Bitcoin Forum
August 21, 2017, 04:04:26 PM *
News: Latest stable version of Bitcoin Core: 0.14.2  [Torrent].
 
   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 ... 1395 1396 1397 1398 1399 1400 1401 1402 1403 1404 1405 1406 1407 1408 1409 1410 1411 1412 1413 1414 1415 1416 1417 1418 1419 1420 1421 1422 1423 1424 1425 1426 1427 1428 1429 1430 1431 1432 1433 1434 1435 1436 1437 1438 1439 1440 1441 1442 1443 1444 [1445] 1446 1447 1448 1449 1450 1451 1452 1453 1454 1455 1456 1457 1458 1459 1460 1461 1462 1463 1464 1465 1466 1467 1468 1469 1470 1471 1472 1473 1474 1475 1476 1477 1478 1479 1480 1481 1482 1483 1484 1485 1486 1487 1488 1489 1490 1491 1492 1493 1494 1495 ... 1558 »
  Print  
Author Topic: Gold collapsing. Bitcoin UP.  (Read 1955588 times)
cypherdoc
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1764



View Profile
July 16, 2015, 04:15:47 AM
 #28881

On the topic of "what is a conflict of interest," I think this explanation (from a high impact factor academic journal) is good:

Quote from: EMBO Journal Author Guidelines
Conflicts of interest

In the interests of transparency and to help editors and reviewers assess any potential bias, the journal requires authors of original research papers to declare any competing commercial interests in relation to the submitted work. It is difficult to specify a threshold at which a financial interest becomes significant, but as a practical guideline, we would suggest this to be any undeclared interest that could embarrass you were it to become publicly known. Referees and editors are also subject to Conflict of Interest regulations.

As an example, let's say I had a company (perhaps that was still in stealth mode) that performed the service, similar to what BlockCypher does, of calculating "confidence factors" for 0-confirm transactions.  

Now let's imagine I write an academic paper that presents data on double-spend statistics and shows how one can use network heuristics to reliably accept 0-confirm transactions for certain business models.  

What I present in the paper may be entirely factual and unbiased, but I still have a conflict of interest and I should declare that fact to the public.  A conflict of interest is not, in and of itself, a bad thing.  In fact, since we're imagining I'm in the business, I'm probably pretty knowledgeable on the topic!  Nonetheless, I should still be transparent and allow others to assess the results and any biases I may have for themselves.  

Granted.

A bad thing is when people like cypherdoc derive from the conflict of interest malicious intents without proof other than "I don't trust them"

except that:

1.  i predicted something like this block size conflict would come up as a general concept; them preventing upgrades that would help Bitcoin.  and...

2.  they won't even acknowledge there's a conflict of interest.  in fact, they spend all their time around here denying it.
1503331466
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1503331466

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1503331466
Reply with quote  #2

1503331466
Report to moderator
Advertised sites are not endorsed by the Bitcoin Forum. They may be unsafe, untrustworthy, or illegal in your jurisdiction. Advertise here.
brg444
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 644

Bitcoin replaces central, not commercial, banks


View Profile
July 16, 2015, 04:15:54 AM
 #28882

conflict of interest

n. a situation in which a person has a duty to more than one person or organization, but cannot do justice to the actual or potentially adverse interests of both parties. This includes when an individual's personal interests or concerns are inconsistent with the best for a customer, or when a public official's personal interests are contrary to his/her loyalty to public business. An attorney, an accountant, a business adviser or realtor cannot represent two parties in a dispute and must avoid even the appearance of conflict. He/she may not join with a client in business without making full disclosure of his/her potential conflicts, he/she must avoid commingling funds with the client, and never, never take a position adverse to the customer.

well someone was kind enough to spare us the effort to "rekt" your hypocritical "concern" on reddit :

https://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/3dg1us/the_golden_ratio_attack_blocks_more_than_half/ct4yc63

brg444 jumping to rektless conclusions again.  i actually have a response i have yet to use to eragmus. 

And as expected, a wholly unoriginal reply rehashing tired and disingenuous arguments. See my reply  Wink

https://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/3dg1us/the_golden_ratio_attack_blocks_more_than_half/ct505jf

So this boils down to you trusting MIT more than Silicon Valley.

If only Aaron Swartz was here to answer this one.

"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
justusranvier
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1400



View Profile WWW
July 16, 2015, 04:16:21 AM
 #28883

A bad thing is when people like cypherdoc derive from the conflict of interest malicious intents without proof other than "I don't trust them"
What actually happened is that when Blockstream was announced multiple noted that it created the appearance of a potential conflict of interest.

Instead of acknowledging this potential (fairly standard practice in many business situations!), the Blockstream founders took the bizarre route of denying even the possibility of a conflict of interest.

That choice of actions is what lead to ongoing concern about their motives, not the founding of Blockstream itself.
brg444
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 644

Bitcoin replaces central, not commercial, banks


View Profile
July 16, 2015, 04:19:28 AM
 #28884

Granted.

A bad thing is when people ... derive from the conflict of interest malicious intents without proof other than "I don't trust them"

Right.  There's two things to consider:

(1) Does someone have a conflict of interest?

(2) Is that person acting upon his conflict of interest or is his opinion biased by his conflict of interest?

Granted, we don't know to what extent (2) holds for anyone at Blockstream.  But the answer to (1) is clearly "yes."  Would you agree?

Well do you know of any "undeclared interest" that would embarrass blockstream devs were it made public?

You picked this threshold so I'm curious what information is it you possess that would enable you to answer with a clear "yes" to question (1)?


"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
July 16, 2015, 04:20:32 AM
 #28885

A bad thing is when people like cypherdoc derive from the conflict of interest malicious intents without proof other than "I don't trust them"
What actually happened is that when Blockstream was announced multiple noted that it created the appearance of a potential conflict of interest.

Instead of acknowledging this potential (fairly standard practice in many business situations!), the Blockstream founders took the bizarre route of denying even the possibility of a conflict of interest.

That choice of actions is what lead to ongoing concern about their motives, not the founding of Blockstream itself.

which as you say actually compounds the problem b/c it brings up questions of maturity and transparency.  not to mention intent.
cypherdoc
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1764



View Profile
July 16, 2015, 04:23:05 AM
 #28886

Granted.

A bad thing is when people ... derive from the conflict of interest malicious intents without proof other than "I don't trust them"

Right.  There's two things to consider:

(1) Does someone have a conflict of interest?

(2) Is that person acting upon his conflict of interest or is his opinion biased by his conflict of interest?

Granted, we don't know to what extent (2) holds for anyone at Blockstream.  But the answer to (1) is clearly "yes."  Would you agree?

Well do you know of any "undeclared interest" that would embarrass blockstream devs were it made public?

You picked this threshold so I'm curious what information is it you possess that would enable you to answer with a clear "yes" to question (1)?



why don't you answer his question?  we all are interested in how you view the world.
cypherdoc
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1764



View Profile
July 16, 2015, 04:26:01 AM
 #28887

conflict of interest

n. a situation in which a person has a duty to more than one person or organization, but cannot do justice to the actual or potentially adverse interests of both parties. This includes when an individual's personal interests or concerns are inconsistent with the best for a customer, or when a public official's personal interests are contrary to his/her loyalty to public business. An attorney, an accountant, a business adviser or realtor cannot represent two parties in a dispute and must avoid even the appearance of conflict. He/she may not join with a client in business without making full disclosure of his/her potential conflicts, he/she must avoid commingling funds with the client, and never, never take a position adverse to the customer.

well someone was kind enough to spare us the effort to "rekt" your hypocritical "concern" on reddit :

https://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/3dg1us/the_golden_ratio_attack_blocks_more_than_half/ct4yc63

brg444 jumping to rektless conclusions again.  i actually have a response i have yet to use to eragmus. 

And as expected, a wholly unoriginal reply rehashing tired and disingenuous arguments. See my reply  Wink

https://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/3dg1us/the_golden_ratio_attack_blocks_more_than_half/ct505jf

So this boils down to you trusting MIT more than Silicon Valley.

If only Aaron Swartz was here to answer this one.

that's the stupidest characterization of what i said.  you clearly don't get it.
brg444
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 644

Bitcoin replaces central, not commercial, banks


View Profile
July 16, 2015, 04:27:27 AM
 #28888

A bad thing is when people like cypherdoc derive from the conflict of interest malicious intents without proof other than "I don't trust them"
What actually happened is that when Blockstream was announced multiple noted that it created the appearance of a potential conflict of interest.

Instead of acknowledging this potential (fairly standard practice in many business situations!), the Blockstream founders took the bizarre route of denying even the possibility of a conflict of interest.

Sorry, but that's just not true

https://www.reddit.com/r/IAmA/comments/2k3u97/we_are_bitcoin_sidechain_paper_authors_adam_back/clhql71

Pieter Wuille's last comment is really all there is to it...

"Judge us by our actions."

"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
July 16, 2015, 04:31:11 AM
 #28889

Granted.

A bad thing is when people ... derive from the conflict of interest malicious intents without proof other than "I don't trust them"

Right.  There's two things to consider:

(1) Does someone have a conflict of interest?

(2) Is that person acting upon his conflict of interest or is his opinion biased by his conflict of interest?

Granted, we don't know to what extent (2) holds for anyone at Blockstream.  But the answer to (1) is clearly "yes."  Would you agree?

Well do you know of any "undeclared interest" that would embarrass blockstream devs were it made public?

You picked this threshold so I'm curious what information is it you possess that would enable you to answer with a clear "yes" to question (1)?



why don't you answer his question?  we all are interested in how you view the world.

Well given PeterR's quoted "conflict of interest threshold" I can safely say I have no reason to believe and I am unaware of any "undeclared interest" that would embarrass blockstream devs were it made public.

So in the provided context, I find no clear evidence of a conflict of interest and I would venture to say all signs point to them working in the interest of Bitcoin and its ecosystem.


"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
July 16, 2015, 04:33:05 AM
 #28890

that's the stupidest characterization of what i said.  you clearly don't get it.

I find it quite honest..

Bottom line is you have a problem with who is paying blockstream devs for their work. My question is why should one "contractor" be trusted more than the other?


"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
Peter R
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1050



View Profile
July 16, 2015, 04:33:29 AM
 #28891

Granted.

A bad thing is when people ... derive from the conflict of interest malicious intents without proof other than "I don't trust them"

Right.  There's two things to consider:

(1) Does someone have a conflict of interest?

(2) Is that person acting upon his conflict of interest or is his opinion biased by his conflict of interest?

Granted, we don't know to what extent (2) holds for anyone at Blockstream.  But the answer to (1) is clearly "yes."  Would you agree?

Well do you know of any "undeclared interest" that would embarrass blockstream devs were it made public?

You picked this threshold so I'm curious what information is it you possess that would enable you to answer with a clear "yes" to question (1)?


Well, if something like sidechains.pdf was going to be published in a journal, I think it would be fitting to include a statement, after Acknowledgments and before References, that read something like:

Conflict of Interest


Several of the authors of this paper are co-founders of a for-profit company whose business model relates to off-chain transaction solutions.


I see this as standard practice.  It doesn't mean their opinion isn't valid.  It just let's people see more of the picture.  

Run Bitcoin Unlimited (www.bitcoinunlimited.info)
tvbcof
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 2240


View Profile
July 16, 2015, 04:33:41 AM
 #28892

speaking of Mike Hearn

anyone caught that one the other day?  Cheesy

http://log.bitcoin-assets.com/?date=11-07-2015#1197442

Quote
Luke-Jr:(it's ironic but true that Mike Hearn has written two changes in Bitcoin Core, and both of them introduced serious bugs..)

this is the one you chose to place your faith in frap.doc ?  Cheesy Cheesy

Cypherdoc don't like him no Luke-Jr.  Says he's funny looking.  He's had a man-crush on Hearn forever though.  Perhaps he thinks that anyone who constantly has a bottle of beer handy is cool or something.


lottery248
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 896


Boi, boi mah!


View Profile WWW
July 16, 2015, 04:36:31 AM
 #28893

gold is unlimited all over the universe, that's why gold is collapsing.

cypherdoc
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1764



View Profile
July 16, 2015, 04:36:57 AM
 #28894

that's the stupidest characterization of what i said.  you clearly don't get it.

I find it quite honest..

Bottom line is you have a problem with who is paying blockstream devs for their work. My question is why should one "contractor" be trusted more than the other?



i've already gone over this a dozen times for you.  the financial arrangements are totally different.
brg444
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 644

Bitcoin replaces central, not commercial, banks


View Profile
July 16, 2015, 04:39:08 AM
 #28895

Granted.

A bad thing is when people ... derive from the conflict of interest malicious intents without proof other than "I don't trust them"

Right.  There's two things to consider:

(1) Does someone have a conflict of interest?

(2) Is that person acting upon his conflict of interest or is his opinion biased by his conflict of interest?

Granted, we don't know to what extent (2) holds for anyone at Blockstream.  But the answer to (1) is clearly "yes."  Would you agree?

Well do you know of any "undeclared interest" that would embarrass blockstream devs were it made public?

You picked this threshold so I'm curious what information is it you possess that would enable you to answer with a clear "yes" to question (1)?


Well, if something like sidechains.pdf was going to be published in a journal, I think it would be fitting to include a statement, after Acknowledgments and before References, that read something like:

Conflict of Interest


Several of the authors of this paper are co-founders of a for-profit company whose business model relates to off-chain transaction solutions.


I see this as standard practice.  It doesn't mean their opinion isn't valid.  It just let's people see more of the picture.  

Fair enough, but the whitepaper was launched along with this blog post : https://www.blockstream.com/2014/10/23/why-we-are-co-founders-of-blockstream/. Other than missing the "conflict of interest" disclaimer I find it transparent and public enough. Other than that you're kind of moving the goal posts  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
brg444
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 644

Bitcoin replaces central, not commercial, banks


View Profile
July 16, 2015, 04:44:07 AM
 #28896

that's the stupidest characterization of what i said.  you clearly don't get it.

I find it quite honest..

Bottom line is you have a problem with who is paying blockstream devs for their work. My question is why should one "contractor" be trusted more than the other?



i've already gone over this a dozen times for you.  the financial arrangements are totally different.

Care to provide me with a copy of the contractual arrangement of any developer being paid to work on Bitcoin core? Have you seen specifics of Gavin or Brian Forde's contract with MIT? Yep, didn't think so.

As far as I know only the Blockstream team has been transparent enough to provide detailed information about specific clauses of their contract. See, this to me is a respectable example of someone willing to step forward and at least provide some fact that can support their general statements about behaving in good faith.

"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
Peter R
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1050



View Profile
July 16, 2015, 04:45:39 AM
 #28897

Fair enough, but the whitepaper was launched along with this blog post : https://www.blockstream.com/2014/10/23/why-we-are-co-founders-of-blockstream/. Other than missing the "conflict of interest" disclaimer I find it transparent and public enough. Other than that you're kind of moving the goal posts  Wink

It sounds like you agree they do have a conflict of interest.  

I too believe they are being genuine in their concerns; and I believe they really think that increasing the block size limit would be bad.  I disagree with them, but I don't think they have malicious intentions.  

They do have a conflict of interest though.  And it's not even a big deal provided they openly acknowledge that fact!

Run Bitcoin Unlimited (www.bitcoinunlimited.info)
brg444
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 644

Bitcoin replaces central, not commercial, banks


View Profile
July 16, 2015, 04:50:45 AM
 #28898

Fair enough, but the whitepaper was launched along with this blog post : https://www.blockstream.com/2014/10/23/why-we-are-co-founders-of-blockstream/. Other than missing the "conflict of interest" disclaimer I find it transparent and public enough. Other than that you're kind of moving the goal posts  Wink

It sounds like you agree they do have a conflict of interest.  

I too believe they are being genuine in their concerns; and I believe they really think that increasing the block size limit would be bad.  I disagree with them, but I don't think they have malicious intentions.  

They do have a conflict of interest though.  And it's not even a big deal provided they openly acknowledge that fact!

And they do!

https://www.reddit.com/r/IAmA/comments/2k3u97/we_are_bitcoin_sidechain_paper_authors_adam_back/clhql71

"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
Zarathustra
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 980



View Profile
July 16, 2015, 06:55:38 AM
 #28899

mythology
It's ironic the degree to which your superstitions mirror the ones described by Lloyd de Mause in the link I provided.

This is not mythology, this is reality:

Private property rules are always guaranteed by organized violence of the state mafia.

The idea of private property is a meme, it all starts when one can justify denying land to some but not others with the use of a moral code, it is effectively enforced through force, the effectiveness of the meme, is those who are deprived very often understand the meme better than they the natural order of property.

Yes, new 'moral' code enforced through brute force. A post-paleolitic new moral that lead to collectivism via destruction of the nuclear community, the anarchist, self-sufficient life style. From anarchy to patriarchy.

A former 'austrian' who knows better since he studied history as nobody did before:

"Private property as de iure institution needs a foregoing state to come into existence. The state
needs foregoing power and foregoing power needs armed force.
The ultimate “foundation of the economy” thus is the weapon, where possession and property are identical because the
possession of it guarantees property of it.
Armed force starts additional production (surplus, tribute). The first taxes are contributions of material for the production of attack weapons
(copper, tin). Thus non-circulating money begins. Taxes as “census” and money are the same."

As soon as defence and protection of the (property-)title power executed by armed force in
war and peace needs mercenaries (soldiers from outside the power system) the one-way-money
turns into circulating “genuine money” in modern sense and its material changes from weapon-fitting to precious metal
and actually into any material which can be monopolized by the state.
Interest also at first is the tax (census) itself. The state, that must exist before property and
property-based contracts which only can be executed with use of armed force, can’t be
financed out of property or income which can only appear after its existence. Therefore the state faces the problem of
pre-financing itself (power, sovereignty) and it must draw on later tributes or taxes.
This “interest”, which always starts with power-based and never with “private” titles is nothing but a discount,
thereby rather a discount of the state-owned property (monopoly of armed force)
or property rights (monopoly of taxation) than any private “property premium” or even an mysterious item that “enlarges” something."


http://www.miprox.de/Wirtschaft_allgemein/Martin-Symp.pdf

Zarathustra
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 980



View Profile
July 16, 2015, 07:37:56 AM
 #28900

The output of rain forest people doesn't grow because their culture haven't evolved private property rules, it is no related to debt.
There are a few prerequisites needed before people can start producing economic surplus.

Tribal people in rain forests haven't yet figured out how to not routinely murder each other, so learning how to not respect property is still a ways off.


This link does not describe pre-patriarchal, anarchist human being. It describes the life style of gated communities within a civilized environment around it. Paleolitic, pre-patriarchal, anarchist life style was completely different.

Maternal incest is what is behind the cross-cultural finding by anthropologists that “where the mother sleeps closer to the baby than to the father and uses the baby as a substitute spouse, there is more homicide and a higher frequency of war.”5

Crazy science. A 'spouse' and a 'father' did not exist in the paleolitic anarchist environment, because nobody knew the begetter. It seems that those psychologists know nothing about the former anarchist life. They are believers of the post-paleolitic monogamous joke, called 'life'.
And you, Justus, are promoting such 'science'? I thought at least you are an anarchist. And now you argue against those people who have not been nationalized yet, with this pseudo science of the establishment.

Pages: « 1 ... 1395 1396 1397 1398 1399 1400 1401 1402 1403 1404 1405 1406 1407 1408 1409 1410 1411 1412 1413 1414 1415 1416 1417 1418 1419 1420 1421 1422 1423 1424 1425 1426 1427 1428 1429 1430 1431 1432 1433 1434 1435 1436 1437 1438 1439 1440 1441 1442 1443 1444 [1445] 1446 1447 1448 1449 1450 1451 1452 1453 1454 1455 1456 1457 1458 1459 1460 1461 1462 1463 1464 1465 1466 1467 1468 1469 1470 1471 1472 1473 1474 1475 1476 1477 1478 1479 1480 1481 1482 1483 1484 1485 1486 1487 1488 1489 1490 1491 1492 1493 1494 1495 ... 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!