Bitcoin Israel Think Tank

[Meni Rosenfeld]

We have started a new tradition, titled "Bitcoin Israel Think Tank", of filming panel discussions about a variety of Bitcoin topics, with Israel's Bitcoin experts and special guests.

The discussions will be in the English language.

Brought to you by the Israeli Bitcoin Association.

EPISODE LIST

Episode 1 - Video, Post

[Meni Rosenfeld]

Episode 1 - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Gb4FoE1sa-M

Moderator:
Eli Sklar - Founder, GridCT

Panelists:
Meni Rosenfeld - Chairman, Israeli Bitcoin Association
Vitalik Buterin - Head Writer, The Bitcoin Magazine
Ron Gross - CEO, Bitblu
Dominik Weil - Co-founder, Bitcoin community of Frankfurt, Germany

In this episode, Meni, Vitalik, Ron and Dominik talk about such topics as Mastercoin, Primecoin, Bitcoin's future, technical challenges and hashrate amplification attacks.

[n8rwJeTt8TrrLKPa55eU]

Thank you, will watch!

[BadAss.Sx]

The funny part is always....when are you a bitcoin expert? Speculating about bitcoin doesn't make you an expert and as far as i can see there is only speculation from all sides.

So, my question to the experts....when can you call yourself an expert?

[philip2000uk]

in regards expert subject.  you should see the posts on pprune (pilots/cabin crew network) when aviation accidents happen and a so called expert appears on bbc or sky news.

[ripper234]

We have been dealing with Bitcoin for the last 1-3 years, and are all active in our respective fields. You can read our post history and activity.
I think this qualifies us as experts.

[BadAss.Sx]

Please understand that it was not an offending post against any expert in Bitcoin. I am just wondering when you are an expert in things like Bitcoin.

[LiteCoinGuy]

next time please choose a profesional location 

[TKeenan]

next time please choose a profesional location 

Is that what a 'tank' looks like in Israel?  A tank of thinkers?  Why does everyone look like their underwear is too tight?

[Meni Rosenfeld]

next time please choose a profesional location  

That would have taken x3 times the work for x1.1 the benefit.

next time please choose a profesional location 

Is that what a 'tank' looks like in Israel?  A tank of thinkers?  Why does everyone look like their underwear is too tight?

I've only seen the inside of an armor tank once, I'm more of a howitzer person myself.

[bg002h]

Awesome service to the community. Well done, sir!

[Eriul_Pow]

Great job.

[LiteCoinGuy]

next time please choose a profesional location  

That would have taken x3 times the work for x1.1 the benefit.

maybe a cafe or just a nice, clean room and a table?

[bluemeanie1]

בהצלחה

next time do the conference around a big bowl of Hummus.  

great to see a Bitcoin Think Tank in Israel.  This kind of discussion is comparable to what I've seen in NYC, which as usual is impressive for such a small country under so much international pressure.

I've done a lot of work with alt-currency people in Europe and a great deal of them get their views of International Banking straight from the Adolf Guidebook.

[ripper234]

FYI we didn't even know what we were filming ... it was just some experiment, originally planned by Eli to include only Meni and Vitalik I believe.
Dominik and I tagged along, and in retrospective we decided to name it a Think Tank and make it a part of a series.

[dacoinminster]

This was a great discussion. I'd like to respond publicly to the criticism about the way MasterCoins were originally sold (in a one-month time frame rather than over several years). The root of the criticism seems to be that this distribution was not fair, and I agree. It wasn't intended to be fair.

I think it might be instructive to look at the way new ideas are usually funded. Typically, I would have made the rounds to venture capitalists, jumped through a lot of hoops, and if I was VERY lucky, raised some money to go implement my new idea. Then, if I beat the odds, a bunch of wealthy venture capitalists would become even MORE wealthy. Nobody would call this "fair", but it works.

Instead of that approach, I took my idea to the people in the bitcoin community. Instead of making the rounds to venture capitalists, I launched my project with a kickstarter-style fundraiser. As it happens, a bunch of venture capitalists invested a lot of money, but they were joined by lots of average people who were following bitcoin closely. It turns out that my project ALSO made a bunch of wealthy venture capitalists even more wealthy, but normal people got to participate too.

The distribution wasn't fair and wasn't trying to be fair. Capitalism is unfair. Bitcoin is unfair too. There are other ways Mastercoin could have been sold, but I doubt any of them would have given us the funding (and thus the momentum) that we have today.

The complaints about the distribution model also seem to assume that the party is over now that the early investors are up ~30x. I personally do not think that is the case. I believe the party has barely begun.

