Topic: Gold collapsing. Bitcoin UP. - page 114. (Read 2032248 times)

Quote from: brg444 on July 15, 2015, 11:33:05 PM

Granted.

A bad thing is when people ... derive from the conflict of interest malicious intents without proof other than "I don't trust them"

Right. There's two things to consider:

(1) Does someone have a conflict of interest?

(2) Is that person acting upon his conflict of interest or is his opinion biased by his conflict of interest?

Granted, we don't know to what extent (2) holds for anyone at Blockstream. But the answer to (1) is clearly "yes." Would you agree?

Well do you know of any "undeclared interest" that would embarrass blockstream devs were it made public?

You picked this threshold so I'm curious what information is it you possess that would enable you to answer with a clear "yes" to question (1)?

Well, if something like sidechains.pdf was going to be published in a journal, I think it would be fitting to include a statement, after Acknowledgments and before References, that read something like:

Conflict of Interest

Several of the authors of this paper are co-founders of a for-profit company whose business model relates to off-chain transaction solutions.

I see this as standard practice. It doesn't mean their opinion isn't valid. It just let's people see more of the picture.

Fair enough, but the whitepaper was launched along with this blog post : https://www.blockstream.com/2014/10/23/why-we-are-co-founders-of-blockstream/. Other than missing the "conflict of interest" disclaimer I find it transparent and public enough. Other than that you're kind of moving the goal posts Wink

cypherdoc

legendary

Activity: 1764

Merit: 1002

Quote from: cypherdoc on July 15, 2015, 11:26:01 PM

that's the stupidest characterization of what i said. you clearly don't get it.

I find it quite honest..

Bottom line is you have a problem with who is paying blockstream devs for their work. My question is why should one "contractor" be trusted more than the other?

i've already gone over this a dozen times for you. the financial arrangements are totally different.

lottery248

legendary

Activity: 1582

Merit: 1006

beware of your keys.

gold is unlimited all over the universe, that's why gold is collapsing.

tvbcof

legendary

Activity: 4690

Merit: 1276

Quote from: brg444 on July 15, 2015, 07:29:17 PM

speaking of Mike Hearn

anyone caught that one the other day? Cheesy

http://log.bitcoin-assets.com/?date=11-07-2015#1197442

Quote

Luke-Jr:(it's ironic but true that Mike Hearn has written two changes in Bitcoin Core, and both of them introduced serious bugs..)

this is the one you chose to place your faith in frap.doc ? Cheesy

Cypherdoc don't like him no Luke-Jr. Says he's funny looking. He's had a man-crush on Hearn forever though. Perhaps he thinks that anyone who constantly has a bottle of beer handy is cool or something.

Peter R

legendary

Activity: 1162

Merit: 1007

Quote from: cypherdoc on July 15, 2015, 11:26:01 PM

Granted.

A bad thing is when people ... derive from the conflict of interest malicious intents without proof other than "I don't trust them"

Right. There's two things to consider:

(1) Does someone have a conflict of interest?

(2) Is that person acting upon his conflict of interest or is his opinion biased by his conflict of interest?

Granted, we don't know to what extent (2) holds for anyone at Blockstream. But the answer to (1) is clearly "yes." Would you agree?

Well do you know of any "undeclared interest" that would embarrass blockstream devs were it made public?

You picked this threshold so I'm curious what information is it you possess that would enable you to answer with a clear "yes" to question (1)?

Well, if something like sidechains.pdf was going to be published in a journal, I think it would be fitting to include a statement, after Acknowledgments and before References, that read something like:

Conflict of Interest

Several of the authors of this paper are co-founders of a for-profit company whose business model relates to off-chain transaction solutions.

I see this as standard practice. It doesn't mean their opinion isn't valid. It just let's people see more of the picture.

brg444

hero member

Activity: 644

Merit: 504

Bitcoin replaces central, not commercial, banks

that's the stupidest characterization of what i said. you clearly don't get it.

I find it quite honest..

Bottom line is you have a problem with who is paying blockstream devs for their work. My question is why should one "contractor" be trusted more than the other?

brg444

hero member

Activity: 644

Merit: 504

Bitcoin replaces central, not commercial, banks

Quote from: cypherdoc on July 15, 2015, 11:23:05 PM

Quote from: justusranvier on July 15, 2015, 11:16:21 PM

Granted.

A bad thing is when people ... derive from the conflict of interest malicious intents without proof other than "I don't trust them"

Right. There's two things to consider:

(1) Does someone have a conflict of interest?

(2) Is that person acting upon his conflict of interest or is his opinion biased by his conflict of interest?

