2013-10-13 CNBC - "You can't stop bitcoins .... like you can't stop gunpowder"

[marcus_of_augustus]

McAfee bitcoin quote @ 2min 10s

Full clip:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DM51_LXblYk

[polarhei]

Exactly.

The problem is monitoring. Just like ancient times.

[knight22]

What this guy say is so right

[odolvlobo]

As much as I would like intellectual property to be protected, he is probably right.

[n8rwJeTt8TrrLKPa55eU]

I love his enthusiasm, but next time would prefer he use a "Printing Press" or "Internet" analogy to suggest an unstoppable phenomenon.  When talking to USA reporters and a generic audience, there's no point in giving them excuses for misconstruing your message by using metaphors involving guns, religion, abortions, drugs, or any other topic which is known to be divisive.

[marcus_of_augustus]

I love his enthusiasm, but next time would prefer he use a "Printing Press" or "Internet" analogy to suggest an unstoppable phenomenon.  When talking to USA reporters and a generic audience, there's no point in giving them excuses for misconstruing your message by using metaphors involving guns, religion, abortions, drugs, or any other topic which is known to be divisive.

I don't know, the invention of gunpowder was a significant technological advance and had some parallels in terms of shifting the balance of power. Much the same as the invention of TNT (Nobel) and the atom bomb.

Pandering to the politically correct sensibilities of the propaganda sirens of the USA corporate media is like lying down with dogs (or supping with the devil) ... and besides I don't think McAfee cares what you (or anybody else) prefers, so your words are probably quite worthless

[ShadowOfHarbringer]

As much as I would like intellectual property to be protected

There is no such thing as "intellectual property".

It is an artificial theoretical creation by the rich and powerful to keep their monopoly, thwart progress, establish censorship and make poor people poorer and unhappy.

----
I just LOVE this McAffee guy (though he may be little crazy).

[n8rwJeTt8TrrLKPa55eU]

I love his enthusiasm, but next time would prefer he use a "Printing Press" or "Internet" analogy to suggest an unstoppable phenomenon.  When talking to USA reporters and a generic audience, there's no point in giving them excuses for misconstruing your message by using metaphors involving guns, religion, abortions, drugs, or any other topic which is known to be divisive.

I don't know, the invention of gunpowder was a significant technological advance and had some parallels in terms of shifting the balance of power. Much the same as the invention of TNT (Nobel) and the atom bomb.

Pandering to the politically correct sensibilities of the propaganda sirens of the USA corporate media is like lying down with dogs (or supping with the devil) ... and besides I don't think McAfee cares what you (or anybody else) prefers, so your words are probably quite worthless

That's ok, 98.64% of all posts on bitcointalk are worthless, I don't mind being part of that percentage.

And so I'll stand by the point that it's elementary PR/marketing to be aware of who your audience is and not to be unnecessarily antagonistic or controversial if there's equally good (or arguably, better) ways of getting your message across.  Using the best vehicle for persuasion isn't being weak, or lacking integrity, or pandering.  It's being intelligent.  

There are times when goals are best achieved by being impulsive or confrontational, and there are times when goals are best achieved by diplomacy or premeditation.  Being antagonistic and bellicose all the time is guaranteed to be a waste of energy and resources, not to mention counterproductive (see: US foreign policy).  Others, less stupid than me, have thought this way too:

For to win one hundred victories in one hundred battles is not the acme of skill. To subdue the enemy without fighting is the acme of skill.

He who knows when he can fight and when he cannot, will be victorious.

For Bitcoin, at this point, any PR is good PR.  But the guy could've chosen a less incendiary metaphor with wider appeal to grandmothers, and no part of the meaning would've been lost whatsoever.

[Carlton Banks]

For Bitcoin, at this point, any PR is good PR.  But the guy could've chosen a less incendiary metaphor with wider appeal to grandmothers, and no part of the meaning would've been lost whatsoever.

I think you're assuming the "terr'ists" connotation and not the rapid expansion in the abstract connotation. He wasn't advocating any radical political action at all, was he? It was just a metaphor, and I'm pretty glad that it was freely chosen. Sounds like you would choose his words for him, if you could.

[n8rwJeTt8TrrLKPa55eU]

First, denigrate the messenger by implying their lack of standing is a measure of their argument:

I don't think McAfee cares what you (or anybody else) prefers, so your words are probably quite worthless

Then, construct a wild extrapolation, hinting at totalitarianism and intolerance:

Sounds like you would choose his words for him, if you could.

