Gold collapsing. Bitcoin UP.

[_mr_e]

We don't need sidechains. The internet of coins is almost upon us and will be ready far sooner then anyone can convince the world to deploy sidechains(hint: january): http://bitcoinmagazine.com/18167/what-is-the-supernet-jl777s-vision/

316 users in supernet slack from all the different corners of crypto cooperating and developing different projects together. It's a sight to behold.

No thanks

Deny it all you want. The code is nearing completion and it will be released whether you like it or not. The first true shining beacon of cooperation and teamwork that has ever occurred in crypto has been happening under your noses for many months now. I'm just mentioning this now so I can quote myself later when it becomes more obvious.

[1714221726]

1714221726

[1714221726]

1714221726

[1714221726]

1714221726

[cypherdoc]

Adam, how can you possibly say you're not "for-profit" when in fact that is precisely what Blockstream is?  do you seriously expect us to believe that Reid Hoffman, et al invested $21M while not expecting at least a 10x return on their investment?

I read somewhere that they invested personally instead of via organized venture funds specifically because they are bitcoin supporters and the investment didn't really meet the usual criteria for the funds (roughly described by you as a 10x return). I can't vouch for any of this being actually true or relevant, but I did read it.

That doesn't jive with this from their blog:

The round was led by Reid Hoffman, Khosla Ventures and Real Ventures, with investments from Nicolas Berggruen, Crypto Currency Partners, Future\Perfect Ventures, Danny Hillis, Eric Schmidt’s Innovation Endeavors, Max Levchin, Mosaic Ventures, Ray Ozzie, Ribbit Capital, Jerry Yang’s AME Cloud Ventures and several others.

http://www.blockstream.com/2014/11/17/blockstream-closes-21m-seed-round/

[brg444]

Oh great, incendiary loud mouth brg444  back in the mix. Just when I thought we had a proper chance of a decent discussion to get going.

There is no such chance with you in the mix.

You have refused or flat out ignored the most logic counter-arguments to your "concerns" and prefer dancing around spewing the same platitudes. It's like groundhog day with you.

If the best way to deal with a troll is to ignore him, then why don't you leave, especially  since I'm the one doing most of the talking around here? Or maybe it's because you find what I have to say not all together unreasonable?  

Not quite, your thread is merely just one other source of information and sometimes valuable discussion. I certainly would not qualify your opinion as particularly insightful or worthy of merits. You are anything but "reasonable".

Case in point Adam, in the few last post of his has provided more insights and valuable discussion material than certainly your few last thousands post on here.

Blah, blah, blah.

Not in my opinion. As JR said, there's nothing new in what he said. Just his opinions as to where the project stands, that Bitcoin has a "problem ",  and that we should "trust"  him. 

And neither you, nor Adam, had provided a good reason add to why we should up end 6 years of a " no trust" system just to let them establish a $21M for profit entity that seeks to leverage core development to change Bitcoin into their vision while profiting. The core devs refusal to step down speaks volumes and I think Reid Hoffman, et al, would never have plunked down that amount of money if they didn't think it would make a difference.

No trust? You trust Gavin & the Bitcoin Foundation. You trust Jeff Garzik & Bitpay. You trust the miners.

The mere notion you are pushing forward that the addition of op_code to bitcoin core translates into you & everyone having to trust Blockstream for all things Bitcoin is so spectacularly stupid I don't know where to begin.

Add to that the fact that you are parading the $21 SEED investment as the "smoking gun" of conflicted interests and ill-intentions when that amount is literally pocket change to the nearly 40 investors involved. As if these guys are hell-bent on getting a 10x return on their seed-round investement. This is a grave misunderstanding of the business venture capitalists are in.

[brg444]

We don't need sidechains. The internet of coins is almost upon us and will be ready far sooner then anyone can convince the world to deploy sidechains(hint: january): http://bitcoinmagazine.com/18167/what-is-the-supernet-jl777s-vision/

316 users in supernet slack from all the different corners of crypto cooperating and developing different projects together. It's a sight to behold.

No thanks

Deny it all you want. The code is nearing completion and it will be released whether you like it or not. The first true shining beacon of cooperation and teamwork that has ever occurred in crypto has been happening under your noses for many months now. I'm just mentioning this now so I can quote myself later when it becomes more obvious.

 



Please

[brg444]

Adam, how can you possibly say you're not "for-profit" when in fact that is precisely what Blockstream is?  do you seriously expect us to believe that Reid Hoffman, et al invested $21M while not expecting at least a 10x return on their investment?

I read somewhere that they invested personally instead of via organized venture funds specifically because they are bitcoin supporters and the investment didn't really meet the usual criteria for the funds (roughly described by you as a 10x return). I can't vouch for any of this being actually true or relevant, but I did read it.

