Bitcoin Forum

Other => Beginners & Help => Topic started by: Kprawn on June 22, 2014, 10:00:10 AM



Title: Somene with correct information - Please correct the press with some comments.
Post by: Kprawn on June 22, 2014, 10:00:10 AM
I refer to this article in the press.

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=661058.new#new

People running away with a story, with little or no knowledge on the subject matter. Or just some misinformation to try to scare people away.

We should all respond, and see how many comments stays on there, or will they moderate that too.


Title: Re: Somene with correct information - Please correct the press with some comments.
Post by: Ludi on June 22, 2014, 10:08:07 AM
Press that don't know what they're talking about? What's new?


Title: Re: Somene with correct information - Please correct the press with some comments.
Post by: Wusolini on June 22, 2014, 10:53:28 AM
I refer to this article in the press.

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=661058.new#new

People running away with a story, with little or no knowledge on the subject matter. Or just some misinformation to try to scare people away.

We should all respond, and see how many comments stays on there, or will they moderate that too.

I dont thing CEX. IO (or Ghash) would invest so much into a great hash rate they (now at 33% check Blockchain Hashrate Distribution (https://blockchain.info/pools?timespan=24hrs)) and then just blow it all away   ??? ... it makes no sence.

Moreover, in early 2014 they reach almost 50%, and released declaration. can't find it at the moment, but it was quite official looking document...
saying that they want to avoid that in future and will prevent it by allowing users with huge GHs redirect to other poools. As far as I know it not happen yet.


Title: Re: Somene with correct information - Please correct the press with some comments.
Post by: newIndia on June 22, 2014, 11:08:25 AM
I refer to this article in the press.

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=661058.new#new

People running away with a story, with little or no knowledge on the subject matter. Or just some misinformation to try to scare people away.

We should all respond, and see how many comments stays on there, or will they moderate that too.

Publicity is publicity... -ve or +ve. Still, not even 1% of the internet population is into Bitcoin... let them at least hear about it. The intelligent will always figure out early and the stupid will come later bragging about how they missed the boat. But, let them hear at least.


Title: Re: Somene with correct information - Please correct the press with some comments.
Post by: Kprawn on June 22, 2014, 03:09:27 PM
Well let them at least hear the truth, not the sh%^ someone is peddling as the truth.

Press sell papers or subscriptions or get hits on their site, by stretching the truth. Anything to get attention, right or wrong information, does not matter.

By commenting on that nonsense, will at least get the truth out.


Title: Re: Somene with correct information - Please correct the press with some comments.
Post by: DRK on June 22, 2014, 06:40:22 PM
I have e-mailed the BBC about errors in their articles many times before! They have been swift in changing them and I'm now in contact with the technology head editor who passes some BTC related articles past me if he's unsure! News outlets don't like being wrong, sometimes you just have to tell them...


Title: Re: Somene with correct information - Please correct the press with some comments.
Post by: zimmah on June 22, 2014, 08:52:42 PM
Well let them at least hear the truth, not the sh%^ someone is peddling as the truth.

Press sell papers or subscriptions or get hits on their site, by stretching the truth. Anything to get attention, right or wrong information, does not matter.

By commenting on that nonsense, will at least get the truth out.

it doesn't really matter much, even if they hear negative news about bitcoin, they will hear about bitcoin.

If people are smart they will do their own research.

Only stupid people believe everything they read without doing research.