Bitcoin Forum

It doesent make sense to me...at first I thought they were just being objective, but now I see they are all a bunch of dicks

http://gizmodo.com/5898303/it-makes-total-sense-that-the-bankers-who-destroyed-our-economy-are-now-trading-bitcoin
http://gizmodo.com/5885040/bitcoin-suffers-another-setback
http://gizmodo.com/5828710/the-bitcoin-is-dying-whatever
http://gizmodo.com/5838089/world-famous-economist-paul-krugman-talks-a-whole-lotta-shit-about-bitcoin
http://gizmodo.com/5813622/bitcoin-price-tumbles-after-massive-account-hack-and-sell+off-on-trading-site-mtgox

Whats with the vendetta? Is it because their readership just doesent like Bitcoin or do they always hate on things?

Gawker..the name says it all. http://www.thefreedictionary.com/gawker

Wonder if anyone there owns any....

WOW...

Noun   1.   gawker - a spectator who stares stupidly without intelligent awareness

..says it all.

As I remember Gizmodo was an Apple fan ( before the lawsuit against them ), Apple stay at the opposite side of freedom.
I think that the two things are related.

Sites like that (dailytech is another example) are heavily biased by the authors.  If a site has a concentration of authors who have a snap judgement about Bitcoin then articles will be slanted that way.

Ghandi (disputed quote)

The ignore phase was 2009 & 2010.  2011 was mostly the laugh phase.  If you look at the article in sequence the tones goes from one of laughably and mocking to harsh and biting.  People who thought Bitcoin was "stupid" in 2010 are getting frustrated because it is still around. 

"world-famous-keynesian-assclown-paul-krugman-talks-a-whole-lotta-shit-about-bitcoin" give me a fucking break

http://www.gizmodo.com.au/2012/04/the-bankers-who-destroyed-our-economy-are-now-trading-bitcoin/ (http://www.gizmodo.com.au/2012/04/the-bankers-who-destroyed-our-economy-are-now-trading-bitcoin/) - "The Bankers Who Destroyed Our Economy Are Now Trading Bitcoin"

Yes, but if you notice the comments in each article you'll see that they are much more defensive of Bitcoin in the last article than ever before.  If anyone will change their tone it is their commenters.

Even after that they still defending Apple in so many ways.

As DeathAndTaxes said what they produce depends a lot about the author opinion. That's called trash journalism if you can't keep your opinion out you're a bad journalist.

Please wrap those links with code tags...

I'm not asking, I'm FUCKING DEMANDING IT!
The please is only rethorical...








ok ok, j/k, but you should know why I'm asking...

I assume they are embarrassed that they have been proven wrong and rather than admitting this, they are dubbing down. One need look no further than religious zealots, Obama birthers, UFO researchers, etc., to see this type of self delusion. It is in the nature of the absolutist mindset. This is why the world is changed by those who can be self critical, while the rigid stand by saying "This is not happening!".

I think people who are into computers and tech stuff will feel like they're supposed to have a strong opinion of Bitcoin, but they don't actually (necessarily) understand the social aspects of it. 

They don't know what they are talking about, plain and simple.

There's a point where someone is so monumentally wrong, so ass backwards on every point made, that arguing would serve no purpose. That's where Gizmodo is. They are a tabloid and a joke.

Not necessarily. When the only press is completely devoid of facts, insists that it's a scam, or insists that it's only purpose is child pornography and terrorism, then the next step is an uninformed congressman lobbying to "shut it down." (Which, ironically, would make the lies of the sensational press come true.)

No idea how they would attempt to accomplish such a task (from what I understand, it would be akin to making linux "illegal," probably more difficult). But that wouldn't stop some senator or congressman from using the child pornography/terrorism angle from trying to make a big deal about it (and a name for his or her self) in congress. And then what happens to any attempt to encourage further legitimate adoption?

