Community Directory


Go back

User Activity

Forum Posts

  • Replies: 1,764
  • Topics: 216
  • Likes Received: 1,244
  • Do Intentions Matter? - Saturday Morning Musing

    More and more I see people getting into entrepreneurial crypto projects who "can hear the song but can't whistle the tune".

    They REALLY want to succeed, the world sucks right now if you want to build something successful and Bitcoin land is one of the few bright shiny stars of opportunity.

    The problem is they don't much care at what they succeed, or how they get there.

    Some people build businesses because they're solving a problem they're passionate about. Some people build businesses because they want to make a lot of money and buy a ski resort. The balance isn't too terrible yet, but we're certainly biasing towards the sportsters over time.

    You can recognize this type of person fairly quickly. They are passionate speakers and evangelists but when pressed on detail, they will generate answers that don't make sense. Not that they are nonsense, rather that they demonstrate a fundamental misunderstanding for either the philosophy (neutrality) or function (decentralization) in an effort to help you see why their idea merits your time, attention, and/or money.

    My self appointed job is to help catalyze people in the first column, but I also help those in the second column. I've recently begun rethinking whether that makes sense - My theory to this point has been that more knowledge and truth and understanding would be only a good thing and it didnt matter if I was speaking with a 22 year old garage startup guy or a seventies investment banker, understanding would breed normalcy which leads to "legitimacy" in the minds of people to whom that matters.

    But things are moving fast now. Money is pouring into the ecosystem and just as importantly an ecosystem of projects built on fundraising bitcoin has sprung up to varying degrees of success.

    Last year my time was fairly plentiful but this year I'm literally auctioning my time to the highest bidder by the hour. Maybe that means its time to focus on people actively doing productive things rather than broadly "casting my gaze".

    Is it better to be neutral like Bitcoin, or to focus and exclude those who I dont find to be immediately valuable?

  • Re: SWARM.XCP - Swarm Coin.

    @markxmayer I agree with that 100%. I appreciate your aggressive (my word) approach. Being a native New Yorker, I'm usually accused of being too blunt, but I always prefer direct. I count on you to get to the truth and let us know your take, so please don't take my comments as displeasure with you.

    I guess my question is about the "misleading" part. Is their intent to be malicious here, or is this more like "Al Gore invented the Internet" misleading? Maybe I'm just used to marketers making far flung claims and so it rolls off easier here. I respect your standards on clarity here, and agree the claim rings hollow to me, but even you said, "it seems pretty clear they don't actually even believe themselves" - maybe they don't, are just having fun with their video, and went a bit wide with the claim. I just doesn't feel like that level of mistrust to me.

    Again, thanks for all you do for myself and the community. No matter the outcome, I appreciate being honestly informed (posting the chat log) and the ensuing discussion.

    After the swarm convo ended, we actually moved it to the appcoin chat I believe where I spoke with Matt, the community manager at counterparty about exactly your concern. Was it really dishonest, did it really matter? Couldn't a dress company say they invented style?

    My response is that it is VERY different with new and poorly understood technology because the first impression creates the mythology that will follow it forever. If the bullshittery (as with style) is obvious, I've got no problem with it. In this situation? They have done nothing but draw some wireframes, talk to some lawyers and collect a bunch of money. They are using the legitimacy of being inventors of something people have never heard of, and which they did not invent.

    Joel was going to launch Swarm's fundraiser without the token doing anything, he wanted to know if I thought that would be a problem. I told him that was a terrible idea and that he should make it so every holder of the coin gets a piece of every coin the platform launches (which is what I was also telling Coinpowers.com to do, but we eventually decided to go the conventional route and wait on the coin).

    He said "Hang on" and consulted with lawyers and said they were going to do that.

    ...

  • Re: SWARM.XCP - Swarm Coin.

    @markxmayer Full disclosure: I am a loyal and rabid fan of the LTB network and Adam. I did make a small investment in Swarm. I have exchanged email (promptly and unexpectedly) with Ben and Joel, but I don't know any of the parties personally in any way (other than maybe vicariously).

    It is so difficult to know what really happened here because text chats lack context. I completely respect (dare I say love) everything that Adam does. This bothers me because it seems that all participants are wonderful, well intentioned people trying to advance crypto, and they got hung up on semantics and ego.

    The chat reads to me like the Swarm guys had been burning the candle at both ends. Assuming the time stamp is Pacific time and they are in the UK it would be late evening (9:30). They appear to be happily showing off their work to some people (friends?, investors?, planned interview? context!) They seem "punchy," joking with each other and generally sounding silly (a non-professional context).

    The first I see from Adam is "lol invented cryptoequity." Now, if that is between friends it could be ok, but he basically mocked them publicly with that salvo. It is fine to disagree, but mocking isn't appropriate (unless in good fun between friends, which is how I originally read it because I thought they were friends).

