[COMMUNITY] Taaki, never tell anyone you are involved with Bitcoin ever again.

[MPOE-PR]

Here's a transcript of genjix's most recent idiocy.

You Intersangro/Bitcoin Consultancy/Bitcoinica people are pretty fucking stupid, we all know that. Between that nefariously idiotic McCarthy who needs no further introduction and Strateman aka phantomcircuit, who's the guy who emailed the entire Intersangro userbase the list of everyone's emails, cause "he can code," it looks pretty grim.

But this fuckwit Taaki takes the absolute cake. Read that goddamned thing, read what he says, read what the people ask, what he answers.

So here's the facts: Bitcoin is a great thing that has attracted a number of indescribable shitheads early on. It is upon us as a community to cut them loose. The trio should be under interdict, and everyone should stick to that interdict. Not "never do business with them" but simply never talk to them other than to remind them that they are too stupid to live and if they're unwilling to do the world a service and kill themselves they should at the very least do Bitcoin a service and never mention that word again.

Fuck.

[kakobrekla]

Fuck.

Yeah. 

[Zeeks]

That is embarrassing to read. If this was someone's first exposure to Bitcoin I wouldn't expect them to give it a second thought...

[MPOE-PR]

That is embarrassing to read. If this was someone's first exposure to Bitcoin I wouldn't expect them to give it a second thought...

Exactly. Precisely. Fucking hell.

[Akka]

Do you mean these?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I-DVOYyx_6U

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iFWPOxSfxgc&feature=plcp

I mean he tries, but you can really see that he is awfully nervous and doesn't feel comfortable in this environment. Just look at his body language in the second video and compare it to the guy right next to him.

He has good intentions and he tries but he really screws up.

We desperately need people to do such events that actually enjoy speaking and are able to explain bitcoin from a business perspective and not the techy way.

Bitcoin is so superior to all the alternatives, it really hurts seeing it presented in this way.

[casascius]

The fact that the transcript is punctuated with "yeah", "um", and "like", and expresses the need to point out he "mispelled" (sic) my name in a Google search doesn't reflect well on the transcriber.  If he is allegedly an idiot, it would have to be because of the message, and not because he says "um" a lot.  I haven't read the transcript all the way through, but am bothered by the fact that I am seemingly being asked to judge him on his ability to articulate sentences in public, something that isn't a prerequisite for being who he is.

[MPOE-PR]

The fact that the transcript is punctuated with "yeah", "um", and "like", and expresses the need to point out he "mispelled" (sic) my name in a Google search doesn't reflect well on the transcriber.  If he is allegedly an idiot, it would have to be because of the message, and not because he says "um" a lot.  I haven't read the transcript all the way through, but am bothered by the fact that I am seemingly being asked to judge him on his ability to articulate sentences in public, something that isn't a prerequisite for being who he is.

A transcript is a transcript, not a translation. Good catch on the misspelling tho, thanks.

It'd seem an ability to speak in public is both incompatible with umuh and a prerequisite for speaking in public. Not that the problems with Taaki are at all formal. It's the content that's the main problem.

In fairness, I can't spell your name either, Mr. P can't, your name is just too much to spell.

[Killdozer]

What was the event he was speaking on? Why were they interviewing him and not some representative from, say, Bitcoin Foundation, which, to my understanding, was built precisely to handle this kind of thing?

[DeathAndTaxes]

The fact that the transcript is punctuated with "yeah", "um", and "like", and expresses the need to point out he "mispelled" (sic) my name in a Google search doesn't reflect well on the transcriber.  If he is allegedly an idiot, it would have to be because of the message, and not because he says "um" a lot.  I haven't read the transcript all the way through, but am bothered by the fact that I am seemingly being asked him to judge him on his ability to articulate sentences in public, something that isn't a prerequisite for being who he is.

I can overlook the ums, yeahs, and likes.  I do it all the time, so do most people without really good public speaking skills. 

However what is painful is things like:

1) using the word "we".  "we are not a flashy startup".  He can't speak for Bitcoin.  It would be like someone giving a presentation on the internet and using "we" as if they own, control, and operate the internet. 

2) "I think".  As in "I think the banks will fail".  Irrelivent.  If the person in the audience disagrees with that statement they have just been tuned out.

3) Blantantly false or exagurated claims.  "apparently I can buy almost anything in Finland".  What is worse is the word apparently is a weasel word.  It leads the audience to doubt the claim almost as soon as it is said.  In this case they would be right.  Someone midly interested does their own research finds out it is false and then they dismiss the entire presentation.  Its bad.  In presenting unless you know a statement, claim, or fact is 100% guaranteed accurate don't say it.