That doesn't jive with this from their blog:

The round was led by Reid Hoffman, Khosla Ventures and Real Ventures, with investments from Nicolas Berggruen, Crypto Currency Partners, Future\Perfect Ventures, Danny Hillis, Eric Schmidt’s Innovation Endeavors, Max Levchin, Mosaic Ventures, Ray Ozzie, Ribbit Capital, Jerry Yang’s AME Cloud Ventures and several others.

http://www.blockstream.com/2014/11/17/blockstream-closes-21m-seed-round/

From the horses' mouth

And that’s why I’m participating in this first-round financing as an individual investor, and why Blockstream itself will function similarly to the Mozilla Corporation. Here, our first interest is maintaining and enhancing Bitcoin’s strong open ecosystem. And the structure we’ve chosen will give us the freedom and flexibility to prioritize public good over returns to investors.

https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/20141117154558-1213-the-future-of-the-bitcoin-ecosystem-and-trustless-trust-why-i-invested-in-blockstream

Public good pretty nice heh 

[smooth]

Adam, how can you possibly say you're not "for-profit" when in fact that is precisely what Blockstream is?  do you seriously expect us to believe that Reid Hoffman, et al invested $21M while not expecting at least a 10x return on their investment?

I read somewhere that they invested personally instead of via organized venture funds specifically because they are bitcoin supporters and the investment didn't really meet the usual criteria for the funds (roughly described by you as a 10x return). I can't vouch for any of this being actually true or relevant, but I did read it.

That doesn't jive with this from their blog:

The round was led by Reid Hoffman, Khosla Ventures and Real Ventures, with investments from Nicolas Berggruen, Crypto Currency Partners, Future\Perfect Ventures, Danny Hillis, Eric Schmidt’s Innovation Endeavors, Max Levchin, Mosaic Ventures, Ray Ozzie, Ribbit Capital, Jerry Yang’s AME Cloud Ventures and several others.

http://www.blockstream.com/2014/11/17/blockstream-closes-21m-seed-round/

Well maybe it isn't true then.

I agree with you that a for profit entity should be assumed to be in business to generate profits, and unless they can convincingly tell us how they plan to do that, ulterior (though not necessarily nefarious) motives should be assumed. That is just common sense.

[cypherdoc]

Oh great, incendiary loud mouth brg444  back in the mix. Just when I thought we had a proper chance of a decent discussion to get going.

There is no such chance with you in the mix.

You have refused or flat out ignored the most logic counter-arguments to your "concerns" and prefer dancing around spewing the same platitudes. It's like groundhog day with you.

If the best way to deal with a troll is to ignore him, then why don't you leave, especially  since I'm the one doing most of the talking around here? Or maybe it's because you find what I have to say not all together unreasonable?  

Not quite, your thread is merely just one other source of information and sometimes valuable discussion. I certainly would not qualify your opinion as particularly insightful or worthy of merits. You are anything but "reasonable".

Case in point Adam, in the few last post of his has provided more insights and valuable discussion material than certainly your few last thousands post on here.

Blah, blah, blah.

Not in my opinion. As JR said, there's nothing new in what he said. Just his opinions as to where the project stands, that Bitcoin has a "problem ",  and that we should "trust"  him. 

And neither you, nor Adam, had provided a good reason add to why we should up end 6 years of a " no trust" system just to let them establish a $21M for profit entity that seeks to leverage core development to change Bitcoin into their vision while profiting. The core devs refusal to step down speaks volumes and I think Reid Hoffman, et al, would never have plunked down that amount of money if they didn't think it would make a difference.

No trust? You trust Gavin & the Bitcoin Foundation. You trust Jeff Garzik & Bitpay. You trust the miners.

The mere notion you are pushing forward that the addition of op_code to bitcoin core translates into you & everyone having to trust Blockstream for all things Bitcoin is so spectacularly stupid I don't know where to begin.

Add to that the fact that you are parading the $21 SEED investment as the "smoking gun" of conflicted interests and ill-intentions when that amount is literally pocket change to the nearly 40 investors involved. As if these guys are hell-bent on getting a 10x return on their seed-round investement. This is a grave misunderstanding of the business venture capitalists are in.

We've already gone over this with your poor memory. Gavin works for a  non profit and gets paid modestly I'd  bet.  Certainly not the $500k Adam was throwing around earlier (which makes me wonder what Blockstream is paying their core devs). He has no stock or investors to please. Jeff is a lone wolf over at Bitpay. Yeah, big difference is say with Blockstream having 2 core devs plus 3 top committers.

As for the $21M seed, what's your point? How old are you?

You really should stop. Adam and the rest of us were having a decent conversation and now you're going to scare him away.

[brg444]

Oh great, incendiary loud mouth brg444  back in the mix. Just when I thought we had a proper chance of a decent discussion to get going.

There is no such chance with you in the mix.

You have refused or flat out ignored the most logic counter-arguments to your "concerns" and prefer dancing around spewing the same platitudes. It's like groundhog day with you.

If the best way to deal with a troll is to ignore him, then why don't you leave, especially  since I'm the one doing most of the talking around here? Or maybe it's because you find what I have to say not all together unreasonable?  

Not quite, your thread is merely just one other source of information and sometimes valuable discussion. I certainly would not qualify your opinion as particularly insightful or worthy of merits. You are anything but "reasonable".

Case in point Adam, in the few last post of his has provided more insights and valuable discussion material than certainly your few last thousands post on here.

Blah, blah, blah.

Not in my opinion. As JR said, there's nothing new in what he said. Just his opinions as to where the project stands, that Bitcoin has a "problem ",  and that we should "trust"  him.  

And neither you, nor Adam, had provided a good reason add to why we should up end 6 years of a " no trust" system just to let them establish a $21M for profit entity that seeks to leverage core development to change Bitcoin into their vision while profiting. The core devs refusal to step down speaks volumes and I think Reid Hoffman, et al, would never have plunked down that amount of money if they didn't think it would make a difference.

No trust? You trust Gavin & the Bitcoin Foundation. You trust Jeff Garzik & Bitpay. You trust the miners.

The mere notion you are pushing forward that the addition of op_code to bitcoin core translates into you & everyone having to trust Blockstream for all things Bitcoin is so spectacularly stupid I don't know where to begin.

Add to that the fact that you are parading the $21 SEED investment as the "smoking gun" of conflicted interests and ill-intentions when that amount is literally pocket change to the nearly 40 investors involved. As if these guys are hell-bent on getting a 10x return on their seed-round investement. This is a grave misunderstanding of the business venture capitalists are in.

We've already gone over this with your poor memory. Gavin works for a  non profit and gets paid modestly I'd  bet.  Certainly not the $500k Adam was throwing around earlier (which makes me wonder what Blockstream is paying their core devs). He has no stock or investors to please. Jeff is a lone wolf over at Bitpay. Yeah, big difference is say with Blockstream having 2 core devs plus 3 top committers.

As for the $21M seed, what's your point? How old are you?

You really should stop. Adam and the rest of us were having a decent conversation and now you're going to scare him away.

I believe tvbcof has adressed why any reference to the Bitcoin Foundation as a non-profit devoid of any individuals with selfish interest is naive & misguided. Gavin might have no stock holders or investors to please but he has a gang of, some quite influential shall I say, foundation members paying his salary.

The fact that Jeff is a "lone wolf" does not shield him from potential conflicts of interest. That's quite a poor "excuse" if I might say.

The point about the investment is both parties (Blockstream & investors) have made it quite clear that the reason for the existence of Blockstream first and foremost is to promote & improve the Bitcoin ecosystem as a public good. That is what the funds will be used for. I'm quite certain no one in there is expecting or even demanding 10x return on their investment. At least not in the immediate future.

[smooth]

Gavin works for a  non profit and gets paid modestly I'd  bet.  Certainly not the $500k Adam was throwing around earlier

$209K in 2013 according to http://www.technologyreview.com/featuredstory/527051/the-man-who-really-built-bitcoin

[cypherdoc]

The point about the investment is both parties (Blockstream & investors) have made it quite clear that the reason for the existence of Blockstream first and foremost is to promote & improve the Bitcoin ecosystem as a public good.

Oh come on man. Even you're smart enough to know we,  as a  community,  should not buy into that sort of promise. History is littered with failed projects that were based on such naivete.  

[brg444]

You really should stop. Adam and the rest of us were having a decent conversation and now you're going to scare him away.

Strange, it seems to me Adam has made quite a case that characters the likes of yours are the reason he stays away from here.

[brg444]

The point about the investment is both parties (Blockstream & investors) have made it quite clear that the reason for the existence of Blockstream first and foremost is to promote & improve the Bitcoin ecosystem as a public good.

Oh come on man. Even you're smart enough to know we,  as a  community,  should not buy into that sort of promise. History is littered with failed projects that were based on such naivete.  

That's the problem. Whatever they will say you will attach ill intentions to them.

Excercising common sense & being cautious is one thing. Clouding your judgement with personal grudges and ill-informed opinions is another.

