Gold collapsing. Bitcoin UP.

[Bagatell]

Generational warfare:

Did your parents mistreat you? If so I can see why you have such a simplistic attitude.

[1713291645]

1713291645

[1713291645]

1713291645

[1713291645]

1713291645

[cypherdoc]

Time to head to Spain:

http://www.coindesk.com/spanish-bitcoin-community-celebrate-bitcoins-vat-exemption/

[hdbuck]

How The Second Tech Bubble Will Burst, In The Words Of Silicon Valley's "Poster Child" And World's Youngest Billionaire:

Total internet advertising spend cannot justify outsized valuations of social media products that derive revenue from advertising. Feed-based advertising units will plummet in value (in the case of Twitter, advertising spend may not move beyond experimental dollars) similar to earlier devaluing of Internet display advertising.

Fed has created abnormal market conditions by printing money and keeping interest rates low. Investors are looking for growth anywhere they can find it and tech companies are good targets - at these values, however, all tech stocks are expensive - even looking at 5+ years of revenue growth down the road. This means that most value-driven investors have left the market and the remaining 5-10%+ increase in market value will be driven by momentum investors. At some point there won't be any momentum investors left buying at higher prices, and the market begins to tumble. May be 10-20% correction or something more significant, especially in tech stocks.

http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2015-04-23/how-tech-bubble-will-burst-words-silicon-valleys-poster-child-and-worlds-youngest-bi


bring it on!

[brg444]

Cypherdoc, seeing as you were so much against 3 core developers working under the same hood at Blockstream do you have any comments about Gavin & co. setting up shop in NSA's antechamber working under a previous White House senior advisor?

[justusranvier]

Total internet advertising spend cannot justify outsized valuations of social media products that derive revenue from advertising.

We actually can't be certain about that statement until we know what percent of the money that pays for internet advertising originated in the intelligence agency budgets.

[cypherdoc]

Cypherdoc, seeing as you were so much against 3 core developers working under the same hood at Blockstream do you have any comments about Gavin & co. setting up shop in NSA's antechamber working under a previous White House senior advisor?

i see it as a different situation.

Blockstream is a for-profit started by gmax himself in which they have equity shares which stand to appreciate enormously if SC's are successful and have specifically solicited numerous deep pocketed investors, many of whom have been anti-Bitcoin historically.  not only that, i specifically have admitted to having suspicions about gmax and Luke Jr's political views and shown examples of how they have mishandled community issues in the past.  plus, i don't like the entire concept of SC's in general as i don't believe moving BTC to a scBTC is a good economic idea for several reasons especially in regards to disrupting an equilibrium balanced mining industry.

as far as Gavin, Wlad, & Cory are concerned, they all were under the BF's roof all along before.  they have just moved over to MIT now which in theory is not a for profit afaik and doesn't exist for political reasons.  i'm only now getting a sense from some of you about concerns regarding MIT's past behaviors.  all i know about Aaron Swartz is that they didn't support him in his gvt struggles, is that right?  i think he was attacking/releasing some of their paywall informational archives, wasn't he?  if that's the case, then it seems understandable that their would be some tension btwn them.

i read Joi Ito's statement on the Media Labs intention and so far we should give him the benefit of the doubt.  of course, time will tell.  i did read that article this morning about Forde.  he's definitely someone worth keeping an eye on.  i would not like it if he ends up trying to steer core dev direction to a significant degree away from our ideal goals that we've espoused ad nauseum here in this thread.  one thing that did occur to me is that Gavin, et al won't be moving to MIT under the direct roof of the Media Lab, i'm sure.  they will continue to work remotely which helps shield them to a degree.  but yeah, accepting pay can be influential for sure.  somehow though, from what i've seen of MIT's overall contributions to tech, they seem to have libertarian leanings supportive of the Bitcoin culture and open source.  and the fact that it is a research institution is comforting.  do you have any evidence that it is an NSA "antechamber"?

tl;dr:  i don't see it as a problem right now; in fact, i see it as a positive that those 3 are going to continue to be paid.  but yeah, we have to keep an eye out.

