Getting Roger Ver / Andreas Antonopoulos on USA Watchdog

[arnoudk]

I've just watched an interview between Greg Hunter of USA Watchdog and Hugo Salinas Price.

I really think Greg has a great channel and he gets a lot of things spot on. He sees the correct problems (in my opinion) developing in the traditional financial markets and he shares well-researched perspectives that allow me to understand what is going on in the world a bit better.

Unfortunately, he does not yet understand Bitcoin. I don't really blame him, he has obviously not researched it in sufficient detail. I understand that it takes significant time and effort to understand why bitcoin has any value at all. Most people who are bitcoins loudest and most vocal supporters started out just like Greg - denouncing it for having no value and for it not being real.

The following is the conversation, starting at 19:13:
http://youtu.be/QRFRBKwleL0

Greg: Some people would say, we are going to BitKonk,- Coin or eDollar or cryptocurrencies and you're saying ...
Hugo: I hope, I hope, I hope you're not promoting the bitcoin, that's not even ...
Greg: I'm not promoting it.
Hugo: Let's not even waste time on that. I mean, that's .... that's .... People are so easy, it's so easy to fool people.
Greg: It's bit computer program is what it is
Hugo: What?
Greg: It's Bit - Computer - Program, it's not Bit - Coin. That's why they call it coin, it's Oh there's something there. Tangible. No! It's a computer program.
Hugo: There's nothing there. Ahhh, ahhh, there's nothing there absolutely, and and, people are so har.. so easy. it's so easy to fool people. People are sort of in love with technology. They think that technology can do everything, well, the Bitcoin is like asking us to live on pills instead of eating steak, you know.
Greg: Hahahaha
Hugo: You just can't do it.
Greg: Yeah

I think, now that he has mentioned Bitcoin on his show, he should mention the full story. He can disagree, he can call it Bit - Computer - Program all day long. But he is an objective journalist and as such should look at all sides of a story, especially now that he has brought up the subject.

So I have submitted a request to him, to schedule an interview with Roger Ver or Andreas Antonopoulos. I believe he should be skeptical, and he should ask all the tough questions. But I believe he should not put down an incredible innovation - one that has real potential to do good in the world - due to a lack of understanding or misinformation.

If you feel so inclined, here is the opportunity to talk to Greg: http://usawatchdog.com/contact/

[arnoudk]

I've also created a post on reddit/btc (yes I finally gave in and registered an account!)
https://www.reddit.com/r/btc/comments/4 ... os_on_usa/

[nandibear]

...The following is the conversation, starting at 19:13:

[VIDEO]

Greg: Some people would say, we are going to BitKonk,- Coin or eDollar or cryptocurrencies and you're saying ...
Hugo: I hope, I hope, I hope you're not promoting the bitcoin, that's not even ...
Greg: I'm not promoting it.
Hugo: Let's not even waste time on that. I mean, that's .... that's .... People are so easy, it's so easy to fool people.
Greg: It's bit computer program is what it is
Hugo: What?
Greg: It's Bit - Computer - Program, it's not Bit - Coin. That's why they call it coin, it's Oh there's something there. Tangible. No! It's a computer program.
Hugo: There's nothing there. Ahhh, ahhh, there's nothing there absolutely, and and, people are so har.. so easy. it's so easy to fool people. People are sort of in love with technology. They think that technology can do everything, well, the Bitcoin is like asking us to live on pills instead of eating steak, you know.
Greg: Hahahaha
Hugo: You just can't do it.
Greg: Yeah...

@arnoudk

Thanks, I appreciate the minute mark (i.e., 19:13), the transcription (dialog between Greg and Hugo) and your thoughts regarding the interview/show.

Much more effective and helpful than just linking or embedding the video by itself.

[iFixBTCmemoryIssues]

I've just watched an interview between Greg Hunter of USA Watchdog and Hugo Salinas Price.

I really think Greg has a great channel and he gets a lot of things spot on. He sees the correct problems (in my opinion) developing in the traditional financial markets and he shares well-researched perspectives that allow me to understand what is going on in the world a bit better.

