Topic: What do you think of these controversial statements of Andreas Antonopoulos (Read 215 times)

Oh definitely. What quite shocked me on how those people in the panel we're actually willing to learn from Andreas. I assume things would've went differently if it were with the United States panel.

Video for those whose interested (a must watch): https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xUNGFZDO8mM

Andreas Antonopoulos is the real deal. You do not get anyone else in the Bitcoin community that are more admired for his passion for Bitcoin, than him. He is making a living on spreading the word about Bitcoin and his controversial statements are mostly directed to the injustice of this world.

His contribution in the Canadian senate/parliament was epic! 

I hate watching 25 minutes long Youtube videos.It would have been better, if you summarize his statements to post them here.However,after watching that video,I don't see anything contoversial in his statements.
JPMorgan Chase is a big bank and big banks suck and they are anti-crypto.Some newbies are naive and think that big banks like JPMorgan will help for pumping the crypto prices.That's wrong and we don't need people like Andreas,in order to know that.I'm not a smart contracts expert,but he is kinda right about the fact that smart contracts will eventually lead to more centralization.

Even though most smart contracts require a third person, and therefore, they do not attract anything very innovative. The few contracts that could be made between only two parties and these would make sure that their terms would be accepted open great possibilities.

Some solutions are niche. And there's nothing wrong with that. Not everything needs to be mainstream to have a great demand and overall usefulness.

yep making a product but fundraising through a crowd is a failed model
EG making a medical/healthcare DLT but ICOing the normal common people. and not actually going to a healthcare provider to buy your product.. means it wont be used by a healthcare provider. thus dead

yep making an ICO for a DLT but not knowing the problem they are trying to solve. or try solving a problem no one wants... thus dead
ICO's have no clue. but all they care about is getting paid for a few lines of code

Respect, in the crypto ecosystem, Andreas Antonopoulos is one of the few person's who really see's the capability and transformation a decentralized system can bring.

Centralized coins, the term is DLT, distributed ledger technology, the term organizations/governments use. Useful in a lot of fields. But wouldn't solve the Byzantine problem.

Vitalik did say, 90% of ICO's would be dead, putting the cart before the horse. There's no demand.

Self-driving cars isn't far fetched, we have Elon Musk.

andreas at his origins in the community put alot of work into learning about it. and alot of his time to help others without going down the religion conventions of charging people $1000 just to touch and hear him.

he did however start falling down the rabbit hole of believing the hype of a few things too much and showing bias that certain things will be bitcoin utopia even though many seen code flaws and usability flaws.
he seems to recently be backing out of it now and actually telling people to air on the side of caution on these new things. and explaining some of the flaws. so to me he has reopened his eyes and not just followed the yellow brick roadmap.

so he is winning back my respect in some ways by looking at the larger picture again (winning but not won)
out of the 100's of people trying to become bitcoin consultants/advisers. i would put in in the top 3. but i would casually tell people which videos to skip that sound too utopian and too little reality scenario tested

EG 6:00-9:00
"he got into bitcoin because it was not controlled......"
"i got into it because of the crazy people that are involved"

last statement is opposite of his first statement because core is in control. they declared they are the reference/core and they decided the roadmap and future

"in the end its a cleared out sanitised empty database"
core devs scream bitcoin "cant scale" isnt to be used to make transactions as fee's and transactions per block limit utility....

..... this is where i called him a utopian because he wasnt being fully open..

as for others talking about "enterprise blockchains". well they actually have their own term now.. DLT (distributed ledger technology).
and although many businesses want to be involved in al the buzz of blockchains and DLT's.. the businesses need to have fundamental things

1. does the data really need to be distributed over multiple locations while preserving that each locations data is always equal
2. and does it need to be validated by everyone involved.
3. does the data per block need to move/alter by multiple individuals.. or just seen/inspected by multiple individuals


EG business accounts. if the data is just audited by an accountant. and although the end report would get distributed to each employee. each employee wont be editing the accounts. wont be validating it. so no point putting accounts onto a blockchain. just email employees a final glossy booklet of the companies yearly results

EG a hospital where each ward needs to know where available beds are. and make a request for a bed to be moved to a specific ward. and where the ward can adjust when it arrives and when they have a spare bed to offer.. over a multi wards hospital over a multi hospital region.. then yes there are benefits to having it

I see his statements as extrapolation. His analogy makes sense but could possibly not be the true case. In principle he is correct but may not be in reality.

i wouldn't call any of the statements "controversial" to be honest. and i'd say he is pretty spot on about everything, specially ICOs. people caught on in some hype usually tend to not see beyond that illusion and only someone from outside can see their mistakes.


yeah, that's kind of how i think things are. but there is a difference between a centralized altcoin and a centralized blockchain in some industry. the first one is like Ripple or Ethereum and the second one can be like hospitals using the technology to store patient data. the later is a good thing but not the centralized altcoins.

Andreas probably thinks that simply because having a centralized blockchain is kinda counter intuitive(as one of the best potential characteristics of a blockchain is decentralization). I don't know if I fully agree with that though, as I think centralized systems could also take advantage of the security aspect of blockchain, regardless if it's centralized or decentralized.

Also, Andreas isn't very optimistic about "enterprise blockchain". Many businesses are now looking at blockchain as the future data storage while Andreas thinks they are merely looking at a "slow and expensive database". He thinks that centralized blockchain is...well he didn't say stupid.. but he implied something of that sort.

Honestly, I'm not so sure about that in particular but I don't buy what these new blockchain companies are shilling either. I'm kinda caught in the middle. What do you guys think of enterprise blockchain? or centralized blockchain?

Well, you're right. It's definitely subjective, and that it completely depends on the views of the reader/listener.

Personally though, only a very small number of his statements are statements I don't quite agree with. One example is something he said about the next generation not needing drivers because everyone would be using self driving cars or something(I don't remember the exact quote). I don't disagree, but I think it's quite farfetched.

On most of his statements regarding ICOs and other stuff though, I mostly agree with; even though I'm personally not a bitcoin maximalist myself(though still highly bullish on BTC compared to other coins/tokens).

I guess there's a good chance 'controversial' may be subjective here. However, it needs to be noted that a lot of crypto influencer's views are taken lightly since a lot of then are just shillers or people who think they know too much and keep running their mouth. When Andreas talks, people listen carefully. And that magnifies the controversy of his statements. When he says "ICOs that do these are wasting their time" that isn't something you can easily ignore especially if you are an ICO investor or an ICO startup.

I recommend you watch the whole video. The part about ripple was badass.

That's a long ass intro.

Also, I've only watched a short portion of the video(as it's 25 minutes long), but I don't think some or most of Andreas' statements are controversial at all. I'm pretty sure most of the people in the cryptocurrency space agrees on most of the statements of Andreas.

I think Andreas Antonopoulos needs no introduction because most of you probably heard of him by now.

I've been following Andreas for a long time now as he seems to be one of the most genuine crypto influencers in the world. At the very least, he doesn't shill coins but provide "easy to digest" factual information to his followers. He is the guys who got rich through Bitcoin donations which means that people love him so much that they chose to pay him when he didn't require it. Almost nobody in crypto depends on donations. But the ones who could pull it off are likely the real deal.

Anyway, I compiled a video of his most daring and controversial statements: https://youtu.be/g_lgtVRkKKA

In this video, he blasted the head of JPMorgan and Chase, revealed the limitations of smart contracts, exposed the government's fault on financial crises, among other "normal" things he talks about.