[Adrian-x]

Total internet advertising spend cannot justify outsized valuations of social media products that derive revenue from advertising.

We actually can't be certain about that statement until we know what percent of the money that pays for internet advertising originated in the intelligence agency budgets.

Yes good point, when I take off my tinfoil hat and my rose coloured glasses. It looks like the secret owners of the old media giants are now renting a more effective tool, and paying for it with printed money.

We can own this tool and need to use it more effectively

[cypherdoc]

"One division at Deutsche Bank had a culture of generating profits without proper regard to the integrity of the market. This wasn't limited to a few individuals but, on certain desks, it appeared deeply ingrained."

"Deutsche Bank's failings were compounded by them repeatedly misleading us. The bank took far too long to produce vital documents and it moved far too slowly to fix relevant systems and controls," she said.

The FCA said that in one instance, Deutsche in error destroyed 482 tapes of telephone calls that should have been kept. "Deutsche Bank also provided inaccurate information to the regulator about whether other records existed," the FCA said.

The misconduct involved at least 29 Deutsche Bank individuals, including managers and traders, mainly based in London but also in Frankfurt, Tokyo and New York. It took place between 2005 and 2009."

http://www.bbc.com/news/business-32430710

[brg444]

as far as Gavin, Wlad, & Cory are concerned, they all were under the BF's roof all along before.  they have just moved over to MIT now which in theory is not a for profit afaik and doesn't exist for political reasons.  i'm only now getting a sense from some of you about concerns regarding MIT's past behaviors.  all i know about Aaron Swartz is that they didn't support him in his gvt struggles, is that right?  i think he was attacking/releasing some of their paywall informational archives, wasn't he?  if that's the case, then it seems understandable that their would be some tension btwn them.

i read Joi Ito's statement on the Media Labs intention and so far we should give him the benefit of the doubt.  of course, time will tell.  i did read that article this morning about Forde.  he's definitely someone worth keeping an eye on.  i would not like it if he ends up trying to steer core dev direction to a significant degree away from our ideal goals that we've espoused ad nauseum here in this thread.  one thing that did occur to me is that Gavin, et al won't be moving to MIT under the direct roof of the Media Lab, i'm sure.  they will continue to work remotely which helps shield them to a degree.  but yeah, accepting pay can be influential for sure.  somehow though, from what i've seen of MIT's overall contributions to tech, they seem to have libertarian leanings supportive of the Bitcoin culture and open source.  and the fact that it is a research institution is comforting.  do you have any evidence that it is an NSA "antechamber"?

tl;dr:  i don't see it as a problem right now; in fact, i see it as a positive that those 3 are going to continue to be paid.  but yeah, we have to keep an eye out.

About Aaron Swartz see here. :
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vXr-2hwTk58

tl;dr not only did they not support him, they supported the gvt with evidences and complicity in the prosecution of a victimless crime.

MIT may not "exist" for political reasons but like most every institutions in the united states are now rotten with government agents and politically captured by potato science "research" funding.

http://www.boston.com/news/local/massachusetts/articles/2010/08/08/leak_case_spotlights_an_mit_divide/

I mean, what else could have caused this much damage to a once great institution https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8ve23i5K334

[cypherdoc]

as far as Gavin, Wlad, & Cory are concerned, they all were under the BF's roof all along before.  they have just moved over to MIT now which in theory is not a for profit afaik and doesn't exist for political reasons.  i'm only now getting a sense from some of you about concerns regarding MIT's past behaviors.  all i know about Aaron Swartz is that they didn't support him in his gvt struggles, is that right?  i think he was attacking/releasing some of their paywall informational archives, wasn't he?  if that's the case, then it seems understandable that their would be some tension btwn them.