It would fall under the same stigma that Tor seems to be getting. I run a relay from my PC often, and I had friend over who say Vidalia running on my machine. He looked at me and asked, "what are you doing? looking at kiddie porn or something?" That's the rep it has, at least with some folks. I don't know the very long term goals of the project, but I know that growth is essential to the Bitcoin project. If people recoil, laugh, or assume you're a terrorist when you mention Bitcoin, then we will have a problem.

I have no idea what the power of the SEC would be in this matter, but I'm sure there is some government acronym that has the power to declare all Bitcoin commerce illegal. No legitimate business or non-profit can use bitcoins to transfer funds. Then what? \

I guess all I'm saying is that bad press is bad press, especially when it's fear mongering, bullshit press.

They come in your house and find bitcoin on your computer and arrest you for terrorism and child porn. Then you are in jail.

Well that's good. "Tried and died" is a better position that riding the hype to shut it down. I had known they wanted to shut down some of the markets, but I didn't realize they wanted to "shut down" bitcoin itself.

I'm still worried about the how the bad press will affect wider adoption, though.

I am going to start calling Gizmodo a ponzi developed by the pornography industry to funnel money to Islamic terrorists. And I would know, I'm kind-of computer guy.

ponzi developed by the pornography industry to funnel money to Islamic terrorists (http://gizmodo.com) <--- like this.

Now, wrap those other links in code tags. Or do you guys want that any of those articles to pop up on Google's 1st page when people search for bitcoin?
Giving them backlinks, even without an anchor, from a related site, which bitcointalk.org is, is helping them to rank for the search term "bitcoin" with those articles.

Shutting down is likely impossible but Congress Critters talk it sound bites.

"shutting down" = make it extremely difficult to use and allow the network to atrophy.

They "shut down" Online Poker in the US.  Now you still can play but they have made it so hard that the casual players ($$$$$) have all but dried up greatly reducing the profitability on regulars.  In poker people of equal skill lose money in the long run playing against each other (it all goes to the house slowly).

So have they "shutdown" online poker in the US.  Well technically no.  I still have accounts on a handful of sites.  I can still get money into them by sending $1000 by western union to a random person in vietnam who hand carries it to an affiliate who then drops notifies the poker site who updates my balance. 

Have they "effectively" shutdown online poker in the US ... Yes.

So how could they "effectively shutdown Bitcoin" in the US?
1) Prohibit bank transfers to bitcoin exchanges (including Dwolla).
2) Require ISP to use deep packet inspection and drop Bitcoin packets.
3) Require ISP to report users running Bitcoin and send users a letter about said reporting.
4) Hold larger enterprises responsible for Bitcoin traffic (schools, companies, ISP, webhosting providers)
5) Actively engage in reporting and disruption activities (imagine casual user getting letter from FBI asking them to explain why their IP was relaying terrorist funds)

You forgot a couple:
-A smear campaign to demonize existing Bitcoin users and to discourage further adoption by the general public. Oh wait... Gizmodo!
-Apply internal pressures to divide and demoralise the Bitcoin community, thus killing the "idea" that it might actually work. In other words, things like: trolls on forums, dodgy businesses trying to scam people, suspicious market activity...

In my opinion, any official banning is unlikely without first creating a massive co-ordinated attack, hidden in the legalese of something like the multi-national ACTA. Politicians usually seem to be computer illiterate to an extreme degree, which is why I think non-technical warfare is the more likely course.

Gawker is the reason of price rising in last June ?

Yes, they caused the massive $30 temporary rise.

So i guess they don't hate bitcoin that much.

LOL I dont think their intentions were 'Hey, lets give this awesome thing free PR'

Especially when the title was 'The Underground Website Where You Can Buy Any Drug Imaginable'

http://gawker.com/5899019/sellouts-these-days-are-nerds

Perhaps this new article contains some clues.

I believe this is a very decent reply to the accusations raised by the banking lobby (sometimes referred to as the 4 riders of the infocalipse, protecting the status quo)

Is Gizmodo sponsored by Apple/iTunes ?