4) Insisting there are no fees.  Hey Taaki what are these http://blockchain.info/charts/transaction-fees?  Also hint hint the subsidy is a form of hidden fee.  When 1% more coins are minted all existing coins have their value reduced by 1%.  Granted the demand is growing faster than the minting rate and thus price rises but Bitcoin HAS FEES.    Honestly the claim "no fees" is not only wrong it is counterproductive.  First it makes Bitcoin seem even more implausible.  If there are no fees then who/what pays for the network?  Is it a bunch of socialists who believe in "the common good" and expend energy, labor, and capital to give a superior product for free.   Saying "no fees" is just stupid.  THERE ARE FEES.  Say "lower fees than any other payment processing system", "very small fees", "some transactions may pay a small fee, we are talking less than a penny folks, and many transactions are free".

5) Not answering the question asked.  Not sure what was going on here but surprisingly the audience had some good questions.  Questions completely ignored in some cases.   If you don't know say ... I don't know.  Simply talking about something else as an answer makes it seem like there is something to hide.


For the record I am not saying I am an amazing public speaker but anyone representing Bitcoin at a confrence, presentation, or in the media please
1) Leave your rhetoric at home
2) Get your facts rights
3) If it is a planned event write down your talking points and have the community critique them BEFORE you come off as an ass.
4) If you really want to help Bitcoin (and not just your own ego) take a public speaking class
5) (and this is something I do personally for meetings) try to anticipate the likely questions and have answers.  It will help you stay on script and seem more knowledgeable.
6) PLEASE be sure to emphasis Bitcoin is an open source project.  Be sure the audience understands that you are just one person working on (bitcoin related ventures, improving source code, doing academic research, launching a startup, etc).  If will help to perform damage control if you total FAIL HARD.  "Well that guy was a flake but Bitcoin does sound interesting".

[casascius]

A transcript is a transcript, not a translation. Good catch on the misspelling tho, thanks.

It'd seem an ability to speak in public is both incompatible with umuh and a prerequisite for speaking in public. Not that the problems with Taaki are at all formal. It's the content that's the main problem.

A transcript can leave out utterances like "um" and "like", the same way it leaves out each time he inhaled between sentences.  No one is going to complain it's a bad transcript because it left out the "ums".  Unless perhaps it's a 911 call of a murder in progress, where every breath and sigh means something.

The content is so obscured by the um's.  If the point is to criticize the message and not the speaking skills, don't make it so hard to read.  If he spoke quietly or the mike wasn't turned up, you wouldn't put the transcript in a shade of grey barely darker than the background, so don't do the same with utterances if that's not the main conclusion you want me to take away.  If Satoshi outed himself and said um every other word, and sounded like puberty trapped in an adult body, that wouldn't disqualify him to have invented Bitcoin, and you would listen to him, ums or not.  Rendering a transcript full of ums is just as much a failure to communicate as not being able to speak clearly.

[casascius]

I can overlook the ums, yeahs, and likes.  I do it all the time, so do most people without really good public speaking skills.  

The points you have made would make sense in support of an argument that he shouldn't be the first-in-line candidate for being a keynote speaker at the next conference, but not that he is an idiot who should "never tell anyone" he is involved with Bitcoin "ever again", the proposition put forth by the OP.  It seems quite a large leap.

[chriswilmer]

A transcript is a transcript, not a translation. Good catch on the misspelling tho, thanks.

It'd seem an ability to speak in public is both incompatible with umuh and a prerequisite for speaking in public. Not that the problems with Taaki are at all formal. It's the content that's the main problem.

A transcript can leave out utterances like "um" and "like", the same way it leaves out each time he inhaled between sentences.  No one is going to complain it's a bad transcript because it left out the "ums".  Unless perhaps it's a 911 call of a murder in progress, where every breath and sigh means something.

The content is so obscured by the um's.  If the point is to criticize the message and not the speaking skills, don't make it so hard to read.  If he spoke quietly or the mike wasn't turned up, you wouldn't put the transcript in a shade of grey barely darker than the background, so don't do the same with utterances if that's not the main conclusion you want me to take away.  If Satoshi outed himself and said um every other word, and sounded like puberty trapped in an adult body, that wouldn't disqualify him to have invented Bitcoin, and you would listen to him, ums or not.  Rendering a transcript full of ums is just as much a failure to communicate as not being able to speak clearly.

I agree with this. The inclusion of "ums" in the transcript makes me think the transcription was done in anger (which sounds like a real possibility).

[MPOE-PR]

In presenting unless you know a statement, claim, or fact is 100% guaranteed accurate don't say it.

Especially if the topic is Bitcoin, literally busting at the seams with 100% accurate facts and statements that need to be made to as wide an audience as possible as often as practicable.

Honestly the claim "no fees" is not only wrong it is counterproductive.

Very much so.

