Gold collapsing. Bitcoin UP. - page 597.

cypherdoc

legendary

Activity: 1764

Merit: 1002

Quote from: brg444 on December 31, 2014, 03:42:58 PM

Quote from: cypherdoc on December 31, 2014, 03:19:24 PM

You really should stop. Adam and the rest of us were having a decent conversation and now you're going to scare him away.

Strange, it seems to me Adam has made quite a case that characters the likes of yours are the reason he stays away from here.

Note to brg444:

He's here and been here for several days with over a dozen or so posts despite, and maybe because of me. Who knows. All I care about is that I'm learning his perspective and if more people convert to being SC proponents as a result, great. Who knows, I might be converted. There's a lot at stake here and you're not helping with your spamming.

Let's see how much he posts now that you're here. He's quite capable of schooling me on his own if what he says has merit. He doesn't need your help.

brg444

hero member

Activity: 644

Merit: 504

Bitcoin replaces central, not commercial, banks

Quote from: cypherdoc on December 31, 2014, 03:40:06 PM

Quote from: brg444 on December 31, 2014, 03:30:38 PM

The point about the investment is both parties (Blockstream & investors) have made it quite clear that the reason for the existence of Blockstream first and foremost is to promote & improve the Bitcoin ecosystem as a public good.

Oh come on man. Even you're smart enough to know we, as a community, should not buy into that sort of promise. History is littered with failed projects that were based on such naivete.

That's the problem. Whatever they will say you will attach ill intentions to them.

Excercising common sense & being cautious is one thing. Clouding your judgement with personal grudges and ill-informed opinions is another.

The model they are working from (Mozilla Foundation) is an excellent example of such projects that has succeeded. Given the backing they've received, the mindshare & the resources available to them my bet is the Blockstream venture will be a success as well.

brg444

hero member

Activity: 644

Merit: 504

Bitcoin replaces central, not commercial, banks

Quote from: cypherdoc on December 31, 2014, 03:19:24 PM

You really should stop. Adam and the rest of us were having a decent conversation and now you're going to scare him away.

Strange, it seems to me Adam has made quite a case that characters the likes of yours are the reason he stays away from here.

cypherdoc

legendary

Activity: 1764

Merit: 1002

Quote from: brg444 on December 31, 2014, 03:30:38 PM

The point about the investment is both parties (Blockstream & investors) have made it quite clear that the reason for the existence of Blockstream first and foremost is to promote & improve the Bitcoin ecosystem as a public good.

Oh come on man. Even you're smart enough to know we, as a community, should not buy into that sort of promise. History is littered with failed projects that were based on such naivete.

smooth

legendary

Activity: 2968

Merit: 1198

Quote from: cypherdoc on December 31, 2014, 03:19:24 PM

Gavin works for a non profit and gets paid modestly I'd bet. Certainly not the $500k Adam was throwing around earlier

$209K in 2013 according to http://www.technologyreview.com/featuredstory/527051/the-man-who-really-built-bitcoin

brg444

hero member

Activity: 644

Merit: 504

Bitcoin replaces central, not commercial, banks

Quote from: cypherdoc on December 31, 2014, 03:19:24 PM

Quote from: brg444 on December 31, 2014, 03:10:03 PM

Quote from: cypherdoc on December 31, 2014, 02:55:23 PM

Quote from: brg444 on December 31, 2014, 02:44:55 PM

Quote from: cypherdoc on December 31, 2014, 02:39:22 PM

Quote from: brg444 on December 31, 2014, 02:34:54 PM

Quote from: cypherdoc on December 31, 2014, 02:32:01 PM

Oh great, incendiary loud mouth brg444 back in the mix. Just when I thought we had a proper chance of a decent discussion to get going.

There is no such chance with you in the mix.

You have refused or flat out ignored the most logic counter-arguments to your "concerns" and prefer dancing around spewing the same platitudes. It's like groundhog day with you.