[Meni Rosenfeld]

next time please choose a profesional location  

That would have taken x3 times the work for x1.1 the benefit.

maybe a cafe or just a nice, clean room and a table?

The room was clean, nice, had a table (not really seen in the frame though) and some amigurumi in the background.

A cafe would have been noisy and more difficult to shoot.

We can shoot with a higher-quality camcorder next time, as long as you're paying (a good one costs about 15 BTC).

and in retrospective we decided to name it a Think Tank

Which is much better than the original name, "Eli's interview thing".

The root of the criticism seems to be that this distribution was not fair, and I agree. It wasn't intended to be fair.

The meaning of "fair" that I care about is "does not create perverse incentives". Creating perverse incentives is bad because it incentivizes people to do perverse things, thus I want things to be fair.

I think it might be instructive to look at the way new ideas are usually funded. Typically, I would have made the rounds to venture capitalists, jumped through a lot of hoops, and if I was VERY lucky, raised some money to go implement my new idea. Then, if I beat the odds, a bunch of wealthy venture capitalists would become even MORE wealthy. Nobody would call this "fair", but it works.

That's ok for a company offering some specific service. Not for what aspires to be the foundation of the entire world economy.

[bluemeanie1]

do perverse things, thus I want things to be fair.

I think it might be instructive to look at the way new ideas are usually funded. Typically, I would have made the rounds to venture capitalists, jumped through a lot of hoops, and if I was VERY lucky, raised some money to go implement my new idea. Then, if I beat the odds, a bunch of wealthy venture capitalists would become even MORE wealthy. Nobody would call this "fair", but it works.

That's ok for a company offering some specific service. Not for what aspires to be the foundation of the entire world economy.

completely agree with this thinking.  this is what turned me off to a number of digital currency projects I've worked with in the past.

The banking world wants to develop technologies that keeps their privilege intact whereas the people here want technologies that provide an even playing field.  The trick is that group #1 is trying to appear as though they are group #2.  The rest is just episodes in this ongoing sitcom I've been witness to for over a decade, although it's been going on a lot longer.  See: J. Orlin Grabbe for recent episodes or even go back to American colonial times, Jackson/Hamilton, etc.  For instance Hamilton for some reason ended up being a 'founding father' however he clearly was working for Imperial Banking interests, and he was _never_ a US President.

One thing to be vigilant about are privacy issues.  A recent trend has been that funding seems to emerge for practically any functionality, EXCEPT PRIVACY, because the financial support comes from those who invade your privacy for profit, power, etc.  I wont name names here but it's fairly obvious to anyone who follows this space.

[dacoinminster]

The root of the criticism seems to be that this distribution was not fair, and I agree. It wasn't intended to be fair.

The meaning of "fair" that I care about is "does not create perverse incentives". Creating perverse incentives is bad because it incentives people to do perverse things, thus I want things to be fair.

I was hoping to incentivize passionate involvement, investment, evangelism, and thus momentum. The incentives seem to be working well so far. What perverse things do you expect to see?

I think it might be instructive to look at the way new ideas are usually funded. Typically, I would have made the rounds to venture capitalists, jumped through a lot of hoops, and if I was VERY lucky, raised some money to go implement my new idea. Then, if I beat the odds, a bunch of wealthy venture capitalists would become even MORE wealthy. Nobody would call this "fair", but it works.

That's ok for a company offering some specific service. Not for what aspires to be the foundation of the entire world economy.

Nobody ever accused me of being unambitious, but that is a pretty high aspiration! I'll be very happy if we are just a thriving segment of the economy in a few years. Disrupting the entire world economy is a possibility, but I actually hope that doesn't happen - too many people will get hurt (those who don't know what I mean should check out "bitcoin's dystopian future" in my signature).

[TKeenan]

The complaints about the distribution model also seem to assume that the party is over now that the early investors are up ~30x. I personally do not think that is the case. I believe the party has barely begun.

There was a day, long ago, when those who held Google shares realized they were ~30X up.  Some of them were giddie with joy and they squirmed in their seats because of this good fortune.  Others realized that was nothing compared to that which would soon come.  But the future is hard to see and bring into focus.  So those fools sold and took their 30X - thinking they were quite happy.  

Google is a very boring search engine.  It really isn't much at all.  

Conversely, Mastercoin is (will be) a remarkably powerful financial system which will enable enormous function which will have serious impact on banking and commerce.  Mastercoin is far larger than Google.  Who would sell now at ~30?  I can't understand that.