i read Joi Ito's statement on the Media Labs intention and so far we should give him the benefit of the doubt.  of course, time will tell.  i did read that article this morning about Forde.  he's definitely someone worth keeping an eye on.  i would not like it if he ends up trying to steer core dev direction to a significant degree away from our ideal goals that we've espoused ad nauseum here in this thread.  one thing that did occur to me is that Gavin, et al won't be moving to MIT under the direct roof of the Media Lab, i'm sure.  they will continue to work remotely which helps shield them to a degree.  but yeah, accepting pay can be influential for sure.  somehow though, from what i've seen of MIT's overall contributions to tech, they seem to have libertarian leanings supportive of the Bitcoin culture and open source.  and the fact that it is a research institution is comforting.  do you have any evidence that it is an NSA "antechamber"?

tl;dr:  i don't see it as a problem right now; in fact, i see it as a positive that those 3 are going to continue to be paid.  but yeah, we have to keep an eye out.

About Aaron Swartz see here. :
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vXr-2hwTk58

i've watched that whole video.  so very sad.

tl;dr not only did they not support him, they supported the gvt with evidences and complicity in the prosecution of a victimless crime.

MIT may not "exist" for political reasons but like most every institutions in the united states are now rotten with government agents and politically captured by potato science "research" funding.

http://www.boston.com/news/local/massachusetts/articles/2010/08/08/leak_case_spotlights_an_mit_divide/

if you read the entire article you'll see that the institutions stance on issues of freedom are diverse; Daniel Ellsberg, Noam Chomsky, Bradley Manning supporters, Matthew Green of Zerocash, the MIT Bitcoin Club and Bitcoin Drop, Theodore Postol all came from MIT.

I mean, what else could have caused this much damage to a once great institution https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8ve23i5K334

bad link

[brg444]

bad link

working fine for me.

edit : another one

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aIhk9eKOLzQ

[cypherdoc]

bad link

working fine for me.

edit : another one

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aIhk9eKOLzQ

what does that video really have to do with MIT students?

[brg444]

bad link

working fine for me.

edit : another one

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aIhk9eKOLzQ

what does that video really have to do with MIT students?

Can you read?

MIT graduates cannot power a light bulb with a battery.

[cypherdoc]

bad link

working fine for me.

edit : another one

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aIhk9eKOLzQ

what does that video really have to do with MIT students?

Can you read?

MIT graduates cannot power a light bulb with a battery.

can you process?  do you really think that headline is reflective or some indictment on MIT education?

[brg444]

bad link

working fine for me.

edit : another one

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aIhk9eKOLzQ

what does that video really have to do with MIT students?

Can you read?

MIT graduates cannot power a light bulb with a battery.

can you process?  do you really think that headline is reflective or some indictment on MIT education?

[cypherdoc]

bad link

working fine for me.

edit : another one

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aIhk9eKOLzQ

what does that video really have to do with MIT students?

Can you read?

MIT graduates cannot power a light bulb with a battery.

can you process?  do you really think that headline is reflective or some indictment on MIT education?

my point is, that's a stupid video.  so what if they dumbfounded a few MIT students about how to power a light bulb.  we don't even know if they ARE MIT students.  and if they are, they probably cherry picked those who couldn't to try and make a predetermined point.  one wonders how many students they had to edit out who could light the bulb.  iow, i wouldn't throw the whole institution under the bus just b/c of this video.

[brg444]

bad link

working fine for me.

edit : another one

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aIhk9eKOLzQ

what does that video really have to do with MIT students?

Can you read?