    From there Ben seems to gets defensive. Adam takes an aggressive tone, laughs again, and continues to poke. Their response to Adam is certainly not professional, and the whole conversation quickly degrades into, as many have pointed out, childish-sounding garbage. Kicking Adam was in poor taste - and would stick in my craw too.

    In my heart I think that Adam felt slighted because I believe (from listening to every show) that he had some early discussions with Joel and helped him with ideas, including concepts of/around cryptoequity. I have no idea if that exact term was used, but I hear that as Adam's true point of disagreement. Unfortunately I think egos got bruised, and human nature took over.

    I despise this rift in the community. I wish that the parties could see that we'd all benefit from more harmony and less discord. Of course my read on all of this could be complete crap. I'm hoping I'm close. I have nothing but respect (and love) for all of you.

    I commented on this earlier - I did have an ongoing relationship with Joel, they asked me to join the team several times and I even asked for an offer once. The issue is people who don't see anything wrong with intentionally misleading, I don't support projects like that.

    I am, without doubt, a troll when people are doing something I feel is obviously wrong. That doesn't make them any less wrong. If you compare my approach vs. their approach it seems pretty clear they don't actually even believe themselves and are just making shit up.

    Regardless, my point is that with SWARM just like with LTBc or any other new community oriented token, the leaders and catalysts of such projects are VERY influential on the project. They set the tone of the culture, they define inclusivity, they make the rules and then are responsible for enforcing them as norms. I am very concerned for swarm on those merits, and this was the last straw not the first.

    Also, I'm not saying I invented cryptoequity. they certainly did not either, the first practical application was Protoshares which at the time I described as a cryptoequity (december), there are earlier bitcointalk threads etc. The whole argument is nonsense so they can say they invented it which gives them legitimacy that simply is not theirs. They hope to re-invent it, but I really have a problem with people who claim ownership of broad ideas before they've done anything. They are hoping to achieve basic platform functionality (like coinpowers.com has had for the last two months) by the end of august.

    please do not feel obligated to listen or agree with me, I just don't want it to be a surprise since I have spoken positives in the past - I asked them to take down my quote from the site yesterday

  • Re: JEDI, so is there only one Dojo?

    @mich What if I wanted to start my own Dojo? What if I wanted to call it a Doge-o? Can Dojo's be friends?

    I actually proposed Doge-O :) You're welcome to start a competing Dojo but I'd prefer the current one become more saturated than is useful before splitting.

    What would you do differently?

  • Re: Consulting and Drupal Development

    Any details on rate or how you'll calculate it?

  • Re: Do you have a Circle wallet?

    nope, signed up ages ago. Good trick, get people to sign up by promising free money then ignore them for months :)

  • Re: [LTB][HIRING 100k LTBC per month] TWITTER LIASON Manage the Let's Talk Bitcoin! Twitter Account!

    Nope, you can get started whenever on your example twitter account and post the link to your feed here. I'll watch them and when I see somebody who is doing the job as I've described it, we'll give them control and make it official

  • Re: Donate BTC to support the LTBCOIN Distribution Fees!

    @jedwardo @adam Instead of relying on donations, have you considered setting aside some part of the distribution for people who pay for the distribution costs? At this stage, I'm sure you won't have a problem getting donations, but if you continue to do regular distributions it seems like you will need a sustainable way to cover the costs.

    We're not selling any LTBc right now, we have 10% set aside for platform development which includes this. This is a temporary measure because we don't want to compete with any contributors who acquired LTBc for work and would like to turn it into another form of token. In a few weeks there will be a more stable market and this will be fine.

  • [50,000LTBc Each] Prepare and Manage the LTBcoin BitcoinTalk Announce Thread (Need both English & Chinese!)

    We really need to create one, I really don't want to do it. Who will solve my problem?

    The Role: Thread Manager

    The Responsibilities: Work on this forum to create the thread with the help of the community, then post it to BitcoinTalk and answer any questions. You will be able to call me in to answer questions if needed.

    The Rewards: 25,000LTBC after a first "successful" week, which means all the questions get answered and people are kept informed without me needing to do it. another 25,000 at the end of the month at which point you're encouraged to continue but that's all in terms of comp outside of tips.

    Note: We need to do this in Chinese too, feel free to translate this message to help get word out about the opportunity.

  • Re: Donate BTC to support the LTBCOIN Distribution Fees!

    @jedwardo Can someone explain how the signed message works? Is there a way for us to check the validity of the message using the keys that are provided?

    To be honest with you the signing interface on Counterparty might not even be working right now, I'm pretty sure if you check it it won't check out.

    But its legit, i'm waiting for them to fix the issue lol...

© Copyright 2013–2016 The LTB Network. All rights reserved .