The model they are working from (Mozilla Foundation) is an excellent example of such projects that has succeeded. Given the backing they've received, the mindshare & the resources available to them my bet is the Blockstream venture will be a success as well.

[cypherdoc]

You really should stop. Adam and the rest of us were having a decent conversation and now you're going to scare him away.

Strange, it seems to me Adam has made quite a case that characters the likes of yours are the reason he stays away from here.

Note to brg444:

He's here and been here for several days with over a dozen or so posts despite, and maybe because of me. Who knows. All I care about is that I'm learning his perspective and if more people convert to being SC proponents as a result, great. Who knows, I might be converted. There's a lot at stake here and you're not helping with your spamming.

Let's see how much he posts now that you're here. He's quite capable of schooling me on his own if what he says has merit. He doesn't need your help.

[brg444]

You really should stop. Adam and the rest of us were having a decent conversation and now you're going to scare him away.

Strange, it seems to me Adam has made quite a case that characters the likes of yours are the reason he stays away from here.

Note to brg444:

He's here and been here for several days with over a dozen or so posts despite, and maybe because of me. Who knows. All I care about is that I'm learning his perspective and if more people convert to being SC proponents as a result, great. Who knows, I might be converted. There's a lot at stake here and you're not helping with your spamming.

Let's see how much he posts now that you're here. He's quite capable of schooling me on his own if what he says has merit. He doesn't need your help.

Spamming?

I am merely attempting to correct some misconceived opinions. If you've read Adam's post it is apparent he doesn't quite hold you in high-esteem. I'm certain you could careless because you're cypherdoc and you're so awesome, found Bitcoin and understood it as sound money in 2011, etc, etc. but that's beside the point.

and maybe because of me.

there's that ego again  

[smooth]

Spamming?

I agree with CD, although the term spamming isn't really the right one.

Your volume of posts on the thread is too high and content per post is too low.

Nobody appointed you truth police to refute each individual cyperdoc post you disagree with, even when you have nothing new to add.

It isn't about you being a side chain supporter either. There are other side chain supporters here who express the same views as you but do so while contributing a lot more value per post (Adam for example).

The thread was more compelling in your absence or relative absence. Please cool it.

[cypherdoc]

You really should stop. Adam and the rest of us were having a decent conversation and now you're going to scare him away.

Strange, it seems to me Adam has made quite a case that characters the likes of yours are the reason he stays away from here.

Note to brg444:

He's here and been here for several days with over a dozen or so posts despite, and maybe because of me. Who knows. All I care about is that I'm learning his perspective and if more people convert to being SC proponents as a result, great. Who knows, I might be converted. There's a lot at stake here and you're not helping with your spamming.

Let's see how much he posts now that you're here. He's quite capable of schooling me on his own if what he says has merit. He doesn't need your help.

Spamming?

I am merely attempting to correct some misconceived opinions. If you've read Adam's post it is apparent he doesn't quite hold you in high-esteem. I'm certain you could careless because you're cypherdoc and you're so awesome, found Bitcoin and understood it as sound money in 2011, etc, etc. but that's beside the point.

and maybe because of me.

there's that ego again  

No, it's just that I recognize that he wouldn't be here were  it not for the fact that I have been one of the more vocal opponents of SC's as well as being an early adopter with a popular thread. 

[jertsy]

How come the thread was locked a while ago?

[brg444]

Spamming?

I agree with CD, although the term spamming isn't really the right one.

Your volume of posts on the thread is too high and content per post is too low.

Nobody appointed you truth police to refute each individual cyperdoc post you disagree with, even when you have nothing new to add.

It isn't about you being a side chain supporter either. There are other side chain supporters here who express the same views as you but do so while contributing a lot more value per post (Adam for example).

The thread was more compelling in your absence or relative absence. Please cool it.

I'm sorry but there is a particular disingenuity in cypherdoc discourse that irritates & annoys me to the highest point.

Even though it is his own thread I don't believe it justifies or provide him with the right to promote slander, FUD or half-truths.

You accuse me of repeating the same content when cypherdoc has been parroting the same non-sense about sidechains & "sound money" anytime he gets the chance.

[smooth]

You accuse me of repeating the same content when cypherdoc has been parroting the same non-sense about sidechains & "sound money" anytime he gets the chance.

Except that he also posts on a variety of other topics that add value. You don't.

[smooth]

I have some first hand knowledge that some companies are patenting things related to bitcoin, and probably much more I dont know about.

Thats another reason to want to be cautious about side chains and all this blossoming innovation. Every new improvement creates new openings for patents. If it is broken, then by all means fix it. But if it isn't broken, it might be best to leave well enough alone and let the patent clock on the existing methods run out.