… while sabotaging it by himself. Why not start with the narrow but clearly defined topic of BTC instead directly trying to escape from this planet/ solar system. Why to hit some DTM rhen from beginning?!
It seems to me the whole issue Weinstein has, whether he wants to say it directly or not, is that BTC maximalism currently prefers ossification of the protocol, not building on it. Not to shill ETH, but that's literally what separates its community from BTC. You can't "solve everything" with BTC because you can't build a new voting system on top of it. You can't better allocate funding to public goods. You can't reconstruct markets for artist reimbursement to improve efficiency. You can't work anonymously and remotely for a decentralized organization (DAO) with anyone in the world and redefine and reinvent what the "work week" and "corporations" look like. You CAN do all of that with Ethereum, or at least people are actively working to build towards that future. So of course Peter and Travis are going to just stare blankly back at Eric when he asks how BTC can fix things outside of just being a new form of money. The entire BTC maximalist community is built on ossifying the protocol and NOT on changing or building new things. It's literally just "buy and hodl and maybe you'll have some financial freedom later".
I left with the same sentiment. Eric would be better matched conversationally with Robert Breedlove, Michael Saylor, Peter Diamandis, Plan B, William Clemente III, or similar.
@fuk urseth his point is clear, for what the fuck are you hodling those btc, if is all you'r doing in your life?! get a real perspective in life, after you can provide for yourself and your family, all this value must be used in some way , to create and made things and experiences that have a meaning to you
eric they pretend to love you now but just wait till you say something wrong about bitcoin just like elon and they rip your head off for it be careful man these bitcoiners can be dangerous to your health and career... o and also your wallet too lol
@fuk urseth you dont get the point, the questions are: How to change the "system"? / what is wrong with the system? Eric suggested show the CPI is calculated wrong, but do whatever u think challenges the "system" and can be proven time and time again. imagine triing to convince the church in the middle age that the earth inst a plate and cyrcles around the solar system. Bitcoin as decentralized store of value is not the "hole" solution, you need mathematical / physical proves, if your not smart enough to solve this yourself but you made a killing in bitcoin, why not hire some professionals to research. it looks like the bitcoin millionaires are just like the fiat milllionaires and keep the mooney for themself, and dont improve the bitcoin network against CPI or whatever fight.
He can't convince them to go along with what he wants, the conversation to convince them is "too boring" and then lastly his response is to "buy me a sales team". He may be a god at math but he came across as a complete moron here.
@@Trees36547 agreed, Eric was really not selling his position. Why should bitcoiners fund your moon expidition? Why should we go after the economists? All he did was strawman the whole time and i dont think he really did say anything insightful at all.
Eric was making a point o being a difficult prick. Like when he unbelievably went into dictionary definition of money forgery when Peter was only making a half rhetorical point, about his opinion on money printing. Eric was being a total douche
@@Trees36547 they all did 😀😀😀 and that’s my problem with Bitcoin people in general.. No matter how much they try - they always sound like they are still trying to convince you to buy Bitcoin 😀 and I am just never convinced - even if I did have the money ;)
This could be too simplistic, but what I took away from Eric is that we bitcoiners are all about “opting out” but there are systemic things that need to be directly addressed. We are taking our ball and leaving the current system for a new playground. We trash talk as we walk away, and puff our chests, but we are *merely* opting out and are off to create a new game on a new playground, but meanwhile the old system is still running things. I think he’s saying merely opting out is not good enough because elements of the old system needs to be addressed or the new system will always be hamstrung. We need to go toe to toe, punch the other kids in the mouth, and directly address what’s wrong with their playground; and he believes the approach of traditional economists are currently the biggest thing wrong with the existing system.
Well said, I agree. What is the bottom line thing to be accomplished? I think that is what Eric is asking. The scope of Eric's answer to that question is broader than most people can comprehend (and I am guilty). At least he is asking if cancelling the Fed, etc., is not the target then what is? The step missing is that there needs to be a consensus on the target, then Peter pointing out that it needs to be less academic and more folksy so that we can gain broad adoption by the bitcoin-er masses. Only at that point can we ask what are the concrete steps to proceed.
I feel like Eric suffers from a nostalgic delusion that the system was competently run in the past. The US was positioned to benefit from the fact that the previous powers bombed themselves out of relevance at the beginning of the last century. And it seems like he perceives the resulting prosperity as an output of institutional competence rather than a mad coke binge that has spiraled until now. Taking our ball and finding a new playground is the sane move IMO
I agree that's what Eric said. But if BTC builds the better system, like a Black Hole, its greater density will suck the energy out of the legacy system. Frontal attacks rarely work. The go around or orthoganol attacks work.
PRO TIP: don't open the podcast by complaining how hard it was to schedule the guest (as if it is their fault they couldn't come earlier) Ouch! Maybe, just maybe thank them for sharing their time and unique opinions with you and your subscribers...
This conversation makes me appreciate podcast hosts like Joe Rogan even more. The constant defensiveness and unwillingness to entertain and explore Eric's views prevented a much more interesting conversation from taking place.
I agree, but at the same time Eric's line of conversation is very academic, barely comprehended by the most of the audience. Eric has the fault that if he is not understood or misunderstood is the fault of the listener and not his. I believe he has to be able to educate his audience otherwise it will remain in the cloud of the "elitism" which I believe he enjoys with the only difference...he wants his own cloud!!
I know. listening to them makes me bearish on cypto, in the sense of a contrarian indicator sort of thing. You just think, people who are like this cannot be correct.
He certainly has the patience of a saint when he chooses to. I've also seen him not, and let people have it immediately. This doesn't happen unless he either knows and respects the person and can trust that disagreement is just a blip in their relationship, or if he suspects the person he's talking to is a bad actor. Here he seems to have gone in with a decision to respect and be patient. I really admire the depth of his character, especially considering his level of intelligence. Most of his life has likely been like he's communicating with children. Must be frustrating as hell for him. lol
I feel for Eric. He probably felt like he was talking to a wall. They kept him around their perspectives and never really fully explored his perspective on Bitcoin. I felt frustrated watching this.
That's what you took from the interaction. What Peter is essentially telling Eric is that for his ideas to grow steam, it needs distillation. A lot of bitcoiners understand that CPI is garbage to begin with, so to think Peter doesn't comprehend his underlying assertions is arrogant on your part. The problem Peter has is the execution and if Eric's way of going about it would matter in grand scheme of things( most people don't care if an intellectual battle is won as its not their circle of competence to begin with.)
It’s evident Eric has a more open mind to where this great project goes, his stance is one of genuine interest not just of wealth. He wants to explore the full range of what crypto is capable of, as stated early on, Paul is more influenced by his desire to preserve and generate wealth and it clouds his ability to abstract these ideas away from himself.
@@MH7919 lol Not sure dude. The rate of loss is pretty extreme. My brain would have to be better at printing new brain cells than Biden is at printing USD. Not sure that's even possible.
Eric was remarkably patient. I share his frustration. The thing to do when you get filthy rich is to do what only rich people can - upset the status quo. Funding a think tank with goals like Eric has is one of those things.
The bell curve is real ( distribution law ). A lot of People with crypto money care 0% for making the case of Bitcoin ( etc. ) come to real life. Only making the money, nothing wrong here......but that is ALL????
Eric always tells others that he is bored of certain topics but never considers that everyone else may be bored of hearing about gauge theory for the ten thousandth time.
You needed Breedlove in this conversation. Weinstein is operating on a higher philosophical plane than the rest of the conversation. Thank you for this!
Eric is on such a higher frequency then these two, he's constantly trying to lift up the conversation and they constantly dumb it back down . It's a shame they can't see through their own basic level perceptions to take the conversation elsewhere
Are you TRYING to sound culty? The more of this Wienstien brother I get exposed to the more I think he's a grifter who relies on people's fear of being thought stupid if they pount out the things he's saying make little sense.
Something is wrong with Peter in this video. Or Eric is so above his league it shows his true colors that I had not seen before. In any case this chat is very unbalanced. Anyways, Travis does alright imo.
Breedlove's a hack, his conservative libertarian ideal could only be realized through unfettered capitalism, resulting in the absolute consolidation of capital in a tiny cabal, as described by Marx, and demonstrated by Neoliberalism. A strong, robust, cohesive, prosperous society requires some form of government, with the power to regulate the market for the benefit of all stakeholders, ie. the working classes, not just the bourgeoisie, capitalist classes.
Eric: “Spend your bitcoin fighting for my ideas” Peter: “We don’t understand your ideas. You haven’t explained them properly.” Eric: “Bah this is boring, I thought bitcoin is supposed to solve everything.”
Hard listen, that exposes where the space is lacking. Hopefully someone/group will pick it up and dive deeper. Lambos are the very opposite of where we could eventually be.
This. I noted the moment, 1:21:50 when Eric realizes they lack a grand vision. One thing I think about Bitcoin sometimes is that a lot of people have realized its valuable, but nobody is quite sure why. We're all trying to describe the elephant by touching pieces of it, but nobody has quite yet seen the fucking beast and said, here's the plow we'll harness it to that will change the world. And maybe no such plow exists, I don't know, but it could exist.
I think that is how it grows in the beginning. These cryptos seems to gain in value closer to Metcalfes law which I do not see discussed yet in the conversation. BTC has value because the network continues to grow, the narrative continues to grow.
Peter needs to feel less threatened and just let the man engage in the thought experiment. This was not posed as a debate, its supposed to be an interview. Eric could have taken this so much deeper. The role of the interviewer should be to amplify not detract from the conversation. Please spend some time watching Tom Bilyeu on Impact Theory.
Eric's patience and ability to clearly articulate the same interesting idea again and again 100 different ways is unfortunately the only impressive thing about this 2.5 hours.
"The ethos of software is: we are here to destroy things that look old". Bravo! Bravissimo! After 25y in the software business, I could not have phrased this truth any better. It goes so far as software destroying other software, just for the sake of doing something "new".
Eric is ahead of the curve with his perspectives for a rebirth in civilisation. He sees Bitcoin as the trojan horse leading us into the next Paradigm. We need to ask different questions to a man with his vision.
It's like Eric didn't want to have an actual conversation about anything, he just knee-jerk shut everything down. "I don't want to talk about that." Grandstanding and pretending he's holding the higher intellectual ground because he's somehow "above" talking about Austrian economics or Hayek or whatever. The youtube comments are all about how "peter is outgunned and cant keep up with Erics huge IQ". The whole thing was a joke. Nothing of value here.
All respect to Peter. He is way above his intellectual pay grade to carry this discussion with Eric. I hope that Eric continues this fight and finds his allies in this community.
Tbf Peter acknowledged that from the beginning and sought to bring someone, who could unpack the issues Eric was explaining. Eric's problem is that hes smart enough to understand things but not smart enough to explain them to the layman. Hes so far up the dunning Krueger scale that he cant comprehend how dumb most people are.
@@vakeone and every time a topic comes up he can't discuss he says I don't want to effing talk about that. Why not? Tell us why you think that's wrong. He doesn't care about falsification he cares about appearing smarter than he is.
@@LoneWolfDion Exactly, I don't understand how people can't see this. He dodges questions, re-phrases questions to his terms, then answers his new question. He can't accept the terms if they aren't presented by him.
The guy interviewing is obviously intelligent, the problem is he is too self absorbed in a trap I like to call intellectual masterbation, it’s a pseudo intellectualism where people regurgitate what innovators and people that think outside the box would say but without the original connection. It’s erudite but within a box, specialized and worn out. So he’s smart, but smart isn’t enough when talking on this scale. You have to be creative, intuitive, borderline mad, and eccentric to do these sorts of conversations justice, having a decent IQ and some knowledge isn’t enough, and in fact can be extremely limiting. You can’t pour water into a full cup, and you can’t solve problems with the same level of thinking that caused it in the first place.
i get the feeling that Peter tried to tell Eric, if you want to go to war you need an army, and to get an army you need to make people able to follow you or at least rally them. i think the person Eric needs to talk to if he wants to go to war without an army is Max Keiser. seems right up his alley.
@@BogdanManciu indeed. i wanted to say "fuck off, not your personal army!" but i always thought economists know what's the real inflation they just lie about it. and the thought of them not even being able to calculate it is novel and very pleasurable to entertain...
Eric’s stance here seems similar to the Lex Fridman interview where he pushes Lex on why he doesn’t give MIT mgt the middle finger. He seems to want a bottom up revolution by fringe intellectuals backed with fu 💰 And he’s right of course. Economics, physics and cosmology need attraction of fearless brilliance; not law and business school
Yes, that's what exactly I thought after listening to this conversation. Bitcoin definitely has the opportunity to bring the F U money which would be a great start. But the problem he wants to solve is way too big for Bitcoin alone to solve.
Law and business schools need actual brilliance as opposed to assholes contemplating critical race theory and human resource management. People who are innovating new legal and business structures which actually solve real problems, as opposed to shuffle wealth around.
@@anandasamaHe mainly asked the question "what battles are you fighting ?" And the only real answer when it comes to bitcoin community as of now is "None" I think that's why he is frustrated, and I can understand it
@@maximem2200 only after he was dissatisfied with the answer of "reliable money". I'd guess the source of his frustration is the "and then" part isn't so obvious yet.
There’s a difference between being an articulate advocate of Bitcoin and a thoughtful intelligent man able to relate to fundamental inquiries. Eric pulled the veil off Peter as anything other than a carnival barker for Bitcoin.
@@KyleDunnIt He did, though. Lower inflation means they can manipulate tax brackets and continue to claim that you owe such and such when you actually owe much less. Put more simply, economists were wrong about last month's job numbers, because they're full of academic theory that's bogus.
Frustrating that Peter can't keep up with the conversation. Seems like he's just totally lost. Would be great to have Vitalik, AAntonopolis, Nic Carter, Alex Becker and Richard Heart in a 3 hr round table with EW. Now, THAT would be amazing!
The conversation that bitcoiners needed to hear. Many intelligent individuals like Eric are cheering on Bitcoin, and the community just resorts to spouting memes in defense of their own personal interests. Do you want to change the world, or just change your fortune?
I'm new here. and Eric is a hero of mine. Thank you for turning me on to Travis Kling. I just found the conversation he had with Lyn Alden and Luke Gromen due to your content. I'll be back.
This is powerful stuff. One of the deepest, most visceral conversations I've witnessed in this topic. I don't think that Eric wanted, or expected, Peter to match him intellectually, or give him any answers. Instead, Eric needed his platform to declare war to the Fed, a summons to engage in active hostilities. The message will certainly be received by the intended audience, and it is likely that future (and more productive) discussions will take place behind closed doors. Genius move. I'm still unsure whether Bitcoin is ready (established and mature enough) to become Eric's ally, on what will become a very bloody battle; it would, nonetheless, be a 'make it or break it' type of endeavour...
Bitcoin is the same system installed by the City of London, it is a fiat based gambling casino, its a rigged game, a pyramid scheme. The government is involved, places Bitcoin is "allowed" to be purchased is the same places the of the USD controllers. I set up a wallet but can't purchase without giving up my social security number. That means its not private, its not peer to peer, and its not confiscatable, therefore it is corrupted and the "white paper" setting up Bitcoin is meaningless.
@@TobeornottooB Ever heard of a Sha356 ? Public / private key cryptography? It’s not hard to understand, that’s what Bitcoin is built on. Totally secure. If you let your bitcoin be stored by someone else, then not secure. If you lose the private keys, then you lose your bitcoin, the private key is the only way to move bitcoin on the block chain
Turns out Peter is just full of controversial sound bites to grab people’s attention but can’t offer enough original ideas to continue the conversation.
@@StanislavKozlovsk I much prefer Peter to Pomp. Pomp lives up to his name, Peter has many moments of humility. Of the two I know which one I would much prefer to have a beer (a pint) with
These guys were basically stumbling around the concept of governance. Eric's point was, 'if BTC burns down the system what do we build and how do we decide?' He has a fair point, and that is why I am not a BTC maximalist. I wouldn't touch anything that tries to compete as decentralized money, but there are other good consensus protocols that can solve different problems. The reality is he is right, we need to build an entirely new economy and governance structure based off of peer to peer, not just money.
I don't know what you were watching, but Weinstein did his usual piss-poor communications job while falling back on being patronising. We know you're clever Eric... the challenge is to explain yourself to people who aren't as clever as you are. You failed.
@@winsomehax Exactly. I'm reading the comments and i can't help but think a lot of them are enamored by Eric's alleged intelligence rather than being appalled at how he wasn't able to distill such "complex" ideas into simple digestable forms. So much for intelligence. Being a teacher and a good teacher lies in how well you disseminate complex ideas.
I guess his aim is clearly not to "dumb down" the complex things he is talking about so we can understand... He is completely rejecting the job to be a good teacher. He absolutely knows his audience is small and most people cant understand his points. But he doesnt care. He is not an educator. He's purposely provoking the curiosity of a few.... I guess I should do a ton of research and verify that what he said makes sense... Let's not trust he is making sense, let's verify.
@@bisiriyutajudeen5728 he made two clear suggestions. 1. Dismantle the authority of the economists by proving their models and method are Hocus pocus compared to more advanced math and models 2. Pick some human life changing priorities and invest real dollars in them - his personal pick is advanced physics science research.
Eric’s monologue at 2:19:00, the vision he had for what unstoppable decentralized computing and cyber worlds can do, is literally the pitch for ethereum lol
His vision is from 2010/2011. That was the mindset then. Bitcoin was huge, the possibilities were endless. Then we fell into the trap of Greg Maxwell, limited OP_RETURN sizes, and dictators running communication channels. Here we are!
1:54:49. It's your issue dude! Take some initiative. I've watched countless videos of yours, and you're always complaining about how everyone else isn't fighting the fight you want fought. Go fight the fight yourself. Rally people behind you. You want the Bitcoin community's backing? Do what Michael Saylor did, make the rounds on UA-cam, explain your case about how incompetent the economists are. You want specific help, specifically state what sort of help you're looking for. You're just coming across as a complainer who is dressing it up in pseudo intellectualism. If you uniquely see what the problem is, then it's your unique task to deal with it. Stop trying to offload your God given burned to others. Every man is responsible to the degree he can see, if you're the one with the sight, you're the one with the responsibility to champion the vision.
Although I think Eric is overall pretty brilliant in this talk, I do agree with you that this is Eric's one short coming and he may not realize it, which is he's not an organizer. He probably won't develop that skill unless someone like Peter Theil helps him get there. Eric may be at his limit being an evangelist. However that's very valuable, he's a great thinker.
Between this episode and the "Weinstein Series" with Robert Breedlove, to me, the conversation that Eric wants is most likely to take place with Michael Saylor. Specifically because Saylor has set-up the Saylor Academy and is planning long term uses for his personal Bitcoin, alongside Microstrategy's holdings. He sees the benefit of reducing the costs of PHDs and advancing technology, physics, and other STEM fields. I believe this is what Eric wants to discuss most.
I don't think you can separate the BTC computer network from the maximalism. It's as though BTC has quite specifically infected a group of minds in the physical world with its ideal, in order to sustain itself within the digital. You really can't have one without the other.
He’s a literal devils advocate in flesh form, not to break down an argument but to make it more resilient. He’s challenging the community to think past “fed bad mmkay” and “to da moon”. It’s like giving a remote tribe in the Amazon access to a ufo machine, and them building a hut on top of it. Blockchain technology has the ability to literally change every aspect of society possibly for the better, and all we can focus on is if Bitcoin is in a bill or bear market. It’s one of the reason I believe in Cardano, because Charles gets it.
Quite an interesting conversation but I find that the endgoal was missing from the talk. What happens once you've proven wrong the economist? What kind of society does Eric want to emerge out of his war?
If I were to take the worst case interpretation I can see, it's about an autistic guy in his 50s finally proving that he was right to the guys who bullied him in college, and he can't let it go and needs an "I told you so" moment, even if it counts for nothing in an argument most people can't understand. If I were to take a more charitable view, it's that probably Eric understands a more accurate and honest way to calculate our taxes and social security and such, but the government doesn't care because they have the monopoly on violence and stealing stuff, and are perfectly happy being dumb so long as they get to keep the money, and the stooges he's against are in on if not central to that. I hate to say it, but at the end of the day, currency is perhaps a matter of force and who is able and willing to use it. What's more, while I hate central banking and money printing, what if that's the safe way to steal from us? What if you when get rid of the safe way, ie running the printers around the clock in the back room, the alternative is thugs with clubs and guns coming around to claim your gold or bitcoin or whatever the old fashioned way? Arbitrarily taxing 75% of your savings right out od your bank accounts, or random extortionate property taxes you would have to sell to afford? What if the world is more peaceful because theft is done with stealth instead of brutality, and if you get rid of the stealth you bring back the brutality?
antonopolous thinks covid is real and that we should all wear masks and be vaccinated. if he’s that stupid to believe the above, you should want nothing to do with what he has to say..
I agree, would really love to see Eric and Andreas get down to where the rubber meets the road. Unless Eric is just going to keep playing devil's advocate non stop. Was kind of annoying to see him say "he's really not that smart", then when Peter agrees say "actually he is pretty smart though"
Eric's ability to brutally break things down to the point others are almost embarrassed by their naivety is a joy to watch. Those that survive his scrutiny are better for the experience as shown in this excellent interview.
@fuk urseth I think he is talking about the end of ww2. That is arguably the last war that the average american even slightly understands why the fuck we are even there. Ww2 makes some sense. After that, not so much. Out of sight, out of mind. Also literally no threat of it ever reaching our land since then. Anybody afraid of Iraq, Afghanistan, Vietnam invading the United states. Dont think so. I dont agree with a lot of what the guy says either just another academic who likes to hear himself talk but atleast he is searching for new ideas.
He's talking about the world, not just america. Relative world peace in the last 75 years is pretty obvious ..ww3 hasn't happened yet, i know cause we aren't using rocks yet
Was planning to watch in bits and pieces over the day but ended up watching the whole 2+ hours in one go. Constructively uncomfortable at times but well worth the time. Definitely lots to digest. I can already feel I'm going to re-watch this a few times. A big thumbs up.
Pete was getting too comfortable hanging out with his maxi friends circle jerk each other off. Didn’t expect Eric would bite. I was starting to listening to Peter’s pods , but after this shit show, I realize noting of value will ever come off his pods.
Eric Weinstein is brilliant. The interviewer is embarrassing. Doesn't seem be able to open his mind to Eric's ideas and suggestions. I hope he doesn't reflect the wider bitcoin community, although he refers to some of them.
I like Eric’s thought that we need to put the idea that Bitcoin fixes this to work on fixing the economy, I think that is what fixing the money means. Peter I loved the intellectual side of this interview and also agree with Eric in thinking taking on the economists would be a great natural progression for the Bitcoin community.
Please do tell us what his best point was. Is it better than any point random people on twitter make on a daily bases ? Any new revelations or angle we haven't all already heard before ?
Awful interviewers! I want to see Eric in conversation on this topic but with a good interviewers who know when to shut up. Who would be a good alternative?
Someone who really knows what they are talking about is able to explain it to people who have no idea about the subject...sounding smart and being smart are two very different things...although I can't speculate on IQ, maybe the IQ gap is actually huge, but I don't really give a fuck about someone's IQ when it comes to expressing ideas.
this is like btc talking to safemoon - Eric needs to talk to someone more qualified or an entire group of people like - jeff booth, m sailor and others
Great conversation. 2 observations. Eric expressed wanting to categorically call economists stupid, solves nothing, that’s ego. And wanting to wage war against the machine, right now, as in immediately, is by his own admission, un winnable, suicidal. He demonstrated frustration in his desire for instant gratification. That’s a temper tantrum. BTC is a marathon not a sprint. I do acknowledge his, and some of our concerns over government pushback.
Eric's criticism of Bitcoin is that it's boring, but it needs to be boring. Eric's criticism of Bitcoiners is that they are not activists because they don't buy him a research institute to bring down the current economic academic mainstream, but Bitcoin doesn't need a research institute for that - just time to exist (boringly) and prove the academic mainstream wrong.
Any examples of a decentralized tech being used today would be great, I am trying to do a research on it for my class in university. Thanks to the community in advance.
Eric is heartily describing Thucydides Trap, wants to enter as a contender ( with a group of minds that relate to him economically) by challenging the current dominant economic powers and win. The only way to beat a trap is to avoid it, but the only way to challenge the current power structure is to engage. So how do you challenge or re establish dominant economic power and avoid the Trap? The interesting thing he said around this was referring to how long we have been taking a nap since WW2. From WW1 to WW2 is where our current economic power structure evolved, so is BTC peaceful transition or the precipice of war? Is it just a distraction of hope before the nap is over?
It's the first time I see bitcoin maxis sharing their views. It's really uninspiring. I see a lot of elitism, self-service and cynism here. No wonder Eric was frustrated. I love how he called them out so many times. There are so many great new blockchain projects that work on changing the statusquo. If you do not innovate you go backwards.
Thank you for this interview, if there is any hope of a BTC Maximalist podcast transcending to a BTC Guardian podcast it is this one. Bitcoin Maximalism is hurting bitcoin as well as the space. So much of the core philosophy that makes up BTC Maximalism is beautiful and brilliant, the greater space needs your wisdom not your contempt.
Brilliant episode. Eric Weinstein really challenged you guys using Socratic questioning. His basic point was that you maximalists should stop talking your own book because while you have this amazing invention and technology, you don't know what to do with it or how to use it properly. He really tore you a new one on this.
I wish you would have stopped thinking yourself smarter than Eric, stop being cute and clever, and stop trying to teach him something.. So that instead, you could have unlocked his knowledge and his perspective on something so important to you.. Your bias is showing.. Eric was begging you to innovate this conversation and you failed for like an hour.. Let's see if you can turn it around by the end
Eric is one of the few Bitcoin critics whom I respect. He has at least done the research to be able to have a productive discussion with the Bitcoin community. Most critics don’t even understand what they are criticizing
The average bitcoin investor is not going to "pick a fight" with academic economists. The average bitcoin investor just wants to have a reasonable retirement without having all of their life savings inflated away. If anything, they may want the inflation thesis to play out so that their bitcoins will have more purchasing power.
@@3thereal Bitcoin and Ethereum and Dogecoin are essentially identical cryptocurrencies. They have zero inherent investment value. They merely have a perceived investment value and sometimes a transactional utilty value for commerce. Art is a better investment as if others don't value it enough to buy it off you then you can still look at it and appreciate it aesthetically. Elon Musk temporarily affected the percieved investment value of Bitcoin. The investment value is an illusion. It is inherently worthless. Gold still wins as it has practical uses besides being just rare: conductivity, jewelry. Bitcoin may be okay as an investment until 2022 when the midterms will be won by the Republican Party and the inflationary policies of Biden will be restricted and the US economy have a delayed surge out of the pandemic Lockdown, transferring into Gold ahead of their win whilst Gold is undervalued as a store as Bitcoin is temporarily preferred will gain a boost that will compensate for any perceived late losses from jumping off Bitcoin whilst it is still on the rise, as Gold will rise after 2022 as funds decamp from crypto into Gold. There is zero long term future for crypto to change the world.
@@____uncompetative " will be won by the Republican Party and the inflationary policies of Biden will be restricted" might want to go back and see who started up the printing press there, bud.
Peter has never been a good listener. He was looking for validation of Bitcoin and he could not accept Eric’s scepticism. Still, I think Eric’s deeper thinking theories came across. All was not lost in this conversation.
I think I get Eric's idea but isn't he just impatient. Bitcoin is disrupting technology but that doesn't mean it happens overnight. Talking about Star Wars didn't Luke suffer from his own arrogance and confront Vader only to be beaten and crushed? He didn't become á Jedi overnight. But Eric wants Luke to fight him now. Eric bitcoin will do its own thing in its own time.
Agreed !! Going head on full blast ,is a sure way to loose the race !! It leaking into the system a little bit at a time is the way in my opinion.. The only attention bitcoin gets from the elites is price action attention The longer it stays that way the better imo... but I'm just a pleb but sounds like a bad idea to me ,it's too early
The reality of a man who got rich and makes his money by nothing other than holding bitcoin and talking about whether or not the price is going up or down. Would be nice to see Eric speak with someone of intelligence.
there is a 7min video "what economists fail to understand about economics | Eric Weinstein and Lex Fridman" that explains very clearly what Eric was trying to say throughout this whole video. His idea is good, it's about using more refined measures of CPI for better incentivisation of actions, ie rewarding good activity. Eric really needs to move this discussion to Cardano, not Bitcoin.
relatively painful to watch... the linear bitcoin maxi thinking with all the classic arguments are showing and contributing to a one-sided conversation. Maybe next time get someone like Nic Carter to moderate
Having spoken with Jeff Booth before, I think he would be great to interview Eric. This episode was ok, and Eric is close to being onto something, but he has always struggled a bit with explaining to the masses, but he doesn’t need to; he can explain to Jeff who is an equal intellect imo, and a great listener and builder of conversations
So basically, Eric wants someone to give him money so he can live his dream of battling economists on a big stage.. And somehow it's a limitation of Bitcoin that he hasn't found anyone that owns BTC willing to finance him?
No he doesnt understand why no one that has made F U money from bitcoin/whales aren't doing it themselves since it is A) Morally correct B) Mathematically correct and C) In their own financial interest.
@@DG-kr8pt the thought of an economic theory "rebound relationship" isn't very attractive for anyone. Especially if you have doubts that the field of economics has anything more impactful to add to reality versus the long list of more important problems to solve (education, energy, etc). High caliber math applied to the social science foundations in economics seems like a house of cards made from different suits.
I think you misrepresent him. He's not trying to beat them, he's challengeing them, as current leaders of the space and future members of the 'Fuck You Money Class' to ask better questions.
The only solution that Bitcoin provides is to be the secure savings account for the world, which in our current system, is a BIG THING. At the end of the day, the goal of humans is to ensure that they can take care of their loved ones. You need money to do so. We save so that we can buy resources for our and our family’s survival. We currently have the wrong goal. The goal of the world should be to make our essential resources UNLIMITED. When that is achieved, who cares about money.
Yeah, the natural price of things must approach zero. All cost is friction, which technology eliminates. Given exponential technological development, we will get exponential abundance, and we will all move up Maslow's hierarchy of needs.
Eric, the answer to using crypto to measure inflation is that it needs to be posited as a digital currency to measure the total lifecycle of every unit of currency as it moves through the entire production cycle. It allows for near perfect information and where the blockages are occurring. Central banks role is to be the plumbers with brute force pressure hoses opening/closing valves and filling up the pressure tank. Crypto could be algorithmized to redistribute the pipes to reroute the entire system dynamically. I have an idea that solves the government control aspect , but keeps market pricing without forcing redistribution as a tax, but keeps inflation as a feature instead of a bug to backfeed into blockages. The only issue is the transition to stability of value/adoption to move in that direction.
great talk! it's insane that some people think you can have the crazy gains in bitcoin over time without monumental systemic risks. every time i recommend bitcoin to someone i can't help to feel some dread.
The current system is beyond salvation. Why do you think our dear leaders are talking about great resets? And where are the escape? Cash? Bonds? Gold? Nah, if you want to protect your life savings you put it into Bitcoin. And then you start working on getting sovereign. You might want to use jurisdictional arbitrage in case your state is turning authoritarian.
I am quite proud of the community of this comment thread, not only that people stuck with it through the end but that people are really taking away what Eric was saying which unfortunately, I think the host just felt like the community or the idea of Bitcoin was being attacked. Eric made excellent points, we’ve got this thing that can change the world, but if all it’s going to do is let individual people make some money and nothing else is done with it, then he’s not interested. He’s interested in changing the world and he thinks Bitcoin is a tool to do that.
The nervous nature of the other two to Eric’s presence was palatable, even through video. Not dissing, but observed. I agree, so in the end what!? What are we doing here.. ?
Legend says that Eric is still trying to start the conversation to this day.
Yeah, I hate when he tries to be so hype 🙄😀 he sounds like a boring boomer in those situations ;)
Owch
He's too smart for them
Title: "Eric tries to start a conversation for 2 hours" :)
… while sabotaging it by himself. Why not start with the narrow but clearly defined topic of BTC instead directly trying to escape from this planet/ solar system.
Why to hit some DTM rhen from beginning?!
I know it's bumming me out.
This was soo frustrating, the two people are just empty shells repeating maxims
It seems to me the whole issue Weinstein has, whether he wants to say it directly or not, is that BTC maximalism currently prefers ossification of the protocol, not building on it. Not to shill ETH, but that's literally what separates its community from BTC.
You can't "solve everything" with BTC because you can't build a new voting system on top of it. You can't better allocate funding to public goods. You can't reconstruct markets for artist reimbursement to improve efficiency. You can't work anonymously and remotely for a decentralized organization (DAO) with anyone in the world and redefine and reinvent what the "work week" and "corporations" look like. You CAN do all of that with Ethereum, or at least people are actively working to build towards that future.
So of course Peter and Travis are going to just stare blankly back at Eric when he asks how BTC can fix things outside of just being a new form of money. The entire BTC maximalist community is built on ossifying the protocol and NOT on changing or building new things. It's literally just "buy and hodl and maybe you'll have some financial freedom later".
Lol nailed it
This conversation was both fascinating and frustrating.
I left with the same sentiment. Eric would be better matched conversationally with Robert Breedlove, Michael Saylor, Peter Diamandis, Plan B, William Clemente III, or similar.
@fuk urseth his point is clear, for what the fuck are you hodling those btc, if is all you'r doing in your life?! get a real perspective in life, after you can provide for yourself and your family, all this value must be used in some way , to create and made things and experiences that have a meaning to you
eric they pretend to love you now but just wait till you say something wrong about bitcoin just like elon and they rip your head off for it be careful man these bitcoiners can be dangerous to your health and career... o and also your wallet too lol
@fuk urseth you dont get the point, the questions are: How to change the "system"? / what is wrong with the system? Eric suggested show the CPI is calculated wrong, but do whatever u think challenges the "system" and can be proven time and time again.
imagine triing to convince the church in the middle age that the earth inst a plate and cyrcles around the solar system.
Bitcoin as decentralized store of value is not the "hole" solution, you need mathematical / physical proves, if your not smart enough to solve this yourself but you made a killing in bitcoin, why not hire some professionals to research.
it looks like the bitcoin millionaires are just like the fiat milllionaires and keep the mooney for themself, and dont improve the bitcoin network against CPI or whatever fight.
ps: clam your titts eric is a hero
It's like Eric is talking to two randoms pulled from Bitcoin reddit. Poor guy.
Yeah I really felt for him, wasted opportunity.
He can't convince them to go along with what he wants, the conversation to convince them is "too boring" and then lastly his response is to "buy me a sales team". He may be a god at math but he came across as a complete moron here.
@@Trees36547 agreed, Eric was really not selling his position. Why should bitcoiners fund your moon expidition? Why should we go after the economists? All he did was strawman the whole time and i dont think he really did say anything insightful at all.
Eric was making a point o being a difficult prick. Like when he unbelievably went into dictionary definition of money forgery when Peter was only making a half rhetorical point, about his opinion on money printing. Eric was being a total douche
@@Trees36547 they all did 😀😀😀 and that’s my problem with Bitcoin people in general.. No matter how much they try - they always sound like they are still trying to convince you to buy Bitcoin 😀 and I am just never convinced - even if I did have the money ;)
This could be too simplistic, but what I took away from Eric is that we bitcoiners are all about “opting out” but there are systemic things that need to be directly addressed. We are taking our ball and leaving the current system for a new playground. We trash talk as we walk away, and puff our chests, but we are *merely* opting out and are off to create a new game on a new playground, but meanwhile the old system is still running things. I think he’s saying merely opting out is not good enough because elements of the old system needs to be addressed or the new system will always be hamstrung. We need to go toe to toe, punch the other kids in the mouth, and directly address what’s wrong with their playground; and he believes the approach of traditional economists are currently the biggest thing wrong with the existing system.
Well said, I agree. What is the bottom line thing to be accomplished? I think that is what Eric is asking. The scope of Eric's answer to that question is broader than most people can comprehend (and I am guilty). At least he is asking if cancelling the Fed, etc., is not the target then what is? The step missing is that there needs to be a consensus on the target, then Peter pointing out that it needs to be less academic and more folksy so that we can gain broad adoption by the bitcoin-er masses. Only at that point can we ask what are the concrete steps to proceed.
I feel like Eric suffers from a nostalgic delusion that the system was competently run in the past. The US was positioned to benefit from the fact that the previous powers bombed themselves out of relevance at the beginning of the last century. And it seems like he perceives the resulting prosperity as an output of institutional competence rather than a mad coke binge that has spiraled until now. Taking our ball and finding a new playground is the sane move IMO
I agree that's what Eric said. But if BTC builds the better system, like a Black Hole, its greater density will suck the energy out of the legacy system. Frontal attacks rarely work. The go around or orthoganol attacks work.
Yes, but I don't think Eric has any confidence the Bitcoiners have anywhere they are going
Is it even Bitcoins battle to confront the old system directly? It's a opt-out with no direct link to what it serves to replace.
This was a train wreck. But strangely I couldn't look away...
Only because Eric was there. Was anybody else with intelligence there?
PRO TIP: don't open the podcast by complaining how hard it was to schedule the guest (as if it is their fault they couldn't come earlier)
Ouch!
Maybe, just maybe thank them for sharing their time and unique opinions with you and your subscribers...
This conversation makes me appreciate podcast hosts like Joe Rogan even more. The constant defensiveness and unwillingness to entertain and explore Eric's views prevented a much more interesting conversation from taking place.
100%
I agree, but at the same time Eric's line of conversation is very academic, barely comprehended by the most of the audience. Eric has the fault that if he is not understood or misunderstood is the fault of the listener and not his.
I believe he has to be able to educate his audience otherwise it will remain in the cloud of the "elitism" which I believe he enjoys with the only difference...he wants his own cloud!!
@@agmeg Eric has stated before he isn’t willing to dumb down what he’s saying. If people want to understand him they must invest the time to do so.
I know. listening to them makes me bearish on cypto, in the sense of a contrarian indicator sort of thing. You just think, people who are like this cannot be correct.
@@agmeg very well said!
Eric’s patience is really tested with this unfocused rambling, possibly unprepared, conversation.
@ericweinstein, teach me your patience please, and math. And let's get to war.
He certainly has the patience of a saint when he chooses to. I've also seen him not, and let people have it immediately. This doesn't happen unless he either knows and respects the person and can trust that disagreement is just a blip in their relationship, or if he suspects the person he's talking to is a bad actor. Here he seems to have gone in with a decision to respect and be patient. I really admire the depth of his character, especially considering his level of intelligence. Most of his life has likely been like he's communicating with children. Must be frustrating as hell for him. lol
Eric is full of himself. It's really about him and him wanting to be important.
Dimwits will always be this way. Preparation isn’t the issue.
He prob got paid.
I feel for Eric. He probably felt like he was talking to a wall. They kept him around their perspectives and never really fully explored his perspective on Bitcoin. I felt frustrated watching this.
Agreed
That's what you took from the interaction. What Peter is essentially telling Eric is that for his ideas to grow steam, it needs distillation. A lot of bitcoiners understand that CPI is garbage to begin with, so to think Peter doesn't comprehend his underlying assertions is arrogant on your part. The problem Peter has is the execution and if Eric's way of going about it would matter in grand scheme of things( most people don't care if an intellectual battle is won as its not their circle of competence to begin with.)
It’s evident Eric has a more open mind to where this great project goes, his stance is one of genuine interest not just of wealth. He wants to explore the full range of what crypto is capable of, as stated early on, Paul is more influenced by his desire to preserve and generate wealth and it clouds his ability to abstract these ideas away from himself.
Peter is so defensive during the interview
Don’t agree. Eric is able to be very cryptic and Peter points that out and I think Eric got it in the end.
Every time Peter speaks, I feel my brain cells dying.
@@MH7919 lol Not sure dude. The rate of loss is pretty extreme. My brain would have to be better at printing new brain cells than Biden is at printing USD. Not sure that's even possible.
lmao
Yep
Let's try this again with Saylor, Antonopolous and Weinstein....
Appreciate this conversation and thank RR for the venue and quality production.
Add Mike Green on Eric’s side and we can have an epic 2x2 debate
Yes please!! 🙏🏾
Antonopolous and Weinstein would be super interesting.
What Antonopolous has to do with Bitcoin? Isn't this
What Bitcoin Did podcast? not mastering shitcoin podcast.
I think Jeff Booth or Robert breedlove is much more suited for this conversation! Dont think Saylor is the man to tall about there topics
Eric was remarkably patient. I share his frustration. The thing to do when you get filthy rich is to do what only rich people can - upset the status quo. Funding a think tank with goals like Eric has is one of those things.
The bell curve is real ( distribution law ). A lot of People with crypto money care 0% for making the case of Bitcoin ( etc. ) come to real life. Only making the money, nothing wrong here......but that is ALL????
Thank you for not putting ads every five minutes
use "Brave" browser and you'll never see ads again.
They cannot ad this, no one would watch at all.
Eric always tells others that he is bored of certain topics but never considers that everyone else may be bored of hearing about gauge theory for the ten thousandth time.
You needed Breedlove in this conversation. Weinstein is operating on a higher philosophical plane than the rest of the conversation. Thank you for this!
Eric is on such a higher frequency then these two, he's constantly trying to lift up the conversation and they constantly dumb it back down . It's a shame they can't see through their own basic level perceptions to take the conversation elsewhere
🗑
Breedlove fixes this ;)
Are you TRYING to sound culty?
The more of this Wienstien brother I get exposed to the more I think he's a grifter who relies on people's fear of being thought stupid if they pount out the things he's saying make little sense.
Something is wrong with Peter in this video. Or Eric is so above his league it shows his true colors that I had not seen before. In any case this chat is very unbalanced. Anyways, Travis does alright imo.
Its like watching an adult try to have a conversation with a dog
Eric and Breedlove would be a good conversation
It would but I think Eric is not a good listner and does not give himself a chance to get the other person's point. He hears but does not listen.
or Jeff Booth
Breedlove's a hack, his conservative libertarian ideal could only be realized through unfettered capitalism, resulting in the absolute consolidation of capital in a tiny cabal, as described by Marx, and demonstrated by Neoliberalism. A strong, robust, cohesive, prosperous society requires some form of government, with the power to regulate the market for the benefit of all stakeholders, ie. the working classes, not just the bourgeoisie, capitalist classes.
Breedlove is a bloviating bore.
hell no.
Eric: “Spend your bitcoin fighting for my ideas”
Peter: “We don’t understand your ideas. You haven’t explained them properly.”
Eric: “Bah this is boring, I thought bitcoin is supposed to solve everything.”
That sums it up pretty well :)
Hard listen, that exposes where the space is lacking. Hopefully someone/group will pick it up and dive deeper.
Lambos are the very opposite of where we could eventually be.
This. I noted the moment, 1:21:50 when Eric realizes they lack a grand vision. One thing I think about Bitcoin sometimes is that a lot of people have realized its valuable, but nobody is quite sure why. We're all trying to describe the elephant by touching pieces of it, but nobody has quite yet seen the fucking beast and said, here's the plow we'll harness it to that will change the world.
And maybe no such plow exists, I don't know, but it could exist.
I think that is how it grows in the beginning. These cryptos seems to gain in value closer to Metcalfes law which I do not see discussed yet in the conversation. BTC has value because the network continues to grow, the narrative continues to grow.
"Never confuse the believer of a thing for the creator of the thing."
Peter needs to feel less threatened and just let the man engage in the thought experiment. This was not posed as a debate, its supposed to be an interview. Eric could have taken this so much deeper. The role of the interviewer should be to amplify not detract from the conversation. Please spend some time watching Tom Bilyeu on Impact Theory.
Agree
100% So frustrated by his "interview" technique.
Eric's patience and ability to clearly articulate the same interesting idea again and again 100 different ways is unfortunately the only impressive thing about this 2.5 hours.
"The ethos of software is: we are here to destroy things that look old". Bravo! Bravissimo! After 25y in the software business, I could not have phrased this truth any better. It goes so far as software destroying other software, just for the sake of doing something "new".
Weinstein is one who gets it.
Eric is ahead of the curve with his perspectives for a rebirth in civilisation. He sees Bitcoin as the trojan horse leading us into the next Paradigm. We need to ask different questions to a man with his vision.
Too bad he doesn't see Bitcoin as trojan horse, he want to use us as a blunt instrument against the establishment. This is not how you win the battle.
Best part of this podcast is when Eric goes... "let's cut the crap."
It's like Eric didn't want to have an actual conversation about anything, he just knee-jerk shut everything down. "I don't want to talk about that." Grandstanding and pretending he's holding the higher intellectual ground because he's somehow "above" talking about Austrian economics or Hayek or whatever. The youtube comments are all about how "peter is outgunned and cant keep up with Erics huge IQ". The whole thing was a joke. Nothing of value here.
Spotted the salty bitcoin maxi 👀😄
Okay so y'all reinvented money and got filthy rich. Why!? A ferrari and bottomless mai tai's? Or are there actual problems that need solutions funded?
@@villagereleven381 this ^
@@villagereleven381 💕
All respect to Peter. He is way above his intellectual pay grade to carry this discussion with Eric. I hope that Eric continues this fight and finds his allies in this community.
Robert Breedlove
Very true
This would have been soo Interesting with Jeff Booth or Robert breedlove
Tbf Peter acknowledged that from the beginning and sought to bring someone, who could unpack the issues Eric was explaining.
Eric's problem is that hes smart enough to understand things but not smart enough to explain them to the layman. Hes so far up the dunning Krueger scale that he cant comprehend how dumb most people are.
Such a shame Eric wasn't interviewed by someone with a little more intellect.
Shame Eric can't form a coherent thought, all of his ideas are rambling without a consistent train of logic.
@@vakeone and every time a topic comes up he can't discuss he says I don't want to effing talk about that. Why not? Tell us why you think that's wrong. He doesn't care about falsification he cares about appearing smarter than he is.
@@LoneWolfDion Exactly, I don't understand how people can't see this. He dodges questions, re-phrases questions to his terms, then answers his new question. He can't accept the terms if they aren't presented by him.
The guy interviewing is obviously intelligent, the problem is he is too self absorbed in a trap I like to call intellectual masterbation, it’s a pseudo intellectualism where people regurgitate what innovators and people that think outside the box would say but without the original connection. It’s erudite but within a box, specialized and worn out. So he’s smart, but smart isn’t enough when talking on this scale. You have to be creative, intuitive, borderline mad, and eccentric to do these sorts of conversations justice, having a decent IQ and some knowledge isn’t enough, and in fact can be extremely limiting. You can’t pour water into a full cup, and you can’t solve problems with the same level of thinking that caused it in the first place.
@@vakeone eric is being manipulative here, using his bigger intellect to simply throw confusion. What is his core argument?
i get the feeling that Peter tried to tell Eric, if you want to go to war you need an army, and to get an army you need to make people able to follow you or at least rally them.
i think the person Eric needs to talk to if he wants to go to war without an army is Max Keiser. seems right up his alley.
Max Keiser would make this guy cry
@@BogdanManciu indeed. i wanted to say "fuck off, not your personal army!" but i always thought economists know what's the real inflation they just lie about it.
and the thought of them not even being able to calculate it is novel and very pleasurable to entertain...
Can we get Charles Hoskinson, Lex Fridman and Eric Weinstein to redo the interview. Humanity will be better off for it!
You read my mind.
Eric’s stance here seems similar to the Lex Fridman interview where he pushes Lex on why he doesn’t give MIT mgt the middle finger. He seems to want a bottom up revolution by fringe intellectuals backed with fu 💰
And he’s right of course. Economics, physics and cosmology need attraction of fearless brilliance; not law and business school
Fridman is an intellectual?
Weinstein is a year or two from becoming Sam Jackson's Nick Fury and starting some sort of Avengers Initiative.
I think that has been traditionally what has happened, I see it as a cyclical nature of society. Now the FU money could come from BTC.
Yes, that's what exactly I thought after listening to this conversation. Bitcoin definitely has the opportunity to bring the F U money which would be a great start. But the problem he wants to solve is way too big for Bitcoin alone to solve.
Law and business schools need actual brilliance as opposed to assholes contemplating critical race theory and human resource management. People who are innovating new legal and business structures which actually solve real problems, as opposed to shuffle wealth around.
"themal port on the economics Death Star"....my reward for listening to the end! Very stimulating interview.
Yep - think we need Michael Saylor chatting with Eric on this one -
or Lil Bubble
Amen.
Wow the thought of Michael Saylor and Eric in convo makes me wanna dim the lights and get some popcorn.
Agree, both I would say
Balaji
Fascinating to hear Eric talk and get a glimpse of how he thinks. The host embarrassed himself.
Eric is full of himself. He has not done his homework. Alt coins and Bitcoin exist in totally different worlds.
What Eric Weinstein tries to expain at the beginning is that the toxic mentality and maximalism itself can be destructive to Bitcoin itself.
When the pirates got rich, they stopped being pirates...
Great points from eric outside the current narrative bubble of bitcoin.
Dunno what's great about it, he is planting ideas that are inaccurate. We're not here to fight his battle.
so true....really enjoyed what he had to say.
@@anandasamaHe mainly asked the question "what battles are you fighting ?" And the only real answer when it comes to bitcoin community as of now is "None"
I think that's why he is frustrated, and I can understand it
@@maximem2200 only after he was dissatisfied with the answer of "reliable money". I'd guess the source of his frustration is the "and then" part isn't so obvious yet.
There’s a difference between being an articulate advocate of Bitcoin and a thoughtful intelligent man able to relate to fundamental inquiries. Eric pulled the veil off Peter as anything other than a carnival barker for Bitcoin.
Eric: So, you don't understand me?
Peter: No bro, simplify it.
Also, explain why people should care about a "better inflation theory/gauge" more than "better inflation practice/money".
@@KyleDunnIt He did, though. Lower inflation means they can manipulate tax brackets and continue to claim that you owe such and such when you actually owe much less. Put more simply, economists were wrong about last month's job numbers, because they're full of academic theory that's bogus.
Frustrating that Peter can't keep up with the conversation. Seems like he's just totally lost. Would be great to have Vitalik, AAntonopolis, Nic Carter, Alex Becker and Richard Heart in a 3 hr round table with EW. Now, THAT would be amazing!
The conversation that bitcoiners needed to hear. Many intelligent individuals like Eric are cheering on Bitcoin, and the community just resorts to spouting memes in defense of their own personal interests.
Do you want to change the world, or just change your fortune?
Peter is not the person to be having this conversation, but good effort nonetheless.
100% agree, just people talking their own book, super boring.
This should have been Jeff Booth
I'm new here. and Eric is a hero of mine. Thank you for turning me on to Travis Kling. I just found the conversation he had with Lyn Alden and Luke Gromen due to your content. I'll be back.
This is powerful stuff. One of the deepest, most visceral conversations I've witnessed in this topic. I don't think that Eric wanted, or expected, Peter to match him intellectually, or give him any answers. Instead, Eric needed his platform to declare war to the Fed, a summons to engage in active hostilities. The message will certainly be received by the intended audience, and it is likely that future (and more productive) discussions will take place behind closed doors. Genius move. I'm still unsure whether Bitcoin is ready (established and mature enough) to become Eric's ally, on what will become a very bloody battle; it would, nonetheless, be a 'make it or break it' type of endeavour...
Do you think it will be received by them? Surely part of the problem is their deafness
This is a perfect showcase of how Bitcoin maxis don’t even understand their own schtick. Despite trying very so hard to.
Bitcoin is the same system installed by the City of London, it is a fiat based gambling casino, its a rigged game, a pyramid scheme. The government is involved, places Bitcoin is "allowed" to be purchased is the same places the of the USD controllers. I set up a wallet but can't purchase without giving up my social security number. That means its not private, its not peer to peer, and its not confiscatable, therefore it is corrupted and the "white paper" setting up Bitcoin is meaningless.
@@TobeornottooB Ever heard of a Sha356 ? Public / private key cryptography? It’s not hard to understand, that’s what Bitcoin is built on. Totally secure. If you let your bitcoin be stored by someone else, then not secure. If you lose the private keys, then you lose your bitcoin, the private key is the only way to move bitcoin on the block chain
Turns out Peter is just full of controversial sound bites to grab people’s attention but can’t offer enough original ideas to continue the conversation.
He's out of his league, but in his defense, most people would be.
Frustrating to say the least. Anyway he tried.
Agree and also in his defense he does not shy away from inviting people that are clearly more intelligent than he is.
his go to response is ... "maybe"
@@StanislavKozlovsk I much prefer Peter to Pomp. Pomp lives up to his name, Peter has many moments of humility. Of the two I know which one I would much prefer to have a beer (a pint) with
I love how Eric is giving obvious perspective to the bitcoiners that the defi community understood already.
can you elaborate?
This aged well
We need more people like Eric talking about the future of civiization.. and bitcoin :)
Robert Breedlove
not many great minds like Eric
Eric doesn't realize while he is still stuck inside the Matrix looking for exits, bitcoiners have already escaped it.
These guys were basically stumbling around the concept of governance. Eric's point was, 'if BTC burns down the system what do we build and how do we decide?'
He has a fair point, and that is why I am not a BTC maximalist. I wouldn't touch anything that tries to compete as decentralized money, but there are other good consensus protocols that can solve different problems. The reality is he is right, we need to build an entirely new economy and governance structure based off of peer to peer, not just money.
Eric sorting those Maxis out good and proper! Loved the line...” let’s cut the crap” my thoughts exactly!
Finally! Someone “wakes up” the bitcoiners!
Love you Pete but having Weinstein on without an apt contender is just a waste.
I don't know what you were watching, but Weinstein did his usual piss-poor communications job while falling back on being patronising. We know you're clever Eric... the challenge is to explain yourself to people who aren't as clever as you are. You failed.
@@winsomehax Exactly. I'm reading the comments and i can't help but think a lot of them are enamored by Eric's alleged intelligence rather than being appalled at how he wasn't able to distill such "complex" ideas into simple digestable forms. So much for intelligence. Being a teacher and a good teacher lies in how well you disseminate complex ideas.
@@bisiriyutajudeen5728 eric never claimed to be a teacher
I guess his aim is clearly not to "dumb down" the complex things he is talking about so we can understand... He is completely rejecting the job to be a good teacher. He absolutely knows his audience is small and most people cant understand his points. But he doesnt care. He is not an educator. He's purposely provoking the curiosity of a few.... I guess I should do a ton of research and verify that what he said makes sense... Let's not trust he is making sense, let's verify.
@@bisiriyutajudeen5728 he made two clear suggestions.
1. Dismantle the authority of the economists by proving their models and method are Hocus pocus compared to more advanced math and models
2. Pick some human life changing priorities and invest real dollars in them - his personal pick is advanced physics science research.
Eric’s monologue at 2:19:00, the vision he had for what unstoppable decentralized computing and cyber worlds can do, is literally the pitch for ethereum lol
His vision is from 2010/2011. That was the mindset then. Bitcoin was huge, the possibilities were endless. Then we fell into the trap of Greg Maxwell, limited OP_RETURN sizes, and dictators running communication channels. Here we are!
Eric had Mr Ethereum on the portal. Didn't make much headway
1:54:49. It's your issue dude! Take some initiative. I've watched countless videos of yours, and you're always complaining about how everyone else isn't fighting the fight you want fought. Go fight the fight yourself. Rally people behind you. You want the Bitcoin community's backing? Do what Michael Saylor did, make the rounds on UA-cam, explain your case about how incompetent the economists are. You want specific help, specifically state what sort of help you're looking for. You're just coming across as a complainer who is dressing it up in pseudo intellectualism. If you uniquely see what the problem is, then it's your unique task to deal with it. Stop trying to offload your God given burned to others. Every man is responsible to the degree he can see, if you're the one with the sight, you're the one with the responsibility to champion the vision.
Although I think Eric is overall pretty brilliant in this talk, I do agree with you that this is Eric's one short coming and he may not realize it, which is he's not an organizer. He probably won't develop that skill unless someone like Peter Theil helps him get there. Eric may be at his limit being an evangelist. However that's very valuable, he's a great thinker.
Between this episode and the "Weinstein Series" with Robert Breedlove, to me, the conversation that Eric wants is most likely to take place with Michael Saylor. Specifically because Saylor has set-up the Saylor Academy and is planning long term uses for his personal Bitcoin, alongside Microstrategy's holdings. He sees the benefit of reducing the costs of PHDs and advancing technology, physics, and other STEM fields. I believe this is what Eric wants to discuss most.
Makes sense
Exactly…. I was thinking the same thing 👍
Production quality is top notch 💎💎
I don't think you can separate the BTC computer network from the maximalism. It's as though BTC has quite specifically infected a group of minds in the physical world with its ideal, in order to sustain itself within the digital. You really can't have one without the other.
Fascinating guest, I like that he isn't a complete Bitcoin shill and is still open-minded.