If the best way to deal with a troll is to ignore him, then why don't you leave, especially since I'm the one doing most of the talking around here? Or maybe it's because you find what I have to say not all together unreasonable?

Not quite, your thread is merely just one other source of information and sometimes valuable discussion. I certainly would not qualify your opinion as particularly insightful or worthy of merits. You are anything but "reasonable".

Case in point Adam, in the few last post of his has provided more insights and valuable discussion material than certainly your few last thousands post on here.

Blah, blah, blah.

Not in my opinion. As JR said, there's nothing new in what he said. Just his opinions as to where the project stands, that Bitcoin has a "problem ", and that we should "trust" him.

And neither you, nor Adam, had provided a good reason add to why we should up end 6 years of a " no trust" system just to let them establish a $21M for profit entity that seeks to leverage core development to change Bitcoin into their vision while profiting. The core devs refusal to step down speaks volumes and I think Reid Hoffman, et al, would never have plunked down that amount of money if they didn't think it would make a difference.

No trust? You trust Gavin & the Bitcoin Foundation. You trust Jeff Garzik & Bitpay. You trust the miners.

The mere notion you are pushing forward that the addition of op_code to bitcoin core translates into you & everyone having to trust Blockstream for all things Bitcoin is so spectacularly stupid I don't know where to begin.

Add to that the fact that you are parading the $21 SEED investment as the "smoking gun" of conflicted interests and ill-intentions when that amount is literally pocket change to the nearly 40 investors involved. As if these guys are hell-bent on getting a 10x return on their seed-round investement. This is a grave misunderstanding of the business venture capitalists are in.

We've already gone over this with your poor memory. Gavin works for a non profit and gets paid modestly I'd bet. Certainly not the $500k Adam was throwing around earlier (which makes me wonder what Blockstream is paying their core devs). He has no stock or investors to please. Jeff is a lone wolf over at Bitpay. Yeah, big difference is say with Blockstream having 2 core devs plus 3 top committers.

As for the $21M seed, what's your point? How old are you?

You really should stop. Adam and the rest of us were having a decent conversation and now you're going to scare him away.

I believe tvbcof has adressed why any reference to the Bitcoin Foundation as a non-profit devoid of any individuals with selfish interest is naive & misguided. Gavin might have no stock holders or investors to please but he has a gang of, some quite influential shall I say, foundation members paying his salary.

The fact that Jeff is a "lone wolf" does not shield him from potential conflicts of interest. That's quite a poor "excuse" if I might say.

The point about the investment is both parties (Blockstream & investors) have made it quite clear that the reason for the existence of Blockstream first and foremost is to promote & improve the Bitcoin ecosystem as a public good. That is what the funds will be used for. I'm quite certain no one in there is expecting or even demanding 10x return on their investment. At least not in the immediate future.

cypherdoc

legendary

Activity: 1764

Merit: 1002

Quote from: brg444 on December 31, 2014, 03:10:03 PM

Quote from: cypherdoc on December 31, 2014, 02:55:23 PM

Quote from: brg444 on December 31, 2014, 02:44:55 PM

Quote from: cypherdoc on December 31, 2014, 02:39:22 PM

Quote from: brg444 on December 31, 2014, 02:34:54 PM

Quote from: cypherdoc on December 31, 2014, 02:32:01 PM

Oh great, incendiary loud mouth brg444 back in the mix. Just when I thought we had a proper chance of a decent discussion to get going.

There is no such chance with you in the mix.

You have refused or flat out ignored the most logic counter-arguments to your "concerns" and prefer dancing around spewing the same platitudes. It's like groundhog day with you.

If the best way to deal with a troll is to ignore him, then why don't you leave, especially since I'm the one doing most of the talking around here? Or maybe it's because you find what I have to say not all together unreasonable?

Not quite, your thread is merely just one other source of information and sometimes valuable discussion. I certainly would not qualify your opinion as particularly insightful or worthy of merits. You are anything but "reasonable".

