Promotion: National Radio Show Interview about Bitcoin

[MoonShadow]

Well done Bruce,

you were quite intimidated at the beginning, but once the dialogue was instaured, it was actually a very pleasant conversation to hear.

Great promotion for the network,

PS.  It's too bad bitcoin.org was not more mentionned, though.

He didn't seem intimidated to me, perhaps nervous.

[1715459881]

1715459881

[1715459881]

1715459881

[1715459881]

1715459881

[1715459881]

1715459881

[FatherMcGruder]

Bruce, kudos for getting on the air to explain Bitcoin. Unfortunately, I found your introduction a bit excruciating and had to turn it off. You didn't have to go into Linux, Sourceforge, or bittorrent because the host didn't ask. A simple question, "what is Bitcoin", doesn't require any background unless your listener specifically asks for it. You surprised me because BitcoinMe.com, which I presume belongs to you, explains the currency relatively concisely.

I don't want to make you feel bad. Rather, I hope that we can all learn a lesson from your experience. When you tell people what Bitcoin is, tell them that it's simply a new, digital currency with advantages over other types of payment. Your listeners' will obviously have questions, but that allows for a nice, interesting conversation. If you just talk, then it turns into either a sales pitch or a lecture and most listeners, or at least the ones that matter, will just drop out.

[inertia]

Wow.  Very impressed.  A lot of great stuff.  I sent a donation.  I hope you turned on e-mail notifications for his mybitcoin accout. 

[Bruce Wagner]

Here is the un-shortened URL for the MP3 file. 

Right-Click Save As....     

http://www.oneradionetwork2.com/mp3/money/economy/12.02.10_wagner_bruce_bitcoin.mp3

[jimbobway]

brucewager, u r my hero.  great job!

[genjix]

I'm part of the way the way through the interview and wow, you've done a fantastic job. The intro about Linux was necessary IMO and well done. good job.

[farmer_boy]

I agree with the factual errors that some pointed out, btw. E.g. the suggestion that any well-respected cryptographer (i.e. one that has published articles in the past two years in well-known journals) has looked at Bitcoin seriously is a complete lie.

As for the scientific progress concerned, Bitcoin is still at the experimentation phase, I'd say. I don't really see why the main author doesn't submit a journal article somewhere, as writing such an article is pretty easy, if you know what you are talking about. Figuring out what to write usually takes a lot of time, but writing down your research should be easy. 

[bober182]

Just stick to shorter answers next time like You do the people. then we would ask how. then you explain keep it more step by step.

[grondilu]

As for the scientific progress concerned, Bitcoin is still at the experimentation phase, I'd say. I don't really see why the main author doesn't submit a journal article somewhere, as writing such an article is pretty easy, if you know what you are talking about. Figuring out what to write usually takes a lot of time, but writing down your research should be easy. 

I doubt bitcoin can be considered as "scientific" and personnaly I think that edition as you seem to understand it is not much needed nowadays.

I think Satoshi's white paper was quite good, and it is already publicly available.   I appreciate his pragmatic attitude consisting in actually doing stuff instead of claiming and waiting for other people's help or recognition.

[RHorning]

I agree with the factual errors that some pointed out, btw. E.g. the suggestion that any well-respected cryptographer (i.e. one that has published articles in the past two years in well-known journals) has looked at Bitcoin seriously is a complete lie.

As for the scientific progress concerned, Bitcoin is still at the experimentation phase, I'd say. I don't really see why the main author doesn't submit a journal article somewhere, as writing such an article is pretty easy, if you know what you are talking about. Figuring out what to write usually takes a lot of time, but writing down your research should be easy. 

In terms of well-respected cryptographers involved with the "technology" of Bitcoins, there certainly is quite a bit of research that is happening with the SHA-256 algorithm including trying to find out weaknesses and hopefully make up a better algorithm that would accomplish the same job if not do a better job.  The NSA is active in that investigation including some candidate algorithms that are being examined that might work better than this algorithm for cryptographic hashing.

As for really examining the Bitcoins algorithm itself, that hasn't really been heavily reviewed but that is something happening right now mainly within the community.  That is certainly something Bruce got square on in terms of talking about the "open source software" as many eyes do make bugs quite shallow.  There have been some significant updates which have fixed some problems in the past, and I expect to see some in the future because of community involvement to point out weaknesses in the network design.  Legitimate weaknesses will be addressed if they are raised..

[Bruce Wagner]

Thanks for all of your feedback, Gang.   I appreciate it all.   

By the way, Patrick Timpone called me on Sunday night and asked me to be a guest on his show again soon...   Which I plan to do.

Then, this morning, Ed decided to call in to his show, and...  as you will hear... I ended up on the air, talking about Bitcoin again... 

Right-click Save As:   http://dl.dropbox.com/u/993053/Created/Business/BitcoinMe/OneRadioNetwork%20Interview%2010.12.07/12.07.10_open_phones_patrick_timpone_two.mp3

• Ed starts talking (about pine pollin) at:  31:00 - 36:52
• Bruce starts talking (about Bitcoin)  at:  36:52 - 44:00

More and more people are going to be hearing about Bitcoin....   This is only the beginning.

[skull88]

listening to the show at the moment, nice job  
I'm now listening to your answer to the first question, I think the average joe's head is spinning around, linux? sourceforge? bittorent? etc. to much information, just keep it to bitcoin and keep it simple.

But I don't know the targeted audience and I would do this a lot worser, your a good speaker  

edit:
- if I get to geeky...
* yes you are

loool 
Damned, when I hear you, I realised, it is so hard to explain Bitcoins in "normal human beings" language

[farmer_boy]

Ok, his (the host) advice is definitely close to nut job advice (the bad memory advice for example)

Otherwise, it was entertaining to listen to.

[kiba]

Ok, his (the host) advice is definitely close to nut job advice (the bad memory advice for example)

I got similar vibes. Feel "snake oil". (However, I am not a health expert so I wouldn't know) But promotions are good, I guess.

So, Bruce Wagner, do you actually listen to this national radio?

[Bruce Wagner]

Yes.   We especially listen to the Saturday episodes with monetary expert, Andrew Gause.   You should listen to a few of the episodes with Andrew Gause.   I think you guys would love him!   

[farmer_boy]

Yes.   We especially listen to the Saturday episodes with monetary expert, Andrew Gause.   You should listen to a few of the episodes with Andrew Gause.   I think you guys would love him!   

On Youtube there are some videos with Andrew. He seems to be a sane individual. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AIMB2nXWiIQ
.. but there was a comment regarding a guy who said that it was the treasury who in the end controlled the process. In any case, his middleman argument makes sense.

It just depends a bit on what you think of as control. The government could freeze all assets of the federal reserve with their army (the only kind of real control), but even that control might disappear when the first corporation develops their first nuclear bomb (or similarly destructive device).