Is Gavin "The Financial Crisis Is Over" Andresen correct, compromised, or crazy?

[greBit]

The concept to understand economy has widely changed, you gotta accept that. So much of activity is constantly taking place in various markets draining money and pumping at the same time, guess that's how it all seems to be balanced somehow. The factors to study economy are changing, so to determine if the financial crisis is over is complicated. But honestly, I don't think crisis ever ends, just the markets change.

[1714814291]

1714814291

[1714814291]

1714814291

[samson]

I didn't read all of this thread but he's correct that we are seeing an explosion of bandwidth to the home, it's already underway.

It's going to be like going from 56k dial up straight to 10 Mbps 'broadband' but this time it's for real.

[thezerg]

This is a prefect example of someone pulling casual, quickly written stuff from a public figure and using it to pump their own agenda.  

I mean we all argue about almost everything, but do you seriously think that any Bitcoin early adopter thinks that the overall long term global financial situation is peachy?

If Gavin wanted to waste his time, he'd probably go back and edit this comment to say "since the first chapter of the financial crisis is over..."

Of course, given Greece and China it looks like chapter 2 is just starting...  

[iCEBREAKER]

I'd like to necromance this thread to ask the "economy is fine" people if they have changed their minds, or have yet to wake up and smell the brewing economic crisis.

If you guys don't read zerohedge, now is a good time to start.

All the Gavinistas clamoring for larger blocks are failing to plan for the worst case scenario, in which Gavin's supposed broadband rollout fails to materialize and global interconnectivity fragments in the fog of World War 3 and/or Cold War 2.

[BlindMayorBitcorn]

I'd like to necromance this thread to ask the "economy is fine" people if they have changed their minds, or have yet to wake up and smell the brewing economic crisis.

If you guys don't read zerohedge, now is a good time to start.

All the Gavinistas clamoring for larger blocks are failing to plan for the worst case scenario, in which Gavin's supposed broadband rollout fails to materialize and global interconnectivity fragments in the fog of World War 3 and/or Cold War 2.

So drole.

[rocks]

I have become convinced that iCEBREAKER and tvbcof are shell accounts for either Maxwell or Adam Back.

They both appeared out of nowhere in mid 2014 when blockstream started pushing LN and side chains, and they both have been on a complete, nonstop and full time smear campaign.

You guys are just pathetic

[dropt]

I have become convinced that iCEBREAKER and tvbcof are shell accounts for either Maxwell or Adam Back.

They both appeared out of nowhere in mid 2014 when blockstream started pushing LN and side chains, and they both have been on a complete, nonstop and full time smear campaign.

We know for a fact that iCEBREAKER is just a disappointment of a human being, not a shill for Greg or Adam.

If you're so inclined you can dig through the Hashfast thread and find out his real name.  IIRC there is also a picture of him from his time as a representative of HF.

I can't say the same for tvbconf.

You guys are just pathetic

Truer words have never been spoken.

[iCEBREAKER]

I have become convinced that iCEBREAKER and tvbcof are shell accounts for either Maxwell or Adam Back.

They both appeared out of nowhere in mid 2014 when blockstream started pushing LN and side chains, and they both have been on a complete, nonstop and full time smear campaign.

You guys are just pathetic

I'm almost embarrassed by modesty that you consider my humble posts on par with genuine geniuses like Maxwell and Back.   

Flattery aside, do you have any input on the topic of the thread, or are you just here to troll and deflect via personal attacks?

BTW, I've been here since mid-2011.  But I don't expect a noob like you to know that.   

And weren't you going to fork off (Because Sensor Ships) to greener lolcow pastures like Frap.doc's and BTC Judas's malcontent venues?

So much for your demonstration of the supposed Gavinista socioeconomic majority's ability to deprecate Evil Thermos's Hitlerforum!   

[BlindMayorBitcorn]

iCE/AssDrill = Cypher/HashFast.
These relationships differed only in detail -- Cipher got rich & iCEBREAKER got raped. Savagely

Mr. iCEblow is a professional corporate consultant employed on contract by Blockstream^TM. We pay him in Moneros.  

[tvbcof]

I have become convinced that iCEBREAKER and tvbcof are shell accounts for either Maxwell or Adam Back.

I can only wish that I had the skills and accomplishments that either of these two have in their little finger.

They both appeared out of nowhere in mid 2014 when blockstream started pushing LN and side chains, and they both have been on a complete, nonstop and full time smear campaign.

Really?  So you think that I spent the time to create all of my posts going back to 2011 and Thermos gave me access to insert the body of work into the database?  OK.

BTW, I remember being so worried about Hearn achieving his long-term dream of killing Bitcoin through unlimited growth that I thought up some way to deal with the threat and bought a domain name in...whois...04/2013.  One of my first posts on this board back in 2011 proposed subordinate chains as a the most tangible and workable solution to the obvious scaling issues.

