Quote from: guybrushthreepwood on February 08, 2014, 04:16:58 PM

Quote from: BCB on February 08, 2014, 03:55:58 PM

Quote from: gweedo on February 07, 2014, 07:04:57 AM

Is their a TLDR of what happen at this talk?

It is not the content (anyone in bitcoin knows and understand that) as much as the humble diplomacy with which Gavin explains to the establishment how this technology just makes sense. And it it not fire and brimstone. His best answers are the entirely truthful: "I don't know" because as we all know the potential of this technology is limitless.

Worth a watch if only for an example of how to engage skeptics - not with fierce opposition and argument but with subtle and engaging charm.

They didn't seem overly sceptical. I thought it would be a drilling/grilling, but it was far more relaxed.

Yes, the interviewer admitted to being a skeptic but the conversation was cordial and informative. And I'm sure they had cocktails or dinner after with additional questions and conversation. And the skeptics walk away thinking, here is a smart, articulate family man who obviously believes in this. Maybe I better take a deeper look. And it is fear and lack of knowledge for the protocol that is what causes most of the FUD. You can event witness this in the NYS DFS bitlicense hearings. Lawsky started off all fire and brim stone comparing Charlie Shrem, by association, with Terrorists, financial criminals and other illicit actors, and with a clear indication that he felt bitcoin was bad. He even invoked the memory of 9/11 stating we are only 100 yards from the WTC where 1000's lost their lives because of terrorists ability to move massive amounts of money illegally (no true actually - they moved most of it legally!).

But by the second day you could see that he and his colleagues were asking really thoughtful and probing question as they began to understand the value and the potential of the technology.

I only mention this to counter the stance of the crypto-anarchist libertarians who like to say "Fuck the Fed" and other inciting opposition stances.

My argument is that we make much greater progress in advancing our position by thoughtful and reasonable discourse.