It's time to investigate a resource based economy.

Latest episode of Security Now has some discussion of this towards the end.
www.twit.tv/sn

Time to investigate a resource based economy!

Scarcity doesn't drive up price, does it?

Are we expected to reach a new all time high for 4/20?

Not really. Price has no physical referent, and is not "wrapped in knowledge" but often manipulated and distorted due to twisted cultural and social values. We should implement technical measurements and solutions to technical and physical problems, not rely on false authority and political will.

Reminds me of that old computer game Lemmings.

250

I think the price should stabilize at 256. For binary logic purposes, of course.

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=168651.0

Perhaps we can help point out these flaws and biases as a community?

Maybe we should somehow hold them accountable or at least point out their flaws...

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=168651.0

If we want the community to be larger and better informed, then caring might help.

http://arstechnica.com/business/2013/04/austin-just-might-be-the-next-google-fiber-city-coy-announcement-suggests/

So close...yet so far away...

In a future resource based economy, there will be no need for meaningless token exchange to gain access to the necessities of life.

While I agree with you, they still have some credibility with their audience, and that is something that we might be able to put a dent in, on this particular subject anyway.

My proposal is per article/media piece. It would be unhelpful to judge a large organization entirely on one piece of work. And we can keep track of the list of grades any particular outlet has to point out their record overall. Also, this shouldn't really be about popularity or polling, but a technical and journalistic evaluation of the piece. Unfortunately, that does take time, effort and research, all of which are precious and valuable, and it would be good to have people dedicated to that process. That's why ultimately I thought the foundation would be interested. And again, this is just something I'm proposing. I'm not qualified or even have the time to do this work myself. Thanks for your question and your support! If you and others can make something like this happen, I think it would be awesome!

I've suggested this to the The Bitcoin Foundation, but I think it might be an overwhelming task for them to do on their own, so I wanted to tell the community about it. For too long, we, the bitcoin community, have suffered at the hands of an ill informed, uninterested, dispassionate and sometimes outright malicious media scrutinization. In particular, the underlying technical mechanisms, implementation details, overall architecture, differentiation between bitcoin and attendant services, as well as the major implications, both small and enormous, either elude the journalists who choose to write about it, or are deeply misunderstood or worse blatantly lied about. And while the media is not entirely filled with members fitting all of those negative attributes I listed earlier, and in fact there are many excellent journalists who are active participants here, the one thing they are all generally is unaccountable. We should probably look into changing that.

I propose a grading system, to be applied to major bitcoin media articles and other pieces, such that we the community and with time, the The Bitcoin Foundation, can publish and maintain to give meaningful feedback about those things which the media has gotten wrong (or even note it when they get it right). For too long, the fourth estate has gotten away with the worst misinformation, slander and libel about every subject in history, and this has served humanity very poorly. If we are to use bitcoin to benefit society, let's start with helping those who have the highest responsibility, informing the public.

Now I recognize that no amount of bad reporting could ever really fundamentally harm or damage the bitcoin network. I've never seen a CPU cry about a bad review or a piece of software sulk about poor mischaracterization. But this is not about defending the honor of or eliminating fud about the bitcoin software itself, or even the people participating in its community. It is about helping the uninformed public have a better understanding about the possibilities enabled by this project, and the very real and technical reasons why those possibilities exist. And while the media may continue to be unresponsive and unaccountable, we can at least construct an edifice of correction and education, a mirror that shows them for what they really are. And I suspect that the better of their number will appreciate and accept the help.

In general, I recommend a systematic grading system rooted in technical fluency and articulation. Broadly speaking, if the article mentions a technical fact or detail and attempts to explain it, it should be subject to technical scrutiny and correction. If they conflate the bitcoin project with a third party service, such conflation must be pointed out and explained. If there is a statement of fact that is demonstrably false, then it should be noted and examples or explanations provided.

One thing we should avoid doing is grading the piece on those details or mechanics that it does not mention or discuss. It would be unfair to assess information not provided. Of course, if the point of the article is to explain bitcoin, and major important points are not discussed, then this would be something to bring up. But most jounalism is not interested in the technical fundamentals, and will likely not dive too deep into them.

The grading levels would be what you expect. While I personally detest the current educational system's gamification of the education process, it is general knowledge to the western world what these grades mean, at least loosely.

A - Representing an accurate portrayal of bitcoin mechanics, clear distinction between the bitcoin software, network and associated third party services, understanding of the implications of the emergent bitcoin economy, recognizing that while it may be used for some unappealing purposes, so is every currency and generally refrain from editorializing on how its value may increase or decrease in a specific time frame. Most importantly, it should not advocate investing in the system, or at least provide sufficient warning that bitcoin is an experiment and is not guaranteed to be valuable at any particular point in time. (We must be honest with ourselves here.)

B - Representing a largely accurate portrayal and explanation of bitcoin. There may be misuse of technical terms, or some incorrect descriptions of how certain processes take place. No specific differentiation between bitcoin and other services, but no direct conflation. Statements about hacks, ddos events or thefts must indicate specific events and clearly articulate that they did not effect the entirety of the bitcoin network. Any statements about the price of bitcoin should come with the explicit date, and should avoid loaded terms such as crash or bubble.

C - Representing a good faith effort to describe bitcoin mechanics. Suffers from flawed understanding and explanation of technical details and processes. Directly conflates bitcoin with other services. Represents hacks and attacks on bitcoin services as attacks on bitcoin itself. Makes misguided or uninformed value judgments as to the ethical and legal implications of cryptocurrencies in general or bitcoin specifically. Is clearly enthusiastic about either encouraging or discouraging investment/adoption of bitcoin without clearly indicating the risks or rewards for doing so.

F - Representing a severely flawed or complete misrepresentation of bitcoin software and its community. Asserts completely inaccurate statements of fact that are anathema to the way bitcoin operates (either positively or negatively). Is outright dismissive, hostile, malicious or otherwise expresses nothing but opinion in the guise of explanation or information. Obviously, editorializing is not subject to objective evaluation, but statements of fact that are clearly meant to spread fear, uncertainty and doubt are subject to correction.

This is just a general proposal with the most basic outline. And it should go without saying that this should be criteria in addition to the basic tenets of actual journalism. (If the author has a stake in bitcoin, it should be noted, etc.) I realize that this is not a very useful or actionable basis for the real technical and journalistic evaluation that can and should be done on the many articles coming out. And more importantly, there are many people who are tirelessly defending bitcoin in the comments and feedback of articles everywhere. But for every 1 well informed and helpful voice, there are hundreds of ill informed individuals that will only rely on the information provided to them by the media. With an organized effort and the resources of the The Bitcoin Foundation, we can start to adjust that ratio in the right direction. Thank you for your time and attention.

www.Bit.ly/interscan

This is only the beginning.

Why are you mining on port 80?

Of course, the day after I leave Austin...