Case in point Adam, in the few last post of his has provided more insights and valuable discussion material than certainly your few last thousands post on here.

Blah, blah, blah.

Not in my opinion. As JR said, there's nothing new in what he said. Just his opinions as to where the project stands, that Bitcoin has a "problem ", and that we should "trust" him.

And neither you, nor Adam, had provided a good reason add to why we should up end 6 years of a " no trust" system just to let them establish a $21M for profit entity that seeks to leverage core development to change Bitcoin into their vision while profiting. The core devs refusal to step down speaks volumes and I think Reid Hoffman, et al, would never have plunked down that amount of money if they didn't think it would make a difference.

No trust? You trust Gavin & the Bitcoin Foundation. You trust Jeff Garzik & Bitpay. You trust the miners.

The mere notion you are pushing forward that the addition of op_code to bitcoin core translates into you & everyone having to trust Blockstream for all things Bitcoin is so spectacularly stupid I don't know where to begin.

Add to that the fact that you are parading the $21 SEED investment as the "smoking gun" of conflicted interests and ill-intentions when that amount is literally pocket change to the nearly 40 investors involved. As if these guys are hell-bent on getting a 10x return on their seed-round investement. This is a grave misunderstanding of the business venture capitalists are in.

We've already gone over this with your poor memory. Gavin works for a non profit and gets paid modestly I'd bet. Certainly not the $500k Adam was throwing around earlier (which makes me wonder what Blockstream is paying their core devs). He has no stock or investors to please. Jeff is a lone wolf over at Bitpay. Yeah, big difference is say with Blockstream having 2 core devs plus 3 top committers.

As for the $21M seed, what's your point? How old are you?

You really should stop. Adam and the rest of us were having a decent conversation and now you're going to scare him away.

smooth

legendary

Activity: 2968

Merit: 1198

Quote from: cypherdoc on December 31, 2014, 03:07:03 PM

Quote from: smooth on December 31, 2014, 01:19:41 PM

Quote from: cypherdoc on December 31, 2014, 12:53:32 PM

Adam, how can you possibly say you're not "for-profit" when in fact that is precisely what Blockstream is? do you seriously expect us to believe that Reid Hoffman, et al invested $21M while not expecting at least a 10x return on their investment?

I read somewhere that they invested personally instead of via organized venture funds specifically because they are bitcoin supporters and the investment didn't really meet the usual criteria for the funds (roughly described by you as a 10x return). I can't vouch for any of this being actually true or relevant, but I did read it.

That doesn't jive with this from their blog:

The round was led by Reid Hoffman, Khosla Ventures and Real Ventures, with investments from Nicolas Berggruen, Crypto Currency Partners, Future\Perfect Ventures, Danny Hillis, Eric Schmidt’s Innovation Endeavors, Max Levchin, Mosaic Ventures, Ray Ozzie, Ribbit Capital, Jerry Yang’s AME Cloud Ventures and several others.

http://www.blockstream.com/2014/11/17/blockstream-closes-21m-seed-round/

Well maybe it isn't true then.

I agree with you that a for profit entity should be assumed to be in business to generate profits, and unless they can convincingly tell us how they plan to do that, ulterior (though not necessarily nefarious) motives should be assumed. That is just common sense.

brg444

hero member

Activity: 644

Merit: 504

Bitcoin replaces central, not commercial, banks

Quote from: cypherdoc on December 31, 2014, 03:07:03 PM

Quote from: smooth on December 31, 2014, 01:19:41 PM

Quote from: cypherdoc on December 31, 2014, 12:53:32 PM

Adam, how can you possibly say you're not "for-profit" when in fact that is precisely what Blockstream is? do you seriously expect us to believe that Reid Hoffman, et al invested $21M while not expecting at least a 10x return on their investment?

