Topic: I do a geeky podcast with a friend, finally talked him into a Bitcoin episode (Read 1647 times)

David,

the reason i found your podcasts to be so superior to others is your ability to understand Bitcoin's technical intricacies and explain them in understandable manner.  i've followed your explanations on the Bitcoin Stack Exchange in the past as well.  so much of other podcast content is just hot air.

i think this is your niche and you should continue to exploit that to the max for people such as myself who really want to know the hard facts and learn something at the same time.  i would also take the time to brush up on the macroeconomic reasons why Bitcoin was designed the way it was so as to put the technical picture into a complete economic picture as well.  your credit card example from the past podcast was a good example of this.

Finally found the time to re-cut the video without intro/outro music so it's back up: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kXTIN-aPJBQ

Is there any chance I could be part of a future podcast to discuss the bitcoin education project and our udemy course?

Sure, I don't see why not.  If they wanted to shoot themselves in the foot by taking on U.S. copyright, or shell out all the cash to staff the workers required to respond to copyright infringement claims in a timely manner, or attempt to improve their automatic recognition of songs, they could do that.  It's just, Google isn't charging for any of their services, and YouTube's included in that.  They could do anything to improve their current status so as to not piss off their users.  But whatever they do, it will cost them, and that's not something any business wants to do if they can avoid it.

The point I'd like to make is this: if people didn't have a stick up their ass about copyright, Google wouldn't have to worry about it to begin with.  They would be dishing out the cash to put up with someone else's rules.  Should the proponents of copyright not pay Google to enforce the rules they're pushing on them?  If we were to agree that those who want this rule should be the ones who pay for it to happen, then we can also agree that Google's inability to provide a quality auto-song checker is a direct result of copyright advocates wanting their cake and eating it, too.  They want the rule enforced, but don't want to pay for it to be correctly enforced.

Thus, it's not Google's fault that they're providing a shit copyright checker; they didn't have to provide one at all.  If anything, copyright holders should be getting in contact with copyright violators directly, instead of yelling at Google to solve their problems.  Google is merely providing a service and should not be held accountable whatsoever for what another individual does, and yet they are, which leads to the problem we're facing now.

I know they are not interested, that's the whole point.

The initial argument was that we shouldn't bash on them because they don't have a choice.

They DO have a choice AND they have the resources to defend it.

The alternative would be a huge amount of staff, in various languages, to review every single copyright complaint thoroughly to ensure all videos are in proper accordance with local copyright law.  This would be great for creating jobs, but, frankly, this would be extremely expensive.

On another note, I personally completely reject copyright and release all of my creative work under a very loose creative commons license or public domain.  So there's always copyright supporters (in this case, the music industry) to direct general annoyance toward


No, Google doesn't have to, just like I don't have to pay taxes.  It's all a mind game, really.  If Google wanted, they could join me and my rag-tag gang of liberty lovers and go all out on America's oppressive regime   So far, they don't seem all together interested, outside of a dislike of SOPA and CISPA (I could be wrong about CISPA...)  Anyway, we all know what happens down this road, and it's never fun.  It can make life Hell, actually--more than it already is, anyhow.

So Google doesn't have to, it simply chooses to comply in order to have the path of least resistance.

Imagine if Google was in Sweden. I'm pretty sure they would have an army of lawyers ready to eat up any legal threats from the US.

America's got more presence than you could imagine.  For example: TPB.  Doing fine in Sweden.  Sweden gets its arm twisted by America and its western cohorts.  Suddenly Sweden doesn't like TPB anymore.  The creator's doing unlawful jail time, too.  Since Google likes money, and doesn't like getting on the wrong side of the law, they're going to want to do as America wants.

Otherwise, they wouldn't care.  They have no incentive to uphold someone else's rule at their own expense, outside of legal trouble; arm twisting.  They do not make money by screwing with their users.

Taking down content when a copyright holder complains is what they *have to do* - auto-scanning the audio of all submitted content and comparing it to a massive library of known copyrighted materials with such poor sensitivity that they mistake a DnB remix of a song for the original... that's something they choose to do.

Ah, like a noob I forgot to check discussion settings on WordPress and still had "Comment author must have a previously approved comment" checked.

Your comment has been approved and no one else should need approval now. Thanks for the heads up!

Does it?
Shouldn't be that hard for Google to move some of its servers in another jurisdiction...
Or even to create another corporation, if needed.

YouTube is only doing that because it has to.  You can thank dinosaur government and entertainment industry lobbying for that

i tried to leave a comment on your blog but it didn't show up.

geez david, that was outstanding!

i've read your articles over the years but never realized what a great speaker you are.  incredibly clear thinking and speaking w/o stuttering.  you were able to control your thought processes despite constant interruptions/distractions by a newbie like wolfe.

i thought the guy from Lets Talk Bitcoin was a big step up in the podcast sphere but you are even better.  you're at a Matonis level imo and could be a spokesperson.

congrats!

agreed, minor details off but 99.99% great. well worth a listen. i sent a personal message to enmaku to say where the minor point was. it was not a criticism to say the podcast was bad, it was just a way to add more context /info to help the learning experience of all.

life is a learning experience, don't fear someone helping you turn something marvellous into something magnificent.

great work, keep it up, you could be amongst those elite media press representatives using that podcast as an example.

Just listened to the full podcast (LOOOONNGG) and it was Awesome!!!! couple of details were of but the main concept was right on the dot and it was kept simple and easy to listen to. Will definitely recommend it to anyone willing to listen for more than 5 minutes to understand Bitcoin!

And the video just got pulled from YouTube for "copyright violation" despite the fact that the intro music is not, in fact, “Sail” by AWOLNATION but a CC-licensed remix thereof crated from CC-licensed samples provided by Red Bull Records themselves for an official Red Bull Records contest for which the results were required to be (wait for it) CC-licensed. A CC-licensed remix, might I add, that I obtained the permission of the author to use and actually paid for. YouTube is getting better by the day, guys…

It's ok, at least there's still the audio version...

Working on it. Dave W is a good guy and he's plenty bright but this is pretty far from his areas of expertise - I think we all know how long it can take to get folks warmed up to this sort of thing. I'm getting there.

Yeah, the places I worked didn't really do business with merchants that risky so 5% is about where my experience caps out at. I wouldn't doubt they can go that high though and high risk merchants should definitely accept BTC. I think that's why it's seen such high adoption in the adult industry and (at least in my neck of the woods) taxi services.

Watching I'm at the part where you're talking about fees. WAY off
High risk is more like 9% with $1 transaction and a 6 month rolling reserve of 10-20%.

Not to big of a deal, I think you said 3%

Making it a more clear choice that high risk merchants should accept btc