Granted, we don't know to what extent (2) holds for anyone at Blockstream. But the answer to (1) is clearly "yes." Would you agree?

Well do you know of any "undeclared interest" that would embarrass blockstream devs were it made public?

You picked this threshold so I'm curious what information is it you possess that would enable you to answer with a clear "yes" to question (1)?

why don't you answer his question? we all are interested in how you view the world.

Well given PeterR's quoted "conflict of interest threshold" I can safely say I have no reason to believe and I am unaware of any "undeclared interest" that would embarrass blockstream devs were it made public.

So in the provided context, I find no clear evidence of a conflict of interest and I would venture to say all signs point to them working in the interest of Bitcoin and its ecosystem.

brg444

hero member

Activity: 644

Merit: 504

Bitcoin replaces central, not commercial, banks

Quote from: brg444 on July 15, 2015, 11:15:54 PM

A bad thing is when people like cypherdoc derive from the conflict of interest malicious intents without proof other than "I don't trust them"

What actually happened is that when Blockstream was announced multiple noted that it created the appearance of a potential conflict of interest.

Instead of acknowledging this potential (fairly standard practice in many business situations!), the Blockstream founders took the bizarre route of denying even the possibility of a conflict of interest.

Sorry, but that's just not true

https://www.reddit.com/r/IAmA/comments/2k3u97/we_are_bitcoin_sidechain_paper_authors_adam_back/clhql71

Pieter Wuille's last comment is really all there is to it...

"Judge us by our actions."

cypherdoc

legendary

Activity: 1764

Merit: 1002

Quote from: cypherdoc on July 15, 2015, 11:11:35 PM

Quote from: brg444 on July 15, 2015, 11:01:44 PM

Quote from: cypherdoc on July 15, 2015, 10:33:32 PM

Quote from: brg444 on July 15, 2015, 10:29:42 PM

Quote from: cypherdoc on July 15, 2015, 09:59:12 PM

conflict of interest

n. a situation in which a person has a duty to more than one person or organization, but cannot do justice to the actual or potentially adverse interests of both parties. This includes when an individual's personal interests or concerns are inconsistent with the best for a customer, or when a public official's personal interests are contrary to his/her loyalty to public business. An attorney, an accountant, a business adviser or realtor cannot represent two parties in a dispute and must avoid even the appearance of conflict. He/she may not join with a client in business without making full disclosure of his/her potential conflicts, he/she must avoid commingling funds with the client, and never, never take a position adverse to the customer.

well someone was kind enough to spare us the effort to "rekt" your hypocritical "concern" on reddit :

https://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/3dg1us/the_golden_ratio_attack_blocks_more_than_half/ct4yc63

brg444 jumping to rektless conclusions again. i actually have a response i have yet to use to eragmus.

And as expected, a wholly unoriginal reply rehashing tired and disingenuous arguments. See my reply Wink

https://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/3dg1us/the_golden_ratio_attack_blocks_more_than_half/ct505jf

So this boils down to you trusting MIT more than Silicon Valley.

If only Aaron Swartz was here to answer this one.

that's the stupidest characterization of what i said. you clearly don't get it.

cypherdoc

legendary

Activity: 1764

Merit: 1002

Quote from: justusranvier on July 15, 2015, 11:16:21 PM

Granted.

A bad thing is when people ... derive from the conflict of interest malicious intents without proof other than "I don't trust them"

Right. There's two things to consider:

(1) Does someone have a conflict of interest?

(2) Is that person acting upon his conflict of interest or is his opinion biased by his conflict of interest?

Granted, we don't know to what extent (2) holds for anyone at Blockstream. But the answer to (1) is clearly "yes." Would you agree?

Well do you know of any "undeclared interest" that would embarrass blockstream devs were it made public?

You picked this threshold so I'm curious what information is it you possess that would enable you to answer with a clear "yes" to question (1)?

why don't you answer his question? we all are interested in how you view the world.

cypherdoc

legendary

Activity: 1764

Merit: 1002

A bad thing is when people like cypherdoc derive from the conflict of interest malicious intents without proof other than "I don't trust them"

What actually happened is that when Blockstream was announced multiple noted that it created the appearance of a potential conflict of interest.

Instead of acknowledging this potential (fairly standard practice in many business situations!), the Blockstream founders took the bizarre route of denying even the possibility of a conflict of interest.

That choice of actions is what lead to ongoing concern about their motives, not the founding of Blockstream itself.

which as you say actually compounds the problem b/c it brings up questions of maturity and transparency. not to mention intent.

brg444

hero member

Activity: 644

Merit: 504

Bitcoin replaces central, not commercial, banks

Granted.

A bad thing is when people ... derive from the conflict of interest malicious intents without proof other than "I don't trust them"

Right. There's two things to consider:

(1) Does someone have a conflict of interest?

(2) Is that person acting upon his conflict of interest or is his opinion biased by his conflict of interest?

Granted, we don't know to what extent (2) holds for anyone at Blockstream. But the answer to (1) is clearly "yes." Would you agree?

Well do you know of any "undeclared interest" that would embarrass blockstream devs were it made public?

You picked this threshold so I'm curious what information is it you possess that would enable you to answer with a clear "yes" to question (1)?

justusranvier

legendary

Activity: 1400

Merit: 1013

Quote from: cypherdoc on July 15, 2015, 11:11:35 PM

A bad thing is when people like cypherdoc derive from the conflict of interest malicious intents without proof other than "I don't trust them"

What actually happened is that when Blockstream was announced multiple noted that it created the appearance of a potential conflict of interest.

Instead of acknowledging this potential (fairly standard practice in many business situations!), the Blockstream founders took the bizarre route of denying even the possibility of a conflict of interest.

That choice of actions is what lead to ongoing concern about their motives, not the founding of Blockstream itself.

brg444

hero member

Activity: 644

Merit: 504

Bitcoin replaces central, not commercial, banks

Quote from: brg444 on July 15, 2015, 11:01:44 PM

Quote from: cypherdoc on July 15, 2015, 10:33:32 PM

Quote from: brg444 on July 15, 2015, 10:29:42 PM

Quote from: cypherdoc on July 15, 2015, 09:59:12 PM

conflict of interest

n. a situation in which a person has a duty to more than one person or organization, but cannot do justice to the actual or potentially adverse interests of both parties. This includes when an individual's personal interests or concerns are inconsistent with the best for a customer, or when a public official's personal interests are contrary to his/her loyalty to public business. An attorney, an accountant, a business adviser or realtor cannot represent two parties in a dispute and must avoid even the appearance of conflict. He/she may not join with a client in business without making full disclosure of his/her potential conflicts, he/she must avoid commingling funds with the client, and never, never take a position adverse to the customer.

well someone was kind enough to spare us the effort to "rekt" your hypocritical "concern" on reddit :

https://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/3dg1us/the_golden_ratio_attack_blocks_more_than_half/ct4yc63

brg444 jumping to rektless conclusions again. i actually have a response i have yet to use to eragmus.

And as expected, a wholly unoriginal reply rehashing tired and disingenuous arguments. See my reply Wink

https://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/3dg1us/the_golden_ratio_attack_blocks_more_than_half/ct505jf

So this boils down to you trusting MIT more than Silicon Valley.

If only Aaron Swartz was here to answer this one.

cypherdoc

legendary

Activity: 1764

Merit: 1002

Quote from: Peter R on July 15, 2015, 11:05:03 PM

On the topic of "what is a conflict of interest," I think this explanation (from a high impact factor academic journal) is good:

Quote from: EMBO Journal Author Guidelines

Conflicts of interest

In the interests of transparency and to help editors and reviewers assess any potential bias, the journal requires authors of original research papers to declare any competing commercial interests in relation to the submitted work. It is difficult to specify a threshold at which a financial interest becomes significant, but as a practical guideline, we would suggest this to be any undeclared interest that could embarrass you were it to become publicly known. Referees and editors are also subject to Conflict of Interest regulations.

As an example, let's say I had a company (perhaps that was still in stealth mode) that performed the service, similar to what BlockCypher does, of calculating "confidence factors" for 0-confirm transactions.

Now let's imagine I write an academic paper that presents data on double-spend statistics and shows how one can use network heuristics to reliably accept 0-confirm transactions for certain business models.

What I present in the paper may be entirely factual and unbiased, but I still have a conflict of interest and I should declare that fact to the public. A conflict of interest is not, in and of itself, a bad thing. In fact, since we're imagining I'm in the business, I'm probably pretty knowledgeable on the topic! Nonetheless, I should still be transparent and allow others to assess the results and any biases I may have for themselves.

Granted.

A bad thing is when people like cypherdoc derive from the conflict of interest malicious intents without proof other than "I don't trust them"

except that:

1. i predicted something like this block size conflict would come up as a general concept; them preventing upgrades that would help Bitcoin. and...

2. they won't even acknowledge there's a conflict of interest. in fact, they spend all their time around here denying it.

Peter R

legendary

Activity: 1162

Merit: 1007