You guys are just pathetic

Oh that hurts.  I think I might start to cry.

The funny thing is that you and your apparent clone 'smooth' showed up in a timeframe when a lot of likely shills did pushing for Hearndresen style growth which is certain to push Bitcoin fully into corporate datacenter hands.  And maybe even shilling for the new protocol implementation 'btcd' if I remember right (and I may not but it's not important enough for me to look back.)

The good news is that there do seem to be some people who started out chumped by you folk's propaganda but wised up when your true colors came to the fore.  CIYAM and lauda-whatever come to mind.

[BlindMayorBitcorn]

BTW, I remember being so worried about Hearn achieving his long-term dream of killing Bitcoin through unlimited growth that I thought up some way to deal with the threat and bought a domain name in...whois...04/2013.  One of my first posts on this board back in 2011 proposed subordinate chains as a the most tangible and workable solution to the obvious scaling issues.

This is what makes the Blockstream conflict of interest situation so interesting. Everyone involved legitimately believed this was a good idea long before they had a corporate bias and a logo.

[tvbcof]

BTW, I remember being so worried about Hearn achieving his long-term dream of killing Bitcoin through unlimited growth that I thought up some way to deal with the threat and bought a domain name in...whois...04/2013.  One of my first posts on this board back in 2011 proposed subordinate chains as a the most tangible and workable solution to the obvious scaling issues.

This is what makes the Blockstream conflict of interest situation so interesting. Everyone involved legitimately believed this was a good idea long before they had a corporate bias and a logo.

I'm at least as sensitive as most people to organizational structures.  When I heard of Blockstream organized under a corporate structure I had to put a little thought into how I felt about it.  After doing so, I concluded that it probably would be the most workable and effective way to achieve a result.

When I heard about Blockstream and their focus,  and especially to who the participants were,  I was overcome with delight.  I would not give a shit if it were organized under any structure as long as there was good transparency.  When Linked-in was a new thing I was somewhat negative about it due to the potential for abuse.  Social media generally was in a much less well developed state but the threats were obvious and troubling.  Having the participation of whats-his-name Linked-in guy was a mild pinkish flag to me, but I will always be watching them with a wary eye no matter what.  I cannot say that I am keenly aware of any gross negligence on the part of Linked-in observed over the last decade and a half.

For historical reference, I put the same level of thought into the Bitcoin Foundation when it was under consideration.  I concluded that the risks were greater than the potential rewards (and said so.)  I made a point of calling transparency into the picture and that is one of the areas where TBF failed miserably in actual practice.

Back to Blockstream and it's corporate structure, I would note that it might have some potential benefits.  Under TPP (and surely the upcoming TAP) corporate structures have access to adjudication in international cases and Bitcoin is certainly international.  Of course the judicial tribunals report under the U.N. security council so it is unlikely that a monetary solution which competes with whatever the bankster class favors will get much of a fair shake, but a corporate structure might provide some relief from certain kinds of action-packed nation-state abuse (of the type which Kim Dotcom got bothered by.)

[BlindMayorBitcorn]

BTW, I remember being so worried about Hearn achieving his long-term dream of killing Bitcoin through unlimited growth that I thought up some way to deal with the threat and bought a domain name in...whois...04/2013.  One of my first posts on this board back in 2011 proposed subordinate chains as a the most tangible and workable solution to the obvious scaling issues.

This is what makes the Blockstream conflict of interest situation so interesting. Everyone involved legitimately believed this was a good idea long before they had a corporate bias and a logo.

I'm at least as sensitive as most people to organizational structures.  When I heard of Blockstream organized under a corporate structure I had to put a little thought into how I felt about it.  After doing so, I concluded that it probably would be the most workable and effective way to achieve a result.

When I heard about Blockstream and their focus,  and especially to who the participants were,  I was overcome with delight.  I would not give a shit if it were organized under any structure as long as there was good transparency.  When Linked-in was a new thing I was somewhat negative about it due to the potential for abuse.  Social media generally was in a much less well developed state but the threats were obvious and troubling.  Having the participation of whats-his-name Linked-in guy was a mild pinkish flag to me, but I will always be watching them with a wary eye no matter what.  I cannot say that I am keenly aware of any gross negligence on the part of Linked-in observed over the last decade and a half.

For historical reference, I put the same level of thought into the Bitcoin Foundation when it was under consideration.  I concluded that the risks were greater than the potential rewards (and said so.)  I made a point of calling transparency into the picture and that is one of the areas where TBF failed miserably in actual practice.