The content is so obscured by the um's.

This is a legitimate problem. I fail to see why you act as if the transcriber put those there. They did not, they were there. Which is part of the problem, just not the largest part.

If the point is to criticize the message and not the speaking skills, don't make it so hard to read.

The point is not to criticize. Criticism implies the possibility of redemption. There is no possibility of redemption involved here at all. Amir Taaki is a waste of space.

The point is to show the reasons this is so. Part of that reason: the ums. They are not the largest part, but they are nevertheless a part. The dichotomy you introduce is spurious.

If Satoshi outed himself and said um every other word, that wouldn't disqualify him to have invented Bitcoin

This is also spurious. Satoshi actually did something. However, if Satoshi outed himself and then proceeded to give a talk on that level I would propose he never gives another talk on Bitcoin ever again. As an illuminating example, Ted Bundy, while arguably the most accomplished criminal of all time was not the most competent defense attorney in history. In fact, he sucked at talking about his murders even if he was the one that did them.

At any rate, I'm sorry the transcript wasn't made to satisfy your own personal requirements. On the continuum between accuracy and convenience some people prefer accuracy. You're perfectly free to favor convenience, go right ahead.

[MPOE-PR]

I agree with this. The inclusion of "ums" in the transcript makes me think the transcription was done in anger (which sounds like a real possibility).

A transcription done in anger, cute. The reason Taaki is an idiot is because accurate transcripts of his idiocy are done in anger.

That transcription can only be done in disgust. You probably don't know this, as you probably never actually did a transcription, but it takes time. It's tedious and in general not the sort of activity that lends itself well to angry people.

[casascius]

Honestly the claim "no fees" is not only wrong it is counterproductive.

Very much so.

But not to the point that someone becomes a "waste of space".  When I earn a "FREE FLIGHT" for spending my miles on the airlines, I still have to give a credit card number to pay the "September 11th fee", which certainly isn't "free", but I'm able to stay civil about it.  The Bitcoin transaction fee is at this point unnecessary, easily avoidable, I haven't paid one in months and probably haven't paid $1 USD worth of fees in my whole Bitcoin "lifetime", and is essentially free.  This would be like calling someone a waste of space because they say that pi is 3.14, when we all really know it's (fill in the blank here ad infinitum).  Says much more about the caller than the callee.

This is a legitimate problem. I fail to see why you act as if the transcriber put those there. They did not, they were there. Which is part of the problem, just not the largest part.

Honestly, if you have no idea why leaving them out is appropriate, then no amount of explaining will help.  You should leave them in.  It helps a reader put your criticism in its proper perspective.

[MPOE-PR]

I haven't paid one in months and probably haven't paid $1 USD worth of fees in my whole Bitcoin "lifetime", and is essentially free.

Well done.

The transcript cost more than the entire total you've paid in Bitcoin fees so far. I guess this inadvertently also puts things in perspective.

[Sukrim]

I would narrow the statement down to "don't let him talk in public/in front of a big audience about bitcoin until he has more experience in that".

Public speaking skills are something you're rarely born with and depending on personality don't come easily. I bet though that any student will agree with me that when put under pressure you come up with stupid stuff that you wouldn't believe afterwards that you were capable of saying. As far as I've seen, Genjix/Amir has write quite a bit of code of Bitcoin clients, so he probably has some more insights into the system than the audience. Not being able to communicate that is bad, but not as bad as you make it look.

Could you please record a video of you explaining Bitcoin (or MPEX?) to a big crowd? TedX Events are also big in Romania and I bet they would love to hear about alternative currencies or even a romanian stock exchange based on internet funny money!

[auzaar]

What was the event he was speaking on? Why were they interviewing him and not some representative from, say, Bitcoin Foundation, which, to my understanding, was built precisely to handle this kind of thing?

holy shit, representative of bitcoins?, now you will censor people speaking about a open source project by some anonymous person of which you seem to be only legitimate owner?

[hazek]

I think this part of a really amazing TED talk is really fitting for this thread: http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=chXsLtHqfdM#t=841s

"The truth about entrepreneurship: You have to be able to do three things beautifully, make it optimally, sell it optimally, handle your finances optimally and no single human being can do all three optimally."

Taaki simply can't sell it and he shouldn't try doing what he can't do. (Well he can't make anything or handle finances either, but's another story..  )

[acoindr]

O M F G!

That first video was fantastic! LMFAO

About half way through Amir's presentation his phone goes off... and he answers it. Cue the room to erupt in laughter.

This is why I love the Internet and this time in history. You get so much raw, unfilitered... life.

Really, this is no big deal. Sure, he is obviously not a great public speaker and he doesn't seem to have great ability to explain things effectively, but you can't deny he has passion. Give me someone like that any day.