Gold collapsing. Bitcoin UP.

[cypherdoc]

http://www.fatf-gafi.org/publications/fatfrecommendations/documents/regulation-virtual-assets-interpretive-note.html

 

[Zarathustra]

> I'm a real human bean

There is only one real human bean ...

 

[cypherdoc]

these guys are great. funny as hell too. i personally love the British (aussie?) accents:

 

[cypherdoc]

ramping

 

[cypherdoc]

about fricking time! long live Aaron Swartz:

https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20190304/09220141728/big-win-open-access-as-university-california-cancels-all-elsevier-subscriptions-worth-11-million-year.shtml

 

[Norway]

Dr. Craig Wright awarded “Best Paper” at the 4th International Congress on Information and Communication Technology (2019) for his work on Decentralized Autonomous Corporations.

Continue ...

 

[cypherdoc]

https://violationtracker.goodjobsfirst.org/prog.php?major_industry_sum=financial+services

 

[Zarathustra]

Dr. Craig Wright awarded “Best Paper” at the 4th International Congress on Information and Communication Technology (2019) for his work on Decentralized Autonomous Corporations.

Continue ...

Not possible. The best papers are in @chriswilmer 's ledger journal:

https://ledgerjournal.org/

Oops!

 

[freetrader]

Scam conference got exposed swiftly of course.

"[ICICT website] claims that Prof. Dan Boneh from Stanford is on the technical Program Committee. I asked him, and he says that he never heard of the conference." - J. Stolfi

https://www.reddit.com/r/btc/comments/ay17ew/dr_dr_craig_satoshi_wright_gets_bogus_prize_from/

 

[cypherdoc]

at this point, NO dev can be trusted. the only way to rationally invest in this space is to invest in the principles outlined in the code; as it is today and what you hope it will evolve into tomorrow. the best bet is still BSV by my estimation.

 

[KoKansei]

https://www.reddit.com/r/btc/comments/ay17ew/dr_dr_craig_satoshi_wright_gets_bogus_prize_from/

The most intersting thing /u/jstolfi includes in his highly slanted "analysis" is this:

There is a continuous spectrum between serious conferences (such as those promoted by ACM, IEEE, or other prestigious societies) and those predatory ones

It is also one of the only neutral, true things that he says in his long-winded and highly speculative post. There seems to me to be a fine line between a conference that is an outright "scam" and one that is simply not as prestigious and overwhelmingly includes scholars from the poorer parts of the world. Are we therefore to believe that just because there are some sketchy things going on at these conferences that they therefore have exactly zero legitimacy, exactly zero integrity and perform exactly 0% of their purported academic function? I find that hard to believe. Nothing is ever quite that black and white IME.

At the very least the insinuation that Craig paid for the prize is completely unsubstantiated and TBH even makes me question the accuracy of the other hearsay jstolfi has included in his post.

Edit: Not that any of this should matter, since (I hope) nobody's support for a particular coin is ever going to hinge on whether or not jstolfi's characterization here is close to the truth or just a lot of wishful hot air.

 

[79b79aa8]

what's dubious is the hunger for such recognition, even if it is legitimate.

 

[cypherdoc]

this was interesting. 83% of LN development is by Blockstream employees Rusty Russell and Christian Decker. also, did AXA invest the entire $55M in series A Blockstream funding? i never thought it was that high but who knows:

https://duckduckgo.com/?q=youtube+the+corporation+controlling+blockstream&t=canonical&ia=videos&iax=videos&iai=2_HV0h0ZQIM

 

[freetrader]

It is also one of the only neutral, true things that he says in his long-winded and highly speculative post.

You imply that he said some measure of false things. Care to point out what he said that's objectively false?

 

[KoKansei]

@freetrader I don't want to shit up the thread too much with this, but for one thing there is this:

They charge a high fee for submitting a paper, and accept all abstracts that look vaguely scientific even if they are total nonsense.

Which could be true, but to what extent it is is not really clear and what's more there is no absolute line between "scientific" and "nonsense" but rather a fine gradient. Are there probably a lot of garbage papers at the conference? Maybe, but that doesn't mean that there is zero legitimate scholarship going on either.

Another one that stands out to me is:

The only people in the audience of a paper are the 2-3 authors who came and are presenting in that same session.

This line actually stinks a bit more than the last one because the implication here seems to be that nobody likely seriously attended Craig's presentation or engaged with the content during the Q&A. This seems a little bit dubious to me. For one thing any professor worth their salt, even a third rate professor, can usually get more than a few warm bodies into a lecture hall to at least keep up appearances. I've been to some shitty conferences in non-English speaking parts of the world, and yes sometimes the papers are garbage (or maybe I should say on the darker end of the garbage spectrum), but there are usually at least more than 2 to 3 people listening to a given presentation, especially if the presenter is more senior or has an impressive CV.

I wouldn't say that what jstolfi is saying is entirely objectively false, but rather just taken out of context and worded in a way to achieve a certain effect over people who have largely already made up their mind. And that effect does not have anything to do with finding the truth IMO. He is mostly tending to his narrative.

 

[cypherdoc]

why would anyone even begin to think the real Satoshi went to Princeton and has to present at the very best "legitimate" conferences? presumably he's had cypherpunk tendencies from the beginning. at least he tries which is way more than we get from BCH devs, which is a big fat zero across the board in terms of credentials.
[doublepost=1551918496,1551917873][/doublepost]furthermore, for those who watch those BCH video meetings, like I said before, if that is the level of discourse/discussion/rigor/math/testing/planning/game theory that goes into all these planned upgrades (and I assume it is) BCH is headed for a whole lot of trouble.

 

[cypherdoc]

the takeover of BTC is almost complete:

https://blockstream.info/

 

[cypherdoc]

ding some dong boys, lol!

 

[cypherdoc]

it's time for the real Satoshi to step up and say, "i am not Craig":

https://medium.com/@craig_10243/the-myth-of-forks-be04f8e5fe4a

 

[Bagatell]

I've said all along that I don't care if CSW is a fraud,

I'm outa here.