MIT graduates cannot power a light bulb with a battery.

can you process?  do you really think that headline is reflective or some indictment on MIT education?

my point is, that's a stupid video.  so what if they dumbfounded a few MIT students about how to power a light bulb.  we don't even know if they ARE MIT students.  and if they are, they probably cherry picked those who couldn't to try and make a predetermined point.  one wonders how many students they had to edit out who could light the bulb.  iow, i wouldn't throw the whole institution under the bus just b/c of this video.

it is strange to me you understand the truth of sound money yet do not grok the reality I apparently have to lead you to. it's like you only have one eye open.

these guys are slowly trying to co-opt Bitcoin to the government and its establishments and you can't see it

just look at the list of the Media Lab "sponsors" : https://www.media.mit.edu/sponsorship/sponsor-list

Brian Forde, former White House senior advisor for mobile and data innovation, has joined the MIT Media Lab as director of digital currency.

https://newsoffice.mit.edu/2015/brian-forde-media-lab-director-digital-currency-0415

Get a grip.

I'm not saying this will kill Bitcoin but this is certainly no less "bad" than what the folks are Blockstream are privately funding, whether they are for profit or not is irrelevant really.

[cypherdoc]

bad link

working fine for me.

edit : another one

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aIhk9eKOLzQ

what does that video really have to do with MIT students?

Can you read?

MIT graduates cannot power a light bulb with a battery.

can you process?  do you really think that headline is reflective or some indictment on MIT education?

my point is, that's a stupid video.  so what if they dumbfounded a few MIT students about how to power a light bulb.  we don't even know if they ARE MIT students.  and if they are, they probably cherry picked those who couldn't to try and make a predetermined point.  one wonders how many students they had to edit out who could light the bulb.  iow, i wouldn't throw the whole institution under the bus just b/c of this video.

it is strange to me you understand the truth of sound money yet do not grok the reality I apparently have to lead you to. it's like you only have one eye open.

these guys are slowly trying to co-opt Bitcoin to the government and its establishments and you can't see it

just look at the list of the Media Lab "sponsors" : https://www.media.mit.edu/sponsorship/sponsor-list

Brian Forde, former White House senior advisor for mobile and data innovation, has joined the MIT Media Lab as director of digital currency.

https://newsoffice.mit.edu/2015/brian-forde-media-lab-director-digital-currency-0415

Get a grip.

I'm not saying this will kill Bitcoin but this is certainly no less "bad" than what the folks are Blockstream are privately funding, whether they are for profit or not is irrelevant really.

i already addressed all your concerns above in my first answer to you.  if you'd rather look at the negatives around MIT and ignore the for-profit incentives of Blockstream, i can't help you.

[Peter R]

MIT's Digital Currency Initiative is, for numerous reasons, a positive thing for Bitcoin.  Perhaps most importantly, it gives a sort of "social permission" to take Bitcoin seriously.  Efforts like this, combined with the Princeton Lecture Series and Stanford's Bitcoin Research group slowly shift Bitcoin research from a fringe idea to a serious field of scholarly inquiry.  If interest in Bitcoin proves robust, we'll later see other universities launch similar initiatives, greater involvement by academics, and peer-reviewed journals dedicated to Bitcoin research.  Haha, perhaps 30 years from now, undergraduate students will learn about Nakamoto Consensus or Maxwell's Coinjoin from textbooks. 

"Centralization" at MIT will later be offset by similar initiatives at other universities.  In fact, in a lot of ways, academia has always been sort of "peer-to-peer" and "decentralized"; in my opinion, it's a good place to foster continued Bitcoin research and development.   

[Peter R]

A consequence of the "adoption" that so many of us want, is that Bitcoin must permeate through big institutions such as universities and branches of government.  Indeed this presents the risk of unfavourable changes to Bitcoin, but it's also the force that creates the social permission necessary for widespread adoption.  Furthermore, I think the "co-opt and control" concerns expressed here and on Reddit are largely misplaced.  From the people I've met, whether it's an analyst at the SF Fed, a MIT professor, or an executive at RBC, the feeling I get from them is one of genuine interest and curiosity. Bitcoin is simply a new useful tool and so, they want to understand it and potentially use it.  Exactly how it will be used in this post-bitcoin-adoption world is undefined.  It's up to us to try and shape it…

Eventually, we may find ourselves deep within the belly of the beast…and at that point I think Bitcoin will have already succeeded.