Unfortunately, he does not yet understand Bitcoin. I don't really blame him, he has obviously not researched it in sufficient detail. I understand that it takes significant time and effort to understand why bitcoin has any value at all. Most people who are bitcoins loudest and most vocal supporters started out just like Greg - denouncing it for having no value and for it not being real.

The following is the conversation, starting at 19:13:
http://youtu.be/QRFRBKwleL0

Greg: Some people would say, we are going to BitKonk,- Coin or eDollar or cryptocurrencies and you're saying ...
Hugo: I hope, I hope, I hope you're not promoting the bitcoin, that's not even ...
Greg: I'm not promoting it.
Hugo: Let's not even waste time on that. I mean, that's .... that's .... People are so easy, it's so easy to fool people.
Greg: It's bit computer program is what it is
Hugo: What?
Greg: It's Bit - Computer - Program, it's not Bit - Coin. That's why they call it coin, it's Oh there's something there. Tangible. No! It's a computer program.
Hugo: There's nothing there. Ahhh, ahhh, there's nothing there absolutely, and and, people are so har.. so easy. it's so easy to fool people. People are sort of in love with technology. They think that technology can do everything, well, the Bitcoin is like asking us to live on pills instead of eating steak, you know.
Greg: Hahahaha
Hugo: You just can't do it.
Greg: Yeah

I think, now that he has mentioned Bitcoin on his show, he should mention the full story. He can disagree, he can call it Bit - Computer - Program all day long. But he is an objective journalist and as such should look at all sides of a story, especially now that he has brought up the subject.

So I have submitted a request to him, to schedule an interview with Roger Ver or Andreas Antonopoulos. I believe he should be skeptical, and he should ask all the tough questions. But I believe he should not put down an incredible innovation - one that has real potential to do good in the world - due to a lack of understanding or misinformation.

If you feel so inclined, here is the opportunity to talk to Greg: http://usawatchdog.com/contact/

It is because he looks at Bitcoin as play-money, not real. To remedy this, exchange a large amount of coins infront of him on video, then get the cash and say "here, is this not real?". It works

[arnoudk]

Greg just sent me a very short response, that I answered for him.

What happens to it during an EMP attack?

It is not the question I had anticipated - I don't worry about EMPs, rather about financial stability (or the lack thereof).

I wrote the following response:

Thank you for your response!

During an EMP attack all electronics will obviously be destroyed. In the area that was affected, telecommunications, the Internet and phones or PCs would not work. In that particular area, you could not spend your bitcoin, but your asset would still be safe, it could not be stolen by anyone and you (and only you!) could spend it once you replace your electronics. Data would be destroyed, so a backup of your bitcoins must be made beforehand using a pen and paper, and you could store that in a safe place. There are also gadgets that allow you to store a backup of your bitcoins in a metal engraved mini-safe that you could bury in your backyard if you wanted to - a bit over the top in my opinion. A backup in this case refers to a backup of the private cryptography key that is needed to spend the bitcoin sent to your address. So the backup would not have to be repeated (if you do it correctly), and all coins that get sent to your address now, or any time in the future, can be spent using the backup. So your access to your funds is EMP proof (unless you ignore all warnings and setup steps and refuse to make such backup).

The network is distributed globally, and a global EMP would be very unlikely. (But even if that were to happen, there are even people running bitcoin software from inside nuclear bunkers - and really only one single computer from the network needs to survive for bitcoin to have an accurate and unforgeable ledger of who owns what bitcoin. In this most extreme example, it would of course take a long time to rebuild. Even that one single person - if he has the only copy left in the world, and if he knows he has the only copy left in the world, still cannot forge the ledger without exposing it as a fraud. So the ledger, which contains what account has what balance, is also EMP proof.

Personally, however, I am not concerned with an EMP. Maybe other people are.

Given your question, I think you are interested in both the technical and the economic challenges regarding bitcoin. In that case I would suggest you try to schedule an appointment with Andreas Antonopoulos first. He has answered senate hearings on bitcoin (and did an amazing job), has a vast knowledge of financial history, and literally wrote the book on bitcoin from a technology perspective. He would be the best candidate to invite on your show, if you would like. I am sure he would be prepared to accept.