Back to Blockstream and it's corporate structure, I would note that it might have some potential benefits.  Under TPP (and surely the upcoming TAP) corporate structures have access to adjudication in international cases and Bitcoin is certainly international.  Of course the judicial tribunals report under the U.N. security council so it is unlikely that a monetary solution which competes with whatever the bankster class favors will get much of a fair shake, but a corporate structure might provide some relief from certain kinds of action-packed nation-state abuse (of the type which Kim Dotcom got bothered by.)

I can tell you've put some serious thought into this. But I couldn't disagree more with the spirit of what I've bolded. It sounds like something that upside-down Ripple guy would have said. It's a horrible thing to say about Bitcoin.

Just horrible. 

[iCEBREAKER]

When I heard about Blockstream and their focus,  and especially to who the participants were,  I was overcome with delight.  I would not give a shit if it were organized under any structure as long as there was good transparency

Agree with the above entirely.

But I don't think rocks is smooth.  rocks's IQ (and frothy, intemperate personality) seems at least two standard deviations below wise, phlegmatic smooth's.

[tvbcof]

...

Back to Blockstream and it's corporate structure, I would note that it might have some potential benefits.  Under TPP (and surely the upcoming TAP) corporate structures have access to adjudication in international cases and Bitcoin is certainly international.  Of course the judicial tribunals report under the U.N. security council so it is unlikely that a monetary solution which competes with whatever the bankster class favors will get much of a fair shake, but a corporate structure might provide some relief from certain kinds of action-packed nation-state abuse (of the type which Kim Dotcom got bothered by.)

I can tell you've put some serious thought into this. But I couldn't disagree more with the spirit of what I've bolded. It sounds like something that upside-down Ripple guy would have said. It's a horrible thing to say about Bitcoin.

Just horrible. 

I'm genuinely interested in your 'just horrible' interpretation if you care to elaborate.

From probably back in my early time on this board I'd advocated for simply having as little interaction as possible with any official governing body.  I think that was part of my argument against TBF...they had the potential to become a point of attack, and boy was that prescient (IMHO.)

I did not use the term 'ignore' since I've felt from day one that keeping a close eye on the attack modes possible from governments was critical.  And, of course, a development focus on not allowing the system to fall into traps which they could set.  I don't even mind cooperating with government bodies when it makes sense and does not pose a threat since governments do plenty of OK things, but always with a very wary eye toward attacks which I've felt are certain to come eventually (assuming Bitcoin didn't self-destruct on it's own.)

From day one (of mine) I've felt that Gavin wished to bend over backward to mollify TPTB and hope that they were nice to us as a result.  This has always struck me as complete folly.  This is the basis for my repeated assertions that Gavin is (at least) a foolish and nieve guy who to his core 'loves big brother.'  At this point I think there is an argument to be made that he is likely worse than that, or has at least evolved to such a state.

No matter what I've always considered it simple common sense and good strategy to understand the enemy and at least set up to leverage his weaknesses if it comes to hot warfare that cannot be avoided.  It's good engineering as well.  If that means organizing under a particular structure which has some meaning in the real world, that is fine with me.  I live in the real world and don't ask anyone else to do otherwise.

[BlindMayorBitcorn]

...

Back to Blockstream and it's corporate structure, I would note that it might have some potential benefits.  Under TPP (and surely the upcoming TAP) corporate structures have access to adjudication in international cases and Bitcoin is certainly international.  Of course the judicial tribunals report under the U.N. security council so it is unlikely that a monetary solution which competes with whatever the bankster class favors will get much of a fair shake, but a corporate structure might provide some relief from certain kinds of action-packed nation-state abuse (of the type which Kim Dotcom got bothered by.)

I can tell you've put some serious thought into this. But I couldn't disagree more with the spirit of what I've bolded. It sounds like something that upside-down Ripple guy would have said. It's a horrible thing to say about Bitcoin.

Just horrible.  

I'm genuinely interested in your 'just horrible' interpretation if you care to elaborate.

From probably back in my early time on this board I'd advocated for simply having as little interaction as possible with any official governing body.  I think that was part of my argument against TBF...they had the potential to become a point of attack, and boy was that prescient (IMHO.)

I did not use the term 'ignore' since I've felt from day one that keeping a close eye on the attack modes possible from governments was critical.  And, of course, a development focus on not allowing the system to fall into traps which they could set.  I don't even mind cooperating with government bodies when it makes sense and does not pose a threat since governments do plenty of OK things, but always with a very wary eye toward attacks which I've felt are certain to come eventually (assuming Bitcoin didn't self-destruct on it's own.)

From day one (of mine) I've felt that Gavin wished to bend over backward to mollify TPTB and hope that they were nice to us as a result.  This has always struck me as complete folly.  This is the basis for my repeated assertions that Gavin is (at least) a foolish and nieve guy who to his core 'loves big brother.'  At this point I think there is an argument to be made that he is likely worse than that, or has at least evolved to such a state.

