>I thought @rocks' comment about how the dev tax actually places a ceiling on developer involvement enlightening.
indeed. there was an illuminating reddit post that argued that MOST devs don't want a protocol dev subsidy b/c it encourages protocol devs to keep shifting the sands (rules) resulting in unintended forking off of their offchain dev projects costing them time and money. we've seen Daniel interview one such dev a couple years ago. what's happening in the big pic is that we're seeing a select group of self selected power holders concentrate their power even more tightly as things get dicey and less certain. that's not good for BCH as a public good. no one (namely large financial institutions and merchants) is going to adopt such a farcical situation as they stand to lose money too.
>@cypherdoc What is your theory on why CSW copied entire academic papers nearly verbatim and past them off as his
we talked about this one time already. CSW doesn't appear to be a paragon of virtue, does he? plagiarism is disgusting, lazy, and highly unethical. so i don't condone what it appears he did. i did see though one mildy convincing argument as to why he does this. given i can't remember exactly what that argument was is perhaps some indication of it's plausibility
but he probably figures that which he copies are basic well known principles that even if plagiarized, shouldn't cause too many ruffled feathers on his way to the meat of what new principles he's trying to advance. not to make excuses for him, surely.
the way i see it, it's all part of the brain twister that will cause most investing in crypto to lose money.
[doublepost=1579834756,1579834139][/doublepost]
indeed. there was an illuminating reddit post that argued that MOST devs don't want a protocol dev subsidy b/c it encourages protocol devs to keep shifting the sands (rules) resulting in unintended forking off of their offchain dev projects costing them time and money. we've seen Daniel interview one such dev a couple years ago. what's happening in the big pic is that we're seeing a select group of self selected power holders concentrate their power even more tightly as things get dicey and less certain. that's not good for BCH as a public good. no one (namely large financial institutions and merchants) is going to adopt such a farcical situation as they stand to lose money too.
>@cypherdoc What is your theory on why CSW copied entire academic papers nearly verbatim and past them off as his
we talked about this one time already. CSW doesn't appear to be a paragon of virtue, does he? plagiarism is disgusting, lazy, and highly unethical. so i don't condone what it appears he did. i did see though one mildy convincing argument as to why he does this. given i can't remember exactly what that argument was is perhaps some indication of it's plausibility
but he probably figures that which he copies are basic well known principles that even if plagiarized, shouldn't cause too many ruffled feathers on his way to the meat of what new principles he's trying to advance. not to make excuses for him, surely.the way i see it, it's all part of the brain twister that will cause most investing in crypto to lose money.
[doublepost=1579834756,1579834139][/doublepost]
if my theory about the Tulip Trust being a GRAT or some other tax derivative strategy, then it will be liquidated into good ol fashioned dollars to complete the tax strategy in the eyes of the ATO or IRS or whatever jurisdiction. even if he retains a direct advisory role to the ultimate Trustee (whoever that might be), he couldn't tell that Trustee to dump the dollars straight away into yet another volatile immature asset like BSV, as there is legal prudence/obligation to what a Trustee must do with the funds.
Last edited:
