to justify spending time investing in bitcoin when he is actively working to improve third world living conditions.
Why would he even show public interest on btc?!
If the billionaires were interested in bitcoins, They would become the elite all over again.
no because 1/2 of all the bitcoins are out, the current "elite" are excluded. Even if they buy in they would get a fractions of supply before pushing prices beyond their FIAT can buy remember they can only pay in FIAT, there is no central bank, monopoly, political party to be bribed, patent, copyright, or power anywhere they can enforce to make more bitcoins or to just give them bitcoins.
How can someone think that the guy who brought Windows to the world coded Bitcoin?
Are you trolling?
Are you trolling?
One word?
Windows.
Edit: I actually appreciate the micro kernel architecture of Windows. Less secure, yes, but damn is it easier to use.
...Bill Gates... maybe he is Satoshi.
No. He wouldn't have been posting on an SMF forum. Interesting thought though. 
You could argue that Bitcoin is the MOST disruptive concept in the history of this world. Billionaires like Gates don't like disruption in any form. They thrive in stability and the status quo.
Disruption for him means corrosion of his wealth, influence and by definition is relevance.
Disruption for him means corrosion of his wealth, influence and by definition is relevance.
Bill who? :-S
Bill Gates....is Satoshi?!!!! bum bum bum
If the billionaires were interested in bitcoins, They would become the elite all over again.
Not really.
The wealthy make money not from just having wealth but by having a stake in the system that generates wealth. The wealthy don't own dollars, ... they own shares of the bank which makes money from charging overdraft fees, bank maintenance fees, earning interest on loans, payment card merchant fees, etc.
There might be an increase in wealth from holding bitcoin as a store of value, but the Bitcoin ecosystem itself doesn't provide such a lucrative, parasitic opportunity for extracting fees from those transacting in bitcoins. The payment network has no concept of overdraft fees. There's no bank necessary even, if you are comfortable securing your client (e.g., Bitcoin-Qt) locally.
So even if billionaires speculate on bitcoins that doesn't give them the gains like Buffet's sweet deal when he invested $5B in preferred stock of JP Morgan (2008).
Bitcoin is not part of the old boy's club and instead competes against that.
If the billionaires were interested in bitcoins, They would become the elite all over again.
So why has he shown little to no interest (publicly, at least)?
A couple comments, from the "Billionaires hate Bitcoin" thread:
billionaires benefit from the status quo. Bitcoin disrupts that and the power they hold.
It took me just fifteen minutes of listening to Bill Gates on Charlie Rose to confirm that billionaires don't and won't like BItcoin.
Mr. Gates throws around a lot of "we did this" type of statements, and what he really means is "we used our power and influence to get governments to do this". I'm not saying the accomplishments were bad, but anything that lessen's a billionaire's influence will not be something the billionaires will support.
Fortunately Bitcoin isn't most valuable by gaining support of the relatively few billionaires but instead it is most valuable by gaining support of the billions (of people on the planet).
Here's the June 2012 interview:
- http://www.charlierose.com/view/interview/12436
At about 0:10:20 into the video:
Charlie Rose: [In India] How much corruption?
Bill Gates: Well there's always going to be some corruption. You want to design systems that make it harder for there to be corruption. Where you can really trace the money down to the recipient of that money. It's partly why we'd like to get digital currencies on cellphones so you don't have as much where somebody else can collect it along the way.
Charlie Rose: You'ld like to get that done. What is necessary for that to happen?
Bill Gates: The cellphones are now getting powerful enough. The government has to set some standards. There's a lot of energy being put into this in India. It has happened only in Kenya. It's the only developing country that has this digital currency. And now that India sees that it has happened in one place they are trying to clear out the regulations and get it going?
Charlie Rose: And how does it work in Kenya?
Bill Gates: You can actually use your cellphone and send money to other people, like a relative that is out in the rural area or if you go into a store and buy something you can just do that on your cellphone.
Charlie Rose: And they take their cellphone in to do things buy products or whatever.
Bill Gates: Exactly. It makes all these financial issues -- the fees to move money around, to have loans of various types, it makes it a lot simpler when you aren't having to handle paper currency.
A few takeaways from that:
1.) For government spending where there is the need for transparency, there's no reason why triple-entry accounting shouldn't be mandatory. Most of that can be done today, without the need for Bitcoin even.
2.) Mr. Gates might want to have someone explain to him the difference between a "digital currency" and "mobile banking", "electronic currency", "representative money", etc.
3.) ill Gates once said in an interview that he reads every page of The Economist. If he still does, then he'ld know that it is not just Kenya where mobile banking and mobile payments are widely used:
- http://www.economist.com/node/21553510
Mr. Gates has a very specific view on where innovation originates. He is impressed with the level of research occurring from the top universities in China. He talks about problems being solved after "lots of IQ" (and, presumably, money paying those salaries) are expended on certain problems.
That map from the Economist article was recently used in another article which described "reverse innovation". Reverse innovation is progress that occurs in the trenches -- in the developing world which the combination of local smarts apply technology and create new solutions to their problems that weren't introduced from the "top research" centers. There's another term for "reserve innovation" -- free market competition. When markets are free, the best solutions are sometimes discovered locally where the problems are most acute -- and not alwys designed in some office by some well-funded company thousands of miles away.
The local market in Kenya determined that mobile payments which allowed the transfer of value (mobile airtime credits) via SMS texting on feature phones worked fairly well when free of regulations (M-PESA didn't have to follow the same AML/KYC as banks in the country did.)
Mr. Gates throws around a lot of "we did this" type of statements, and what he really means is "we used our power and influence to get governments to do this". I'm not saying the accomplishments were bad, but anything that lessen's a billionaire's influence will not be something the billionaires will support.
Fortunately Bitcoin isn't most valuable by gaining support of the relatively few billionaires but instead it is most valuable by gaining support of the billions (of people on the planet).
Here's the June 2012 interview:
- http://www.charlierose.com/view/interview/12436
At about 0:10:20 into the video:
Charlie Rose: [In India] How much corruption?
Bill Gates: Well there's always going to be some corruption. You want to design systems that make it harder for there to be corruption. Where you can really trace the money down to the recipient of that money. It's partly why we'd like to get digital currencies on cellphones so you don't have as much where somebody else can collect it along the way.
Charlie Rose: You'ld like to get that done. What is necessary for that to happen?
Bill Gates: The cellphones are now getting powerful enough. The government has to set some standards. There's a lot of energy being put into this in India. It has happened only in Kenya. It's the only developing country that has this digital currency. And now that India sees that it has happened in one place they are trying to clear out the regulations and get it going?
Charlie Rose: And how does it work in Kenya?
Bill Gates: You can actually use your cellphone and send money to other people, like a relative that is out in the rural area or if you go into a store and buy something you can just do that on your cellphone.
Charlie Rose: And they take their cellphone in to do things buy products or whatever.
Bill Gates: Exactly. It makes all these financial issues -- the fees to move money around, to have loans of various types, it makes it a lot simpler when you aren't having to handle paper currency.
A few takeaways from that:
1.) For government spending where there is the need for transparency, there's no reason why triple-entry accounting shouldn't be mandatory. Most of that can be done today, without the need for Bitcoin even.
2.) Mr. Gates might want to have someone explain to him the difference between a "digital currency" and "mobile banking", "electronic currency", "representative money", etc.
3.) ill Gates once said in an interview that he reads every page of The Economist. If he still does, then he'ld know that it is not just Kenya where mobile banking and mobile payments are widely used:
- http://www.economist.com/node/21553510
Mr. Gates has a very specific view on where innovation originates. He is impressed with the level of research occurring from the top universities in China. He talks about problems being solved after "lots of IQ" (and, presumably, money paying those salaries) are expended on certain problems.
That map from the Economist article was recently used in another article which described "reverse innovation". Reverse innovation is progress that occurs in the trenches -- in the developing world which the combination of local smarts apply technology and create new solutions to their problems that weren't introduced from the "top research" centers. There's another term for "reserve innovation" -- free market competition. When markets are free, the best solutions are sometimes discovered locally where the problems are most acute -- and not alwys designed in some office by some well-funded company thousands of miles away.
The local market in Kenya determined that mobile payments which allowed the transfer of value (mobile airtime credits) via SMS texting on feature phones worked fairly well when free of regulations (M-PESA didn't have to follow the same AML/KYC as banks in the country did.)
Bill Gates never got behind anything open source that I am aware of, and it appears he stopped coding long before bitcoin was written.
Did he ever get behind Linux?
He seems like just the type to be actively supportive of Bitcoin for a few reasons.
The last, and only thing, i've heard from Gates on the subject was that he thought it was a technical "tour de force". So it is clear he has a pretty strong appreciation for the code.
Also, I watched a Ted Talk where he did a presentation on alternative energy and the numerous humanitarian benefits it would bring and he comes off as genuinely doing it for the betterment of the Earth and its inhabitants, not for financial gain (from my perception, at least). He also cofounded the Bill and Melinda Foundation which supports initiatives in education, world health and population, and community giving. Point is, he likes to help the world, and we all know how huge a role Bitcoins can play in developing countries and those with corrupt governments, among other benefits.
So why has he shown little to no interest (publicly, at least)? It just seems like a man so famous in software would actively support one of the greatest software initiatives in the world.
Is he invested in assets that Bitcoins threaten? Even so, I can't imagine money is much of a motivator for him any longer.
or maybe he is Satoshi.
The last, and only thing, i've heard from Gates on the subject was that he thought it was a technical "tour de force". So it is clear he has a pretty strong appreciation for the code.
Also, I watched a Ted Talk where he did a presentation on alternative energy and the numerous humanitarian benefits it would bring and he comes off as genuinely doing it for the betterment of the Earth and its inhabitants, not for financial gain (from my perception, at least). He also cofounded the Bill and Melinda Foundation which supports initiatives in education, world health and population, and community giving. Point is, he likes to help the world, and we all know how huge a role Bitcoins can play in developing countries and those with corrupt governments, among other benefits.
So why has he shown little to no interest (publicly, at least)? It just seems like a man so famous in software would actively support one of the greatest software initiatives in the world.
Is he invested in assets that Bitcoins threaten? Even so, I can't imagine money is much of a motivator for him any longer.
or maybe he is Satoshi.
Jump to: