Bitcoin Forum
December 07, 2016, 10:39:01 PM *
News: To be able to use the next phase of the beta forum software, please ensure that your email address is correct/functional.
 
   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 ... 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 1496 ... 1560 »
  Print  
Author Topic: Gold collapsing. Bitcoin UP.  (Read 1805734 times)
brg444
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 630

Bitcoin replaces central, not commercial, banks


View Profile
July 16, 2015, 04:01:44 AM
 #28901

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

"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
1481150341
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1481150341

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1481150341
Reply with quote  #2

1481150341
Report to moderator
1481150341
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1481150341

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1481150341
Reply with quote  #2

1481150341
Report to moderator
Advertised sites are not endorsed by the Bitcoin Forum. They may be unsafe, untrustworthy, or illegal in your jurisdiction. Advertise here.
Peter R
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 938



View Profile
July 16, 2015, 04:05:03 AM
 #28902

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.  

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

Activity: 630

Bitcoin replaces central, not commercial, banks


View Profile
July 16, 2015, 04:09:55 AM
 #28903

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"

"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, 04:11:35 AM
 #28904

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
Peter R
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 938



View Profile
July 16, 2015, 04:15:06 AM
 #28905

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?

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

Activity: 1764



View Profile
July 16, 2015, 04:15:47 AM
 #28906

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.
brg444
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 630

Bitcoin replaces central, not commercial, banks


View Profile
July 16, 2015, 04:15:54 AM
 #28907

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
 #28908

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: 630

Bitcoin replaces central, not commercial, banks


View Profile
July 16, 2015, 04:19:28 AM
 #28909

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
 #28910

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
 #28911

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
 #28912

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: 630

Bitcoin replaces central, not commercial, banks


View Profile
July 16, 2015, 04:27:27 AM
 #28913

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: 630

Bitcoin replaces central, not commercial, banks


View Profile
July 16, 2015, 04:31:11 AM
 #28914

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: 630

Bitcoin replaces central, not commercial, banks


View Profile
July 16, 2015, 04:33:05 AM
 #28915

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: 938



View Profile
July 16, 2015, 04:33:29 AM
 #28916

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
*
Online Online

Activity: 1988


View Profile
July 16, 2015, 04:33:41 AM
 #28917

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
Hero Member
*****
Online Online

Activity: 630


hologram pre-ann: codename Paizuri


View Profile WWW
July 16, 2015, 04:36:31 AM
 #28918

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
 #28919

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: 630

Bitcoin replaces central, not commercial, banks


View Profile
July 16, 2015, 04:39:08 AM
 #28920

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
Pages: « 1 ... 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 1496 ... 1560 »
  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!