brg444
|
![](https://bitcointalk.org/Themes/custom1/images/post/xx.gif) |
July 16, 2015, 04:19:28 AM |
|
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 (OP)
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 1764
Merit: 1002
|
![](https://bitcointalk.org/Themes/custom1/images/post/xx.gif) |
July 16, 2015, 04:20:32 AM |
|
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 (OP)
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 1764
Merit: 1002
|
![](https://bitcointalk.org/Themes/custom1/images/post/xx.gif) |
July 16, 2015, 04:23:05 AM |
|
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 (OP)
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 1764
Merit: 1002
|
![](https://bitcointalk.org/Themes/custom1/images/post/xx.gif) |
July 16, 2015, 04:26:01 AM |
|
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/ct4yc63brg444 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://bitcointalk.org/Smileys/default/wink.gif) https://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/3dg1us/the_golden_ratio_attack_blocks_more_than_half/ct505jfSo 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
|
![](https://bitcointalk.org/Themes/custom1/images/post/xx.gif) |
July 16, 2015, 04:27:27 AM |
|
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/clhql71Pieter 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
|
![](https://bitcointalk.org/Themes/custom1/images/post/xx.gif) |
July 16, 2015, 04:31:11 AM |
|
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
|
![](https://bitcointalk.org/Themes/custom1/images/post/xx.gif) |
July 16, 2015, 04:33:05 AM |
|
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
Activity: 1162
Merit: 1007
|
![](https://bitcointalk.org/Themes/custom1/images/post/xx.gif) |
July 16, 2015, 04:33:29 AM |
|
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.
|
|
|
|
tvbcof
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 4662
Merit: 1276
|
![](https://bitcointalk.org/Themes/custom1/images/post/xx.gif) |
July 16, 2015, 04:33:41 AM |
|
speaking of Mike Hearn anyone caught that one the other day? http://log.bitcoin-assets.com/?date=11-07-2015#1197442Luke-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](https://bitcointalk.org/Smileys/default/cheesy.gif) 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.
|
sig spam anywhere and self-moderated threads on the pol&soc board are for losers.
|
|
|
lottery248
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 1582
Merit: 1005
beware of your keys.
|
![](https://bitcointalk.org/Themes/custom1/images/post/xx.gif) |
July 16, 2015, 04:36:31 AM |
|
gold is unlimited all over the universe, that's why gold is collapsing.
|
out of ability to use the signature, i want a new ban strike policy that will fade the strike after 90~120 days of the ban and not to be traced back, like google | email me for anything urgent, message will possibly not be instantly responded i am not really active for some reason
|
|
|
cypherdoc (OP)
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 1764
Merit: 1002
|
![](https://bitcointalk.org/Themes/custom1/images/post/xx.gif) |
July 16, 2015, 04:36:57 AM |
|
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
|
![](https://bitcointalk.org/Themes/custom1/images/post/xx.gif) |
July 16, 2015, 04:39:08 AM |
|
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](https://bitcointalk.org/Smileys/default/wink.gif)
|
"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
|
![](https://bitcointalk.org/Themes/custom1/images/post/xx.gif) |
July 16, 2015, 04:44:07 AM Last edit: July 16, 2015, 04:58:42 AM by brg444 |
|
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
Activity: 1162
Merit: 1007
|
![](https://bitcointalk.org/Themes/custom1/images/post/xx.gif) |
July 16, 2015, 04:45:39 AM |
|
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!
|
|
|
|
brg444
|
![](https://bitcointalk.org/Themes/custom1/images/post/xx.gif) |
July 16, 2015, 04:50:45 AM |
|
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
Activity: 1162
Merit: 1004
|
![](https://bitcointalk.org/Themes/custom1/images/post/xx.gif) |
July 16, 2015, 06:55:38 AM Last edit: July 16, 2015, 07:12:13 AM by Zarathustra |
|
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 patri archy. 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
Activity: 1162
Merit: 1004
|
![](https://bitcointalk.org/Themes/custom1/images/post/xx.gif) |
July 16, 2015, 07:37:56 AM |
|
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.
|
|
|
|
|
|
TPTB_need_war
|
![](https://bitcointalk.org/Themes/custom1/images/post/xx.gif) |
July 16, 2015, 11:03:30 AM |
|
Lying won't help you. I was reading Armstrong's blog daily as of August 2012 when (it was roughly 12,000) he clearly stated that either it would double before October 2015, or it would phase shift and align with private assets and then delay that double or triple until 2017. Indeed the USA stock market did rise to roughly 18,000 and then it phase shifted and so now we await the double or triple in 2017. Funny. He really predicted a lot of funny things: Prediction April 2013: Slovenia will collapse from a spending spree, not because it invested in Euro bonds. (...) It is true that Slovenia is not Cyprus. It is worse.http://www.armstrongeconomics.com/archives/10720Reality 2014: ![](https://ip.bitcointalk.org/?u=http%3A%2F%2Fcdn.tradingeconomics.com%2Fcharts%2Fslovenia-gdp-growth-annual.png%3Fs%3Dsvgdcyoy%26v%3D201507012150&t=665&c=ODbrBoHSeDMwlA) He did not state of date for the collapse. Slovenia's economy shrunk considerably in 2013 and since then is having a real estate rebound as foreigners park capital there which is temporarily driving up their GDP and watch what happens after October. http://www.nytimes.com/2015/01/15/realestate/real-estate-in-slovenia.html?_r=0When the foreign buyers are gone, then watch for his prediction to come true. Also you need to differentiate between speculation and actual predictions. He was clearly speculating by the "?" in the title of the blog post. And no where did he show a computer model. This was his personal speculation and expressing his angst about EU dictatorship. When I relate to Armstrong's predictions, it is those that are made by the computer model and reiterated over numerous blog posts, not some quip in one blog post you dredged up to try to prove you are a jealous nutcase. Also Armstrong may just have a myopia on Slovenia, which wouldn't the first time that his personal speculations suck. I trust more his computer model and his interpretations of it. Slovenians are smart people. The could the exact opposite of the British. You don't see much binge drinking in Ljubljana, and when the Brits are big spenders, the Slovenians are big savers. They're the people who make you believe in Europe. If there ware only Germans, Slovenians, Estonians and people like that in the EU, it would rule the world. Unfortunately, people like the Greeks or the French are wrecking it.
|
|
|
|
|