[arnoudk]

Looks like we're not going to see a show with Andreas on USA Watchdog any time soon:

I am sorry I have zero faith in this. It may be just great in the future, but I would not tell people to put resources into it this close to a financial collapse. By the way, Bitcoin is misnamed. There is no “coin” in Bitcoin. There is nothing tangible about it. It is complicated block chain technology and complicated systems are inherently fragile. It should be renamed bit computer program. Thank you for your email.

I know he intended to end the conversation here, but I thought it polite to respond with the following email. I'm sure it is the last one on the subject with Greg.

Thanks for your message, I appreciate that you considered the request even if you chose not to pursue it further.

I agree that you should not TELL people to invest resources into bitcoin. You could choose to educate them about it, but only if you feel it has value for your audience. It is clear that you do not, at this point. It seems that in ten years, we will know whether I was right or wrong!

I do own some bitcoins, but not more than I could afford to lose, and I would never suggest anyone invest in anything because I do - whether it is bitcoin or anything.

With Bitcoin, there are certainly risks, from cryptography being broken, to communication channels blocked, to behind the scenes government involvement with the miners / developers (and I can't say with any kind of certainty that this is not happening right now, or will not happen in the future).

I also agree that a lot of the terminology used in bitcoin is incorrect - indeed bitcoin is not a coin (it is a chain of transactions, sent to addresses, spendable by the person who has the private key that unlocks that address). A bitcoin wallet is not a wallet (it is a list of private cryptographic keys), and mining involves no digging (it is finding cryptographic hashes with unique characteristics that take a predictable amout of computer power to find). And you are right, in that it is programmable money. At the core of every transaction, there is a tiny computer program that dictates who can spend the transaction. The term bit computer program is not accurate, as it misses the concept of scarcity. Other than that, it is spot on. It implies that you can copy it, like you can with a regular computer program, and then you would have two of them. With bitcoin, this is not possible. Digital scarcity is the real innovation of bitcoin, not the blockchain. The blockchain is just a ledger, and they have been around for the longest of times. That is why the private blockchains that the banks are talking about add no value at all, they could just use a database. They use your definition of bit computer money.

I'm still on-the-fence as to whether bitcoin is a fragile technology. It is the only computer system that I know of, that has been running flawlessly for 7 years even while being attacked, upgraded, and growing exponentially at the same time. With zero downtime. The decentralized nature gives it a lot of strength. The reason that I am still undecided on this issue is because there is significant centralization of mining power in China (the miners order transactions into the blockchain), and just a handful of people control a supermajority of this mining power. It is very centralized, in just one jurisdiction, and I consider that a risk.

If bitcoin breaks, it will be due to these kinds of centralizations in an otherwise decentralized system.

The frustrating thing is, that he is not necessarily wrong in his analysis - he is just basing his thoughts on incomplete information. Critical information to understanding what makes bitcoin work is missing.

[oreo]

EMP's, financial collapse, tinfoil hats...really? all the while this guy pumps gold and silver?

[CryptAxe]

I've just watched an interview between Greg Hunter of USA Watchdog and Hugo Salinas Price.

I really think Greg has a great channel and he gets a lot of things spot on. He sees the correct problems (in my opinion) developing in the traditional financial markets and he shares well-researched perspectives that allow me to understand what is going on in the world a bit better.

Unfortunately, he does not yet understand Bitcoin. I don't really blame him, he has obviously not researched it in sufficient detail. I understand that it takes significant time and effort to understand why bitcoin has any value at all. Most people who are bitcoins loudest and most vocal supporters started out just like Greg - denouncing it for having no value and for it not being real.

So I have submitted a request to him, to schedule an interview with Roger Ver or Andreas Antonopoulos. I believe he should be skeptical, and he should ask all the tough questions. But I believe he should not put down an incredible innovation - one that has real potential to do good in the world - due to a lack of understanding or misinformation.

I love listening to podcast interviews with developers and people like Roger Ver along with some other podcasts like the Joe Rogan Experience while I'm programming. The JRE had Andreas on the show multiple times and podcasts are definitely a great way to spread the word of Bitcoin. I bet a lot of other developers do the same thing when they are taking a break. I don't know anything about this podcast but even if he is a tinfoil hat guy or only into gold and silver, if someone could convince him of BTC he could be a source of a lot of new users. Good idea making the request