Bitcoin Forum

VictoryIndependence (gold/silver bug) interviews Trace Mayer at some libertarian Convention (the entrance fee to which could even be payed in bitcoin as they say).

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YHVVi7M4jbo

Most notable in my view:

• Trace explains his view on bitcoin tangibility (yes they are) referencing a recent James Turk interview (where Turk argues bitcoins are not tangible: thread: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=109409.0)
• Trace argues that bitcoins are not "owned by the individuals holding the keys" and therefore lawyers (and their clients) can do all kinds of tricks with that to "downplay" ones net-worth if needed

wtf is this guy talking about drone attacks? I have a hard time hitting "like" when it smells like conspiracy theory.

I liked best the end when he talks about whether or not he has Bitcoins and I guess I will adopt this idea by saying:
"If I own bitcoins? I might have above average control over the one or the other address."

yeah, right? I thought: have we dropped so low as to having to resort to spreading FUD to get people to buy coins?


Next time someone asks me wether I own any coins I'll reply something like: no, bitcoins are governed by the very broad MIT License. I might be able to perform certain specific math problems more easily than others, though, because I know certain specific pieces of information.

What struck me the most about this and other interviews: is it really too hard to explain how the blockchain works? I mean these peoples main issue with bitcoin is a lack of understanding how it works. The think some shit like: "it's encrypted". That's just bullshit, nothing's encrypted. Even Trace talks about encryption and how it's "hard for some to do the math and much easier for others" (he means whoever own the private key). Yet there is no encryption happening at all, just signing, which is similar from a math point of view, but totally different from an application point of view.

How about: there's this public ledger that tracks ownership of bitcoins using a concept called transactions. A transaction sends bitcoin from one address to another, to make one you need the private key of the sending address and the public key of the receiving address. New transactions are bundled into a block by the miners, it's like casting them into concrete. That block is then added to the ever-growing blockchain that contains all the transaction history. Then explain PoW, mining incentive and BOOOM, heureka!

It's not that hard, is it? I wouldn't trust bitcoin if I didn't understand this at least rudimentarily like that. It would be a huge leap of faith to buy into this. Now I think what Trace says when he answers the question: "how have you come to trust Bitcoin?", namely: "When I strated using it.". I don't however believe that's the whole truth. I'm pretty sure he looked at how the blockchain and PoW and mining works and that's why he trusts bitcoin.

Well technically he isn't wrong, because they did assassinate a 16 year old without trial and they are going to be flying drones above the States so it's definitely in the realm of possible, even if the odds are still very low.

Bitcoin is really complex to explain and I think not one person can know which is the best way. The most all of us can do however is try each our own methods and see what sticks, eventually one or two ways of explaining it will win out. Is one of those ways how Trace explains Bitcoin? I don't think so but that's ok because it's part of the process of figuring it out.

For example I really really like his explanation on tangibility.

Bitcoin isn't that complicated. It took me some concentration to work through the whitepaper and other sources to get the whole picture, but it wasn't a huge ordeal.

The problem is, most people are fucking muppets.

If the directions aren't there in big colorful iconographic form, or have some animated character pointing out how to use something, they'll just move on.

I know there's a lot of effort in trying to 'dumb down' the whole explanation, but you know what? I consider it a litmus test for who has the brainpower to 'get' an abstract idea. If you don't, fine, more for me - and they can go back to their ripoff bank accounts and paying 20% APR on credit card balances.

bingo! ..... lol, survival of the fittest, bestest with the mostest.

I agree this is something to think about. Also he says the danger is in the "retroactive" nature of online searching possibilites, which is true. Who knows who will be pulling the levers in 10-20 years.

Copied my article

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=127706.0

You got me thinking. I'm pretty sure I have never seen a news article accurately describe what bitcoin is. Has anyone in the press ever gotten this right?

Now that I try to come up with a good example, I can't remember one.

I only remember things like: "it's encrypted with the same technology banks use, so it must be secure", lol.

Journalism is failing at this job, bloggers and old-school journalists alike.

Well Trace helped convince them to accept bitcoin for payment:
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=129340.0

If the state-run lapdogs passing themselves off as journalists did what their title implies, military drones and their targeting of innocents and children would be (and should be) a hot topic in Western society.

Its not a conspiracy theory at all. This is how successful MSM brainwashing program is. Half the population thinks the Kardashians are newsworthy topics