Topic: Winklevoss twins' Bitcoin 2013 Talk (Read 4761 times)

My impression of that is there appears to be a difference in the personal security risk immediately after the keynote than during the next day sessions.

It's probably because the keynote had the highest number of attendees, gawkers, press, us ready to rush the stage. Not to mention everyone focused on the twins at the moment after they just got done endorsing the dark side.

I have not reached a conclusion regarding anyone in the community. I think what many of us here are saying is just to be careful, especially when a few individuals have SO MANY shares. Not to make this political, but look at some recent politicians and there ability to sway peoples minds with great control of their body language and an excellent use of linguistics (and teleprompters  ).

Being careful will only help us. But thanks for your opinion, it does help to give some perspective.

Overall, I was impressed that they made it out and it was interesting to watch their keynote.   I don't think we should be using the word "wannabe" when talking about the twins, they have their hard earned money invested like the rest of us so they are a part just like us.  I did wish they would of stay near the stage after their keynote for some additional follow-up questions but I had reports of them around the conference so I know some others got a chance to chat it up.   It was much more of a positive than a negative for Bitcoin and that is what we need.   Thank you Winklevii. 

It was more about the body language. Both hands in the pockets, head down while being interviewed, speaking softly and in measured tones.

In contrast to the performers, who when interviewed in front of a crowd wave their hands, look around head up and smile flashing their teeth, speaking in loud commanding tones.

Also the immediate, no hesitation to help response to my request for a picture.

The behavior was completely consistent with what you saw on stage.

Just my two cents.

DragonballZfusiondance.gif
Batman.png
+2
If anybodys gonna charm the pants off of murica, make antibitcoin legislation unpopular, and explain bitcoin to the lowest common denominator of online rich people, and interface with dangerous politicians, it's that face... those fa- those faces.
Anyone know if the prizewinningnameguesser got paid?

Very exciting presentation.

I don't think anybody should judge anyone for circumstance of birth, be they rich or poor, but by their actions.

+1

+1

Great, so you have a story of them, against the wishes of their bodyguard, taking a picture with your son. That is really heartwarming but that doesn't convince me. What convinces me is what I see on a day to day basis, not a personal anecdote here and there. (Not that there is anything wrong with that - more data points in which to judge.) I think of athletes like Michael Jordon who are known to be very condescending and unfriendly to people (when the cameras aren't rolling) - saying all the right things in interviews and taking pictures with kids. It works, it's PR (and I'm not saying the twins are doing the same, but we should keep an eye on them.)

Now maybe, they just don't come across as "emotional" or "enthralling" with regard to their speeches. We will find out. But right now, we need to be very very careful with who is "let into" the BTC community - including Ripple. 

Time will tell and further, where they spend all of those BTC's and money that they got. The proof will surely be in the pudding...

I wouldn't dare judge anyone until they do something that proves them to be greedy and untrustworthy. For now all I can say is we have millionaires on our side lets just hope it's to our advantage.

The Twins have a long way to go before they are legitimate players. There is a storm coming in bitcoin land and it's going to be fairly harsh for wannabes.

They seemed genuine to me. Before the conference my outlook was of two rich brats lol. Goes to show that assuming things based on the outside doesn't truly give you a perspective on the inside.

wrong.

my son and i followed them out of the Conference Hall after their speech as my son wanted a pic with them.  naturally we were amongst a small hoard of ppl doing the same thing.

outside the hall we found them being interviewed by some female reporter surrounded by ppl.  Tyler was speaking about how he thinks Bitcoin can be used to bring freedom to ppl of the third world.  how a new sense of freedom and relief from poverty could be harnessed using a pure new form of money.  she asked him about the mtgox seizure and he hopefully said it probably wouldn't matter in the whole scheme of things as Bitcoin is unstoppable from a global perspective.

their handlers then whisked them off down the long hallway before anyone else could talk or get pictures from them.  it's a long, long hallway and i decided to follow them to see if the crowd thinned out so we could grab that picture for my son.  the crowd did thin some and just before they were to turn into an exit i shouted out to them to take a picture.  both of them immediately stopped and said "sure" much to my surprise and the chagrin of the bodyguards.  i quickly shoved my son btwn them and snapped off a very memorable picture.  that picture meant a lot to the both of us.

i'm convinced that the two of them are a humble, caring, thoughtful pair and my opinion of them shot up orders of magnitude.  to my mind, the burden of proof has shifted to Zuckerberg to prove to me, at least, he was not the schmuck in that dispute.

Some of you guys sound like pollyannas. Either bitcoin is strong enough to withstand any money-grubbing the Winklevii can dish out today, or it is already a failed experiment doomed to collapse tomorrow when the real predators arrive.

Yeah, they're not great public speakers. I think they did fine for a crew who were knocked off their game when the first 5 minutes of whatever flow they were expecting was ruined by Cameron's bad mic.

Sure, they don't have a groundbreaking message to relate. It doesn't matter. Do you? Are you certain your motives are purer than theirs?

Most importantly tough, they bring new attention to bitcoin. With new attention comes more players. With more players come more investment. Through more investment comes more market cap. And most importantly - with more market cap comes a greater inroad for cryptocurrency, and one step closer to the entire world casting off the shackles of the corrupt central bank, fiat, coercive, game.

+1

i've seen more passion from a javascript meetup talk. you don't have to be steve jobs to be a good speaker.. you just have to believe in the cause. it's just extra uuh, suprising that uhh these guys uhh graduated uhhh from Harvard.

Your question is relative. Do I know how investments work? I think for most people (sheeple) yes, And I also know how it works for visionaries. I'm worried the Winklevoss twins are mostly the former.

Further, I'm afraid the Winklvoss twins would do whatever it takes to become billionairs and I'm not sure they actually care about BTC. That should be our fear. They could be like a twin Trojan Horse...

Was that annoyingly nested quote-block from hell necessary? Also, would it be surprising that someone who invested a million dollars was in it for profit? Do you understand how investment works?

As for their fundamental basis for investing - who knows, that requires a level of personal information that probably isn't available to anyone except their closest friends. It remains to be seen whether they're a benefit or a hazard.

And when you hear them talk it is clear they are just in it for the money. There is no passion in their speech (if you can even call it that). I would be VERY VERY careful of these guys. They have millions and millions tide up. They are looking out for themselves first.

Not saying to get them out (to early for that), but they need to be kept a close eye on, very close.

Let's hope so.

 Unus ignis quis vir multum ab audere et exclamavit: "Studium fuga, meum prohibere!"