Bitcoin Forum
September 21, 2017, 11:15:21 PM *
News: Latest stable version of Bitcoin Core: 0.15.0.1  [Torrent]. (New!)
 
   Home   Help Search Donate Login Register  
Poll
Question: Will you support Gavin's new block size limit hard fork of 8MB by January 1, 2016 then doubling every 2 years?
1.  yes
2.  no

Pages: « 1 ... 911 912 913 914 915 916 917 918 919 920 921 922 923 924 925 926 927 928 929 930 931 932 933 934 935 936 937 938 939 940 941 942 943 944 945 946 947 948 949 950 951 952 953 954 955 956 957 958 959 960 [961] 962 963 964 965 966 967 968 969 970 971 972 973 974 975 976 977 978 979 980 981 982 983 984 985 986 987 988 989 990 991 992 993 994 995 996 997 998 999 1000 1001 1002 1003 1004 1005 1006 1007 1008 1009 1010 1011 ... 1558 »
  Print  
Author Topic: Gold collapsing. Bitcoin UP.  (Read 1978298 times)
justusranvier
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1400



View Profile WWW
December 31, 2014, 05:50:09 PM
 #19201

Sidechains are not a proprietary technology.  Everything is FOSS, open IP.  And we invested a fair bit of mental energy and legal review already into making sure it stays that way, even if blockstream management were someone replaced or blackmailed; to imagine yourself or a company a perpetual lifetime role is naive, and we've seen it before eg digicash patents got sold by the investors when they went bankrupt to some company that sat on them, preventing people who wanted to innovate using ecash.  We're all anti-patent and want to avoid that kind of crap creeping into bitcoin.  I have some first hand knowledge that some companies are patenting things related to bitcoin, and probably much more I dont know about.  I suppose someone could search patent db though filing is a long slow process.  At ZKS where I was working on our ToR-precursor and ecash, back in 1999-2001, Austin tried to buy digicash patent and making it available in the public domain, we failed to buy it sadly.  John Gilmore was our advisor and he'd helped cook up an open patent license GNU like scheme.

Its not our softfork - its a softfork to enable a generic extension mechanism.  We have no monopoly (and wouldnt want one) on use of the op code.  Our only defence is meritocracy - if we build better, more secure sidechains and people prefer to use them.  We wont be getting the fees off the sidechain either because those go to miners.  If we have the technical edge and people use our stuff that seems sort of fair enough to me.

Personally I guarantee I trust each and everyone of our team more than J Random web2.0 startup CEO.  What do those guys want?  To make a profit.  Would they stop at sabotaging bitcoin to get there?  I doubt it.  Some of the bitcoin web2.0 startup guys are cool and bitcoin enthused.  But they're getting patents some of them, and not all of them will survive.  Crappy things the less cool startup CEOs might try eg the red-ilist or other things so sucky I wouldnt even describe them for fear it'd give people ideas that they lack the technical competence to design.

I do get where you're coming from, in the past I was the guy holding people to account eg PGP incorporated when they were busy trying to include key escrow into PGP ostensibly for corporate data access.  (I imagine people selling stingrays tell themselves something also).  Partly due to my efforts that was never included in the open-pgp IETF spec.

Sidechains are just a mechanism to extend bitcoin.  The interesting thing is the extension not the chain.  If a better way to do it materialises great.  If some sidechain innovations are so cool and well validated from $1b resting on them for a year that it allows bitcoin core to merge them fantastic.  Actually Pieter Wuille views that as the best way to view the utility of sidechains, to enable longer and live validation of things that could then go into bitcoin where that'd be difficult to impossible to gain that confidence on directly.

There can also however be one-size fits-all limits.  Some extensions are mutually incompatible, or too risky though interesting (eg snark contracts, zerocash) unless a way to contain the risk in chain is found.  Also you can get some new scaling possibilities by having chains with different blocksizes.  Its more decentralised and safer to have a small bitcoin main block and a medium sized sidechain block, than introduce a large main bitcoin block as there is an escape route and choice.  You can within limits get your cake and eat it.
What I see in this answer is statements that safeguards have been established, without any description of what they are or why we should assume they'll be effective.

I also see a lot of appeal to past performance which amount to, "trust us."

Despite being more verbose, in substance it's identical to the reply I got from Peter Vessenes when I asked him the same question two years ago:

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=113400.msg1227012#msg1227012

1506035721
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1506035721

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1506035721
Reply with quote  #2

1506035721
Report to moderator
Advertised sites are not endorsed by the Bitcoin Forum. They may be unsafe, untrustworthy, or illegal in your jurisdiction. Advertise here.
1506035721
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1506035721

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1506035721
Reply with quote  #2

1506035721
Report to moderator
cypherdoc
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1764



View Profile
December 31, 2014, 05:53:32 PM
 #19202

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?

you still didn't answer me as to why we should "trust" you and Blockstream when it goes against the very ethos of what Bitcoin is all about.
smooth
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1540



View Profile
December 31, 2014, 06:19:41 PM
 #19203

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.
brg444
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 644

Bitcoin replaces central, not commercial, banks


View Profile
December 31, 2014, 06:28:44 PM
 #19204

you're still that little dog who nips at my trouser bottoms.

I thought you said you didnt do ad-hominems to troll and fan reaction?  Just a few posts back too.  

Decorum!

Stuff like that is why bitcointroll.org is redirecting here.  Also it pushes out more tech focussed people who want some civility and dont have the USENET flame war developed rhinoceros hide and egos to say "fuck you too" and keep talking.

What the tvbcof said seemed pretty reasoned to me, and if you read it neutrally, not to be calling Gavin names, just talking about hypothetical conflicts of interest, independence etc.  

I share his view about balance of power helping also, eg you can see that Microsoft & Apple are both pretty world domination evil corporations.  And yet the growth of apple's market penetration of OSX has weakened eithers ability to execute on their rent-seeking actions.  Thats a pretty conventional understanding of the real-world.

Adam


Adam, you're soft and need to develop a back bone.

you don't understand how to develop a popular thread nor sustain interest in one over a several year time period either it appears.  the reason this thread is so popular and long lasting is precisely b/c i am NOT a troll.  i bring a large amount of dedicated, insightful info, and logic to this thread and balance it with a healthy bit of "discipline" towards those who i think deserve it. it's my way of screening out the real trolls. i've been very effective at it over the years yet you conveniently try to lump this thread with bitcointroll.org while ignoring what Justusranvier just said a few posts up about how this thread has a high SNR unlike other threads throughout the forum. the high # of views and the mere fact that you are here are testimony to this fact.  you have no insight into the relationship i have with tvbcof going back 4 yrs so you ought not comment on it.  i actually don't mind him and i think he actually likes me.  but we go back and forth with each other once in a while and it provides entertainment for everyone.  we have a "volatile relationship" so to speak. Wink

speaking of trolling, btw, did you or BS hire brg444 to come here and troll me and promote SC's?

Same old, bland platitudes  Undecided

Adam has made a valient effort the last few pages at presenting cogent, reasonable & insightful arguments in defense of his team and its projects and yet we are left with the same old cypheroc tired ad hominems. Ever since the introduction of the sidechain discussion you have persistingly made a clown of yourself in your own thread and displayed seemingly intentional inability to maintain an honest discussion.

Your ego and the apparent pleasure you enjoy at flattering it is quite pathetic I must say.

(PS. Adam, I'm in Québec, please, please do hire me, I make real good coffee)

"I believe this will be the ultimate fate of Bitcoin, to be the "high-powered money" that serves as a reserve currency for banks that issue their own digital cash." Hal Finney, Dec. 2010
brg444
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 644

Bitcoin replaces central, not commercial, banks


View Profile
December 31, 2014, 06:40:37 PM
 #19205

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.


From the horses' mouth

Quote
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

Of course cyphertroll wants to hear nothing of that. Blockstream are a bunch of mobsters willing to sell out their proprietary technology to any crook on the street so as to maximize profits for their investors.

"I believe this will be the ultimate fate of Bitcoin, to be the "high-powered money" that serves as a reserve currency for banks that issue their own digital cash." Hal Finney, Dec. 2010
brg444
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 644

Bitcoin replaces central, not commercial, banks


View Profile
December 31, 2014, 06:50:31 PM
 #19206

i thought this comment from coinlock debating aminok on Reddit was interesting:

http://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/2qtdxi/thoughts_on_sidechains_by_lukas_ryan/cn9zpi7

This guy still believes that the technical peg is a price peg so yea.....

"I believe this will be the ultimate fate of Bitcoin, to be the "high-powered money" that serves as a reserve currency for banks that issue their own digital cash." Hal Finney, Dec. 2010
brg444
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 644

Bitcoin replaces central, not commercial, banks


View Profile
December 31, 2014, 07:05:44 PM
 #19207

...
so i ask you, Adam, why should i do a 180 degree flip in what i was sold back then and now "trust" you to do what's right for Bitcoin when you have a fiduciary duty to do what's right for Blockstream?

I seem to recall at least Maxwell pro-actively disavowing this supposed fiduciary duty to do what's right for Blockstream if it also does not happen to be what right for Bitcoin.  He gets to pick up his marbles and go home if he doesn't like how things are going (where as most people have to leave their marbles in such situations except for vested stock and the like.)  This is a novelty as far as I know.  And one I'm liking!  If this is simply a marketing gimmick it worked on me.  I've a favorable opinion both of the devs who write this into their contract, and the investors and managers of Blockstream who at least allow it as a term.

Of course, as always, I happen to see sidechains as not only 'right' for Bitcoin but basically Bitcoin's best hope for success.  Naturally this goes some distance toward helping build my confidence in the enterprise as well, and makes it quite understandable why this novel contract agreement bullet-point is acceptable to all.  It would be fascinating to see how the construct stands up in U.S. court (but I hope it doesn't come to that, of course, and am not expecting it.)



you're missing the point.  the act of leaving by those devs requires a conscious act and decision to do the "right" thing.  how can we keep trying to sell Bitcoin to the world as a "trustless" system when we have to "trust" Blockstream devs to do the right thing?

Bitcoin is not "trustless" in the way you'd like it to be.

Fortunately proper game theory incentives make it so that every actors behaves in the best interests of the group, for his own sake.




"I believe this will be the ultimate fate of Bitcoin, to be the "high-powered money" that serves as a reserve currency for banks that issue their own digital cash." Hal Finney, Dec. 2010
cypherdoc
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1764



View Profile
December 31, 2014, 07:32:01 PM
 #19208

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.
brg444
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 644

Bitcoin replaces central, not commercial, banks


View Profile
December 31, 2014, 07:34:54 PM
 #19209

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.

"I believe this will be the ultimate fate of Bitcoin, to be the "high-powered money" that serves as a reserve currency for banks that issue their own digital cash." Hal Finney, Dec. 2010
cypherdoc
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1764



View Profile
December 31, 2014, 07:39:22 PM
 #19210

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? 
brg444
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 644

Bitcoin replaces central, not commercial, banks


View Profile
December 31, 2014, 07:44:55 PM
 #19211

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 thousand posts on here.

Moreover, I shall insist that your inflated ego and self-sense of importance is despicable

"I believe this will be the ultimate fate of Bitcoin, to be the "high-powered money" that serves as a reserve currency for banks that issue their own digital cash." Hal Finney, Dec. 2010
_mr_e
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 817



View Profile
December 31, 2014, 07:54:17 PM
 #19212

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[.com] from all the different corners of crypto, cooperating and developing many different projects together. It's a sight to behold.
cypherdoc
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1764



View Profile
December 31, 2014, 07:55:23 PM
 #19213

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 to fix it .  

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.
brg444
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 644

Bitcoin replaces central, not commercial, banks


View Profile
December 31, 2014, 07:57:32 PM
 #19214

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 differant projects together. It's a sight to behold.

No thanks

"I believe this will be the ultimate fate of Bitcoin, to be the "high-powered money" that serves as a reserve currency for banks that issue their own digital cash." Hal Finney, Dec. 2010
_mr_e
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 817



View Profile
December 31, 2014, 08:05:50 PM
 #19215

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.

cypherdoc
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1764



View Profile
December 31, 2014, 08:07:03 PM
 #19216

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
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 644

Bitcoin replaces central, not commercial, banks


View Profile
December 31, 2014, 08:10:03 PM
 #19217

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.


"I believe this will be the ultimate fate of Bitcoin, to be the "high-powered money" that serves as a reserve currency for banks that issue their own digital cash." Hal Finney, Dec. 2010
brg444
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 644

Bitcoin replaces central, not commercial, banks


View Profile
December 31, 2014, 08:10:53 PM
 #19218

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.

 Cheesy



Please


"I believe this will be the ultimate fate of Bitcoin, to be the "high-powered money" that serves as a reserve currency for banks that issue their own digital cash." Hal Finney, Dec. 2010
brg444
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 644

Bitcoin replaces central, not commercial, banks


View Profile
December 31, 2014, 08:14:03 PM
 #19219

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

Quote
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  Wink

"I believe this will be the ultimate fate of Bitcoin, to be the "high-powered money" that serves as a reserve currency for banks that issue their own digital cash." Hal Finney, Dec. 2010
smooth
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1540



View Profile
December 31, 2014, 08:16:00 PM
 #19220

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.

Pages: « 1 ... 911 912 913 914 915 916 917 918 919 920 921 922 923 924 925 926 927 928 929 930 931 932 933 934 935 936 937 938 939 940 941 942 943 944 945 946 947 948 949 950 951 952 953 954 955 956 957 958 959 960 [961] 962 963 964 965 966 967 968 969 970 971 972 973 974 975 976 977 978 979 980 981 982 983 984 985 986 987 988 989 990 991 992 993 994 995 996 997 998 999 1000 1001 1002 1003 1004 1005 1006 1007 1008 1009 1010 1011 ... 1558 »
  Print  
 
Jump to:  

Sponsored by , a Bitcoin-accepting VPN.
Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.19 | SMF © 2006-2009, Simple Machines Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!