I read somewhere that they invested personally instead of via organized venture funds specifically because they are bitcoin supporters and the investment didn't really meet the usual criteria for the funds (roughly described by you as a 10x return). I can't vouch for any of this being actually true or relevant, but I did read it.

That doesn't jive with this from their blog:

The round was led by Reid Hoffman, Khosla Ventures and Real Ventures, with investments from Nicolas Berggruen, Crypto Currency Partners, Future\Perfect Ventures, Danny Hillis, Eric Schmidt’s Innovation Endeavors, Max Levchin, Mosaic Ventures, Ray Ozzie, Ribbit Capital, Jerry Yang’s AME Cloud Ventures and several others.

http://www.blockstream.com/2014/11/17/blockstream-closes-21m-seed-round/

Quote from: brg444 on December 31, 2014, 01:40:37 PM

From the horses' mouth

Quote

And that’s why I’m participating in this first-round financing as an individual investor, and why Blockstream itself will function similarly to the Mozilla Corporation. Here, our first interest is maintaining and enhancing Bitcoin’s strong open ecosystem. And the structure we’ve chosen will give us the freedom and flexibility to prioritize public good over returns to investors.

https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/20141117154558-1213-the-future-of-the-bitcoin-ecosystem-and-trustless-trust-why-i-invested-in-blockstream

Public good pretty nice heh Wink

brg444

hero member

Activity: 644

Merit: 504

Bitcoin replaces central, not commercial, banks

Quote from: _mr_e on December 31, 2014, 03:05:50 PM

Quote from: brg444 on December 31, 2014, 02:57:32 PM

Quote from: _mr_e on December 31, 2014, 02:54:17 PM

We don't need sidechains. The internet of coins is almost upon us and will be ready far sooner then anyone can convince the world to deploy sidechains(hint: january): http://bitcoinmagazine.com/18167/what-is-the-supernet-jl777s-vision/

316 users in supernet slack from all the different corners of crypto cooperating and developing different projects together. It's a sight to behold.

No thanks

Deny it all you want. The code is nearing completion and it will be released whether you like it or not. The first true shining beacon of cooperation and teamwork that has ever occurred in crypto has been happening under your noses for many months now. I'm just mentioning this now so I can quote myself later when it becomes more obvious.

Please

brg444

hero member

Activity: 644

Merit: 504

Bitcoin replaces central, not commercial, banks

Quote from: cypherdoc on December 31, 2014, 02:55:23 PM

Quote from: brg444 on December 31, 2014, 02:44:55 PM

Quote from: cypherdoc on December 31, 2014, 02:39:22 PM

Quote from: brg444 on December 31, 2014, 02:34:54 PM

Quote from: cypherdoc on December 31, 2014, 02:32:01 PM

Oh great, incendiary loud mouth brg444 back in the mix. Just when I thought we had a proper chance of a decent discussion to get going.

There is no such chance with you in the mix.

You have refused or flat out ignored the most logic counter-arguments to your "concerns" and prefer dancing around spewing the same platitudes. It's like groundhog day with you.

If the best way to deal with a troll is to ignore him, then why don't you leave, especially since I'm the one doing most of the talking around here? Or maybe it's because you find what I have to say not all together unreasonable?

Not quite, your thread is merely just one other source of information and sometimes valuable discussion. I certainly would not qualify your opinion as particularly insightful or worthy of merits. You are anything but "reasonable".

Case in point Adam, in the few last post of his has provided more insights and valuable discussion material than certainly your few last thousands post on here.

Blah, blah, blah.

Not in my opinion. As JR said, there's nothing new in what he said. Just his opinions as to where the project stands, that Bitcoin has a "problem ", and that we should "trust" him.

And neither you, nor Adam, had provided a good reason add to why we should up end 6 years of a " no trust" system just to let them establish a $21M for profit entity that seeks to leverage core development to change Bitcoin into their vision while profiting. The core devs refusal to step down speaks volumes and I think Reid Hoffman, et al, would never have plunked down that amount of money if they didn't think it would make a difference.