Seriously people, WTF.  Are you so insecure about Bitcoin's success that even the slightest criticism of McAfee's delivery (note I never even questioned his premise) is sufficient to trigger your moral descent into personal attacks and fabricated innuendos?

I have historically held both Mr Augustus and Mr Banks in good esteem as worthwhile posters of comments and rebuttals on this forum, usually based on logic and not emotions.  It is disappointing to see you both descend into petty smearing tactics as a first response, especially on a topic as ridiculously trivial and ephemeral such as this one, and on a statement as innocuous and uncontroversial as claiming that when speaking on public mass media, it is an optimal strategy to know your audience and to choose your words for maximum persuasive power.

In my opinion McAffee wasted an opportunity to make a much more positive association in the minds of the average viewer between Bitcoin and disruptive, universally recognized, uncontroversial enablers of liberty and free speech.  Instead, he chose an analogy associated with disruptive weapons technology.  Logically valid, but not optimal.

Following my own advice, I will now disengage from further confrontation on this thread.  Enjoy your echo chamber without any further dissent.

[marcus_of_augustus]

First, denigrate the messenger by implying their lack of standing is a measure of their argument:

I don't think McAfee cares what you (or anybody else) prefers, so your words are probably quite worthless

Then, construct a wild extrapolation, hinting at totalitarianism and intolerance:

Sounds like you would choose his words for him, if you could.

Seriously people, WTF.  Are you so insecure about Bitcoin's success that even the slightest criticism of McAfee's delivery (note I never even questioned his premise) is sufficient to trigger your moral descent into personal attacks and fabricated innuendos?

I have historically held both Mr Augustus and Mr Banks in good esteem as worthwhile posters of comments and rebuttals on this forum, usually based on logic and not emotions.  It is disappointing to see you both descend into petty smearing tactics as a first response, especially on a topic as ridiculously trivial and ephemeral such as this one, and on a statement as innocuous and uncontroversial as claiming that when speaking on public mass media, it is an optimal strategy to know your audience and to choose your words for maximum persuasive power.

In my opinion McAffee wasted an opportunity to make a much more positive association in the minds of the average viewer between Bitcoin and disruptive, universally recognized, uncontroversial enablers of liberty and free speech.  Instead, he chose an analogy associated with disruptive weapons technology.  Logically valid, but not optimal.

Following my own advice, I will now disengage from further confrontation on this thread.  Enjoy your echo chamber without any further dissent.

Ooops, must have hit a nerve in there somewhere ... I read most of your stuff too when I happen upon it, is this another one of those "thnx for all the fish moment"?

"Logically valid, but not optimal."

More smoothie talk since you're using your subjective definition of "optimal" I'm supposing. I liked the reference to gunpowder, you didn't, why is that such a big deal? It'll be forgotten by the bland, braindead masses you're hoping to wean onto bitcoin, and any sanitised version you may have come up with forgotten quicker still no doubt .... you're hoping a haircut, shave and new suit for bitcoin is going to make you richer?

I think you might be falling into the trap of thinking that bitcoin is somehow a political currency, it isn't, it is an apolitical technical solution to a technical/engineering problem. It doesn't need marketing, salesmen, smooth talking operators parading their fineries in the ivory halls of power and academia ... it just needs to work well ... like gunpowder, or printing presses, faxes, email s/ware, etc.

Actually, I also really like Charlie Munger's reference analogy to bitcoin as "rat poison" ... as that could be taken either way depending on who you view as the rats. Any analogy is going to be deficient, because it is merely an analogy but bitcoin definitely is going to have a sting in the tail that faxes or email never did so those were kind of lame analogies, imo.

[Severian]

But the guy could've chosen a less incendiary metaphor with wider appeal to grandmothers, and no part of the meaning would've been lost whatsoever.

Bitcoin probably has a wider appeal to the 45%+ of Americans that own firearms and know the historical importance of gunpowder better than my grandmother does.

Then again, if McAfee had said "And you can still buy weed on the net with Bitcoin!", I wouldn't have had a problem with it either. I suspect that the pearl-clutchers of Bitcoin get themselves a little bent out of shape whenever a controversial figure mentions Bitcoin publicly.