No matter what I've always considered it simple common sense and good strategy to understand the enemy and at least set up to leverage his weaknesses if it comes to hot warfare that cannot be avoided.  It's good engineering as well.  If that means organizing under a particular structure which has some meaning in the real world, that is fine with me.  I live in the real world and don't ask anyone else to do otherwise.

You don't mind cooperating with government bodies when it makes sense to do so, but you accuse Gavin of being prepared to bend over backwards for them? How exactly? By giving the CIA a pittance because they asked nicely? By working at MIT instead of a for-profit Bitcoin^TM company?

[iCEBREAKER]

Fantasy: "The Financial Crisis Is Over"

Reality: http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2016-01-07/china-leaves-yuan-little-changed-after-folding-circuit-breaker-rules-offshore-yuan-u





#R3KT

[BlindMayorBitcorn]

Fantasy: "The Financial Crisis Is Over"

Reality: http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2016-01-07/china-leaves-yuan-little-changed-after-folding-circuit-breaker-rules-offshore-yuan-u





#R3KT

Is that like a spasm?

[tvbcof]

...
You don't mind cooperating with government bodies when it makes sense to do so, but you accuse Gavin of being prepared to bend over backwards for them? How exactly? By giving the CIA a pittance because they asked nicely? By working at MIT instead of a for-profit Bitcoin^TM company?

Hmmm...OK, here's a quick-n-dirty example of working with a govt.  Suppose I have a server and an analysis technique which can do some blockchain analysis.  Suppose the FBI comes and asks me nice if I could grind some data to help them find tradefortress so they could crush his balls.  I'd be happy to help.

WRT Gavin, he's been the highest salaried contributor to Bitcoin (through TBF) for some time as best I can tell (though it's hardly something I've looked into a whole bunch...and many of the contributors probably have done much better on their hodlings than on salary anyway.)  I never pitched a bitch about Hearn and Wuille being at Google, or Garzik being at BitPay.  In fact, I think it is a lot of times more healthy for a person to draw a decent salary so they are not as prone to pay the bills by cooperating with covert interests.  OTOH, everyone who is slipping code into Bitcoin should be watched like a hawk and called out when there is any potential for conflict of interest or other red-flags no mater who, if anyone, they work for.  I myself have worked for large entities and not felt that it impacted negatively my other interests so I believe that it can happen.  Garzik's work with BitPay is a huge potential red-flag since they seem to have bet on the wrong horse vis-a-vis scaling but I've not seen it really impact his work until perhaps recently (but probably not even then.)

(I was disappointed when Wuille went to Google and delighted when he left BTW.  I considered him to be the most critical contributor and something of a 'principle architect' before he went to Google and feared that his work on Bitcoin would be retarded at best and compromised at worst.  I never saw a real indication of either issue which made me breath a sigh of relief.)

[BlindMayorBitcorn]

...
You don't mind cooperating with government bodies when it makes sense to do so, but you accuse Gavin of being prepared to bend over backwards for them? How exactly? By giving the CIA a pittance because they asked nicely? By working at MIT instead of a for-profit Bitcoin^TM company?

Hmmm...OK, here's a quick-n-dirty example of working with a govt.  Suppose I have a server and an analysis technique which can do some blockchain analysis.  Suppose the FBI comes and asks me nice if I could grind some data to help them find tradefortress so they could crush his balls.  I'd be happy to help.

WRT Gavin, he's been the highest salaried contributor to Bitcoin (through TBF) for some time as best I can tell (though it's hardly something I've looked into a whole bunch...and many of the contributors probably have done much better on their hodlings than on salary anyway.)  I never pitched a bitch about Hearn and Wuille being at Google, or Garzik being at BitPay.  In fact, I think it is a lot of times more healthy for a person to draw a decent salary so they are not as prone to pay the bills by cooperating with covert interests.  OTOH, everyone who is slipping code into Bitcoin should be watched like a hawk and called out when there is any potential for conflict of interest or other red-flags no mater who, if anyone, they work for.  I myself have worked for large entities and not felt that it impacted negatively my other interests so I believe that it can happen.  Garzik's work with BitPay is a huge potential red-flag since they seem to have bet on the wrong horse vis-a-vis scaling but I've not seen it really impact his work until perhaps recently (but probably not even then.)

(I was disappointed when Wuille went to Google and delighted when he left BTW.  I considered him to be the most critical contributor and something of a 'principle architect' before he went to Google and feared that his work on Bitcoin would be retarded at best and compromised at worst.  I never saw a real indication of either issue which made me breath a sigh of relief.)

I guess I can get behind most of this. There really is no unbiased position here. To be continued...