I look forward to a proper rebuttal and reasoning for private chains from him then. His reasons listed loosely translated to, ‘because x-monies is behind it’, which I can tell you from experience doesn’t mean succession.
“Antonopoulos’ notion that these financial institutions will not succeed in developing a private blockchain is similar to a misconception in another nascent industry: cannabis. In cannabis — an industry that evolved underground for much longer than Bitcoin — many participants believe that the foremost bio-technology firms on the planet, like Monsanto, will not be able to quickly create and patent their own strains of marijuana. As scientists in the space will tell you, that is a naive thought. Major corporations — with billions, and even trillions, in assets — have the best in scientists working for them, as well as the best in technology. They will be able to create new, potentially superior strains in mere years, patent them, and offer them at better prices than “mom and pop” growers.”
As a private investor in WA in the cannabis environment. I think he’s assuming too much on the ability to patent life or the cannabis strains. I think he should also explore the patenting done by USA/US dept of health as well. The attempt to synthase THC to the product Marinol was a failure as you can’t fool our receptors with it and patents moved on to actual cannabis. They also had TOP SCIENTISTS.
Then there was this…
“Similarly, technology firms like IBM, Intel and Red Hat can afford the very best developers. If developers are not interested in working in the corporate world, the economics of the situation do not suggest they will go and work for an online creation community like Bitcoin, with its uncertainty, and pay based on future bitcoin price gains. Almost invariably, they will go where the money takes them. True believers work on Bitcoin, not those agnostic to how their wealth is obtained.”
I think Justin needs to look at a projects like OpenBazaar. I feel Justin is defining his perspective based solely on financial incentive in projects. While it does pull on plenty of people developing technology. I’ve met plenty who reject the rewarding principles of financial security and look to build the platforms they envision.
Yep. That’s why open discussion, no matter how messy, are valuable.
I think this exchange between Andrea and Justin is also somewhat humorous, probably only to me though.
Andreas had a touching podcast with another user on here about communication and censorship - http://www.bitcoin.kn/2016/04/andreas-antonopolous-discusses-understanding-blockchain-technology/ (seriously good talk).
17:25+ Andreas remarks on his favorite quote from Louis D. Brandeis loosely. You can find Louis Brandeis quote as -
“If there be time to expose through discussion the falsehood and fallacies, to avert the evil by the process of education, the remedy to be applied is more speech, not enforced silence.”
I can see why he just outright blocked Bitcoinist after reading a couple paragraphs that don’t really make a compelling argument on private chains but seems to just repeat the legacy narrative of money = success. He doesn’t have time for it.
I look forward to more speech though from either party.
The real irony here is that the comments section is creating the actual debate or talking points instead of the main speakers involved.