No trust? You trust Gavin & the Bitcoin Foundation. You trust Jeff Garzik & Bitpay. You trust the miners.

The mere notion you are pushing forward that the addition of op_code to bitcoin core translates into you & everyone having to trust Blockstream for all things Bitcoin is so spectacularly stupid I don't know where to begin.

Add to that the fact that you are parading the $21 SEED investment as the "smoking gun" of conflicted interests and ill-intentions when that amount is literally pocket change to the nearly 40 investors involved. As if these guys are hell-bent on getting a 10x return on their seed-round investement. This is a grave misunderstanding of the business venture capitalists are in.

cypherdoc

legendary

Activity: 1764

Merit: 1002

Quote from: smooth on December 31, 2014, 01:19:41 PM

Quote from: cypherdoc on December 31, 2014, 12:53:32 PM

Adam, how can you possibly say you're not "for-profit" when in fact that is precisely what Blockstream is? do you seriously expect us to believe that Reid Hoffman, et al invested $21M while not expecting at least a 10x return on their investment?

I read somewhere that they invested personally instead of via organized venture funds specifically because they are bitcoin supporters and the investment didn't really meet the usual criteria for the funds (roughly described by you as a 10x return). I can't vouch for any of this being actually true or relevant, but I did read it.

That doesn't jive with this from their blog:

The round was led by Reid Hoffman, Khosla Ventures and Real Ventures, with investments from Nicolas Berggruen, Crypto Currency Partners, Future\Perfect Ventures, Danny Hillis, Eric Schmidt’s Innovation Endeavors, Max Levchin, Mosaic Ventures, Ray Ozzie, Ribbit Capital, Jerry Yang’s AME Cloud Ventures and several others.

http://www.blockstream.com/2014/11/17/blockstream-closes-21m-seed-round/

_mr_e

legendary

Activity: 817

Merit: 1000

Quote from: brg444 on December 31, 2014, 02:57:32 PM

Quote from: _mr_e on December 31, 2014, 02:54:17 PM

We don't need sidechains. The internet of coins is almost upon us and will be ready far sooner then anyone can convince the world to deploy sidechains(hint: january): http://bitcoinmagazine.com/18167/what-is-the-supernet-jl777s-vision/

316 users in supernet slack from all the different corners of crypto cooperating and developing different projects together. It's a sight to behold.

No thanks

Deny it all you want. The code is nearing completion and it will be released whether you like it or not. The first true shining beacon of cooperation and teamwork that has ever occurred in crypto has been happening under your noses for many months now. I'm just mentioning this now so I can quote myself later when it becomes more obvious.

brg444

hero member

Activity: 644

Merit: 504

Bitcoin replaces central, not commercial, banks

Quote from: _mr_e on December 31, 2014, 02:54:17 PM

We don't need sidechains. The internet of coins is almost upon us and will be ready far sooner then anyone can convince the world to deploy sidechains(hint: january): http://bitcoinmagazine.com/18167/what-is-the-supernet-jl777s-vision/

316 users in supernet slack from all the different corners of crypto cooperating and developing differant projects together. It's a sight to behold.

No thanks

cypherdoc

legendary

Activity: 1764

Merit: 1002

Quote from: brg444 on December 31, 2014, 02:44:55 PM

Quote from: cypherdoc on December 31, 2014, 02:39:22 PM

Quote from: brg444 on December 31, 2014, 02:34:54 PM

Quote from: cypherdoc on December 31, 2014, 02:32:01 PM

Oh great, incendiary loud mouth brg444 back in the mix. Just when I thought we had a proper chance of a decent discussion to get going.

There is no such chance with you in the mix.

You have refused or flat out ignored the most logic counter-arguments to your "concerns" and prefer dancing around spewing the same platitudes. It's like groundhog day with you.

If the best way to deal with a troll is to ignore him, then why don't you leave, especially since I'm the one doing most of the talking around here? Or maybe it's because you find what I have to say not all together unreasonable?

Not quite, your thread is merely just one other source of information and sometimes valuable discussion. I certainly would not qualify your opinion as particularly insightful or worthy of merits. You are anything but "reasonable".

Case in point Adam, in the few last post of his has provided more insights and valuable discussion material than certainly your few last thousands post on here.

Blah, blah, blah.

Not in my opinion. As JR said, there's nothing new in what he said. Just his opinions as to where the project stands, that Bitcoin has a "problem ", and that we should "trust" him to fix it .

And neither you, nor Adam, had provided a good reason add to why we should up end 6 years of a " no trust" system just to let them establish a $21M for profit entity that seeks to leverage core development to change Bitcoin into their vision while profiting. The core devs refusal to step down speaks volumes and I think Reid Hoffman, et al, would never have plunked down that amount of money if they didn't think it would make a difference.

_mr_e

legendary

Activity: 817

Merit: 1000

We don't need sidechains. The internet of coins is almost upon us and will be ready far sooner then anyone can convince the world to deploy sidechains(hint: january): http://bitcoinmagazine.com/18167/what-is-the-supernet-jl777s-vision/

316 users in supernet slack[.com] from all the different corners of crypto, cooperating and developing many different projects together. It's a sight to behold.

brg444

hero member

Activity: 644

Merit: 504

Bitcoin replaces central, not commercial, banks

Quote from: cypherdoc on December 31, 2014, 02:39:22 PM

Quote from: brg444 on December 31, 2014, 02:34:54 PM

Quote from: cypherdoc on December 31, 2014, 02:32:01 PM

Oh great, incendiary loud mouth brg444 back in the mix. Just when I thought we had a proper chance of a decent discussion to get going.

There is no such chance with you in the mix.

You have refused or flat out ignored the most logic counter-arguments to your "concerns" and prefer dancing around spewing the same platitudes. It's like groundhog day with you.

If the best way to deal with a troll is to ignore him, then why don't you leave, especially since I'm the one doing most of the talking around here? Or maybe it's because you find what I have to say not all together unreasonable?

Not quite, your thread is merely just one other source of information and sometimes valuable discussion. I certainly would not qualify your opinion as particularly insightful or worthy of merits. You are anything but "reasonable".

Case in point Adam, in the few last post of his has provided more insights and valuable discussion material than certainly your few last thousand posts on here.

Moreover, I shall insist that your inflated ego and self-sense of importance is despicable

cypherdoc

legendary

Activity: 1764

Merit: 1002

Quote from: brg444 on December 31, 2014, 02:34:54 PM

Quote from: cypherdoc on December 31, 2014, 02:32:01 PM

Oh great, incendiary loud mouth brg444 back in the mix. Just when I thought we had a proper chance of a decent discussion to get going.

There is no such chance with you in the mix.

You have refused or flat out ignored the most logic counter-arguments to your "concerns" and prefer dancing around spewing the same platitudes. It's like groundhog day with you.

If the best way to deal with a troll is to ignore him, then why don't you leave, especially since I'm the one doing most of the talking around here? Or maybe it's because you find what I have to say not all together unreasonable?

brg444

hero member

Activity: 644

Merit: 504

Bitcoin replaces central, not commercial, banks

Quote from: cypherdoc on December 31, 2014, 02:32:01 PM

Oh great, incendiary loud mouth brg444 back in the mix. Just when I thought we had a proper chance of a decent discussion to get going.

There is no such chance with you in the mix.

You have refused or flat out ignored the most logic counter-arguments to your "concerns" and prefer dancing around spewing the same platitudes. It's like groundhog day with you.

cypherdoc

legendary

Activity: 1764

Merit: 1002

Oh great, incendiary loud mouth brg444 back in the mix. Just when I thought we had a proper chance of a decent discussion to get going.

Topic: Gold collapsing. Bitcoin UP. - page 597. (Read 2032266 times)