Agreed......, Robert Breedlove
He’s a literal devils advocate in flesh form, not to break down an argument but to make it more resilient. He’s challenging the community to think past “fed bad mmkay” and “to da moon”. It’s like giving a remote tribe in the Amazon access to a ufo machine, and them building a hut on top of it. Blockchain technology has the ability to literally change every aspect of society possibly for the better, and all we can focus on is if Bitcoin is in a bill or bear market. It’s one of the reason I believe in Cardano, because Charles gets it.
Quite an interesting conversation but I find that the endgoal was missing from the talk. What happens once you've proven wrong the economist? What kind of society does Eric want to emerge out of his war?
If I were to take the worst case interpretation I can see, it's about an autistic guy in his 50s finally proving that he was right to the guys who bullied him in college, and he can't let it go and needs an "I told you so" moment, even if it counts for nothing in an argument most people can't understand.
If I were to take a more charitable view, it's that probably Eric understands a more accurate and honest way to calculate our taxes and social security and such, but the government doesn't care because they have the monopoly on violence and stealing stuff, and are perfectly happy being dumb so long as they get to keep the money, and the stooges he's against are in on if not central to that.
I hate to say it, but at the end of the day, currency is perhaps a matter of force and who is able and willing to use it.
What's more, while I hate central banking and money printing, what if that's the safe way to steal from us? What if you when get rid of the safe way, ie running the printers around the clock in the back room, the alternative is thugs with clubs and guns coming around to claim your gold or bitcoin or whatever the old fashioned way? Arbitrarily taxing 75% of your savings right out od your bank accounts, or random extortionate property taxes you would have to sell to afford?
What if the world is more peaceful because theft is done with stealth instead of brutality, and if you get rid of the stealth you bring back the brutality?
Eric doesn't necessarily have an answer but explores it deeply in this podcast (skip the intro) ua-cam.com/video/_b4qKv1Ctv8/v-deo.html
I was waiting to find that out linguini - no luck - thanks for link Josh flori
Antonopoulos should of been in this.. he can sort this convo out
antonopolous thinks covid is real and that we should all wear masks and be vaccinated. if he’s that stupid to believe the above, you should want nothing to do with what he has to say..
@@ralphykr00gz Maybe don't expect people to be perfect from every angle.
@@ralphykr00gz source
@@ralphykr00gz lol. Of course covid is real. There are research papers on it from like 2018 or thereabouts. What are you talking about..
I agree, would really love to see Eric and Andreas get down to where the rubber meets the road. Unless Eric is just going to keep playing devil's advocate non stop. Was kind of annoying to see him say "he's really not that smart", then when Peter agrees say "actually he is pretty smart though"
Eric's ability to brutally break things down to the point others are almost embarrassed by their naivety is a joy to watch. Those that survive his scrutiny are better for the experience as shown in this excellent interview.
I genuinely can't tell if you're being sarcastic and if you say you're not, I'll wonder if that is sarcasm too.
😂 is that sarcasm?
"we've had 75 years of peace that are coming due". that's the quote.
1780-1860-1940-2020
Covid was the start.
@fuk urseth I think he is talking about the end of ww2. That is arguably the last war that the average american even slightly understands why the fuck we are even there. Ww2 makes some sense. After that, not so much. Out of sight, out of mind. Also literally no threat of it ever reaching our land since then. Anybody afraid of Iraq, Afghanistan, Vietnam invading the United states. Dont think so. I dont agree with a lot of what the guy says either just another academic who likes to hear himself talk but atleast he is searching for new ideas.
He's talking about the world, not just america. Relative world peace in the last 75 years is pretty obvious ..ww3 hasn't happened yet, i know cause we aren't using rocks yet
@@9trogenta13 i tried dialing this number and didn't get what i was expecting 🤣
@@leoeugene3287 intellectuals like to hear themselves talk, sportplayers do like to see themselves winning
This was one d my favorite episodes - I like it when you have “non Bitcoin ppl” talking about Bitcoin - nice to get fresh ideas 👍
Was planning to watch in bits and pieces over the day but ended up watching the whole 2+ hours in one go. Constructively uncomfortable at times but well worth the time. Definitely lots to digest. I can already feel I'm going to re-watch this a few times. A big thumbs up.
Right, it’s a lot to digest. Feel like I just walked out of a void and found a new world
Never seen a comments section so unanimously agree on something. And that is how the hosts were speed bumps to a meaningful conversation
Pete was getting too comfortable hanging out with his maxi friends circle jerk each other off. Didn’t expect Eric would bite. I was starting to listening to Peter’s pods , but after this shit show, I realize noting of value will ever come off his pods.
Eric Weinstein is brilliant. The interviewer is embarrassing. Doesn't seem be able to open his mind to Eric's ideas and suggestions. I hope he doesn't reflect the wider bitcoin community, although he refers to some of them.
eric lacks understanding of Bitcoin versus ALT coins in their basic structures.
I like Eric’s thought that we need to put the idea that Bitcoin fixes this to work on fixing the economy, I think that is what fixing the money means. Peter I loved the intellectual side of this interview and also agree with Eric in thinking taking on the economists would be a great natural progression for the Bitcoin community.
Eric bringing some good points here, it highlights BTC still in its infancy
No, he just doesn't fully grasp it yet.
And there it will stay as long as its proponents are in theirs.
Please do tell us what his best point was.
Is it better than any point random people on twitter make on a daily bases ? Any new revelations or angle we haven't all already heard before ?
Awful interviewers! I want to see Eric in conversation on this topic but with a good interviewers who know when to shut up. Who would be a good alternative?
The IQ gap is huge in this discussion...
Someone who really knows what they are talking about is able to explain it to people who have no idea about the subject...sounding smart and being smart are two very different things...although I can't speculate on IQ, maybe the IQ gap is actually huge, but I don't really give a fuck about someone's IQ when it comes to expressing ideas.
Can't be more plain than that XD
this is like btc talking to safemoon - Eric needs to talk to someone more qualified or an entire group of people like - jeff booth, m sailor and others
Great conversation. 2 observations. Eric expressed wanting to categorically call economists stupid, solves nothing, that’s ego. And wanting to wage war against the machine, right now, as in immediately, is by his own admission, un winnable, suicidal. He demonstrated frustration in his desire for instant gratification. That’s a temper tantrum. BTC is a marathon not a sprint. I do acknowledge his, and some of our concerns over government pushback.
Eric's criticism of Bitcoin is that it's boring, but it needs to be boring. Eric's criticism of Bitcoiners is that they are not activists because they don't buy him a research institute to bring down the current economic academic mainstream, but Bitcoin doesn't need a research institute for that - just time to exist (boringly) and prove the academic mainstream wrong.
Agreed.
Any examples of a decentralized tech being used today would be great, I am trying to do a research on it for my class in university.
Thanks to the community in advance.
Eric is heartily describing Thucydides Trap, wants to enter as a contender ( with a group of minds that relate to him economically) by challenging the current dominant economic powers and win. The only way to beat a trap is to avoid it, but the only way to challenge the current power structure is to engage. So how do you challenge or re establish dominant economic power and avoid the Trap? The interesting thing he said around this was referring to how long we have been taking a nap since WW2. From WW1 to WW2 is where our current economic power structure evolved, so is BTC peaceful transition or the precipice of war? Is it just a distraction of hope before the nap is over?
Well said.
Thought provoking. Thanks.
It's the first time I see bitcoin maxis sharing their views. It's really uninspiring. I see a lot of elitism, self-service and cynism here. No wonder Eric was frustrated. I love how he called them out so many times. There are so many great new blockchain projects that work on changing the statusquo. If you do not innovate you go backwards.
Thank you for this interview, if there is any hope of a BTC Maximalist podcast transcending to a BTC Guardian podcast it is this one. Bitcoin Maximalism is hurting bitcoin as well as the space. So much of the core philosophy that makes up BTC Maximalism is beautiful and brilliant, the greater space needs your wisdom not your contempt.
Brilliant episode. Eric Weinstein really challenged you guys using Socratic questioning. His basic point was that you maximalists should stop talking your own book because while you have this amazing invention and technology, you don't know what to do with it or how to use it properly. He really tore you a new one on this.
But it’s the future broooooo. You don’t understand it!! S/
This was very good, and definitely needs a part 2 so we can hear Eric's ideas next time
I hope Eric doesn't give up after experiencing this.
I would most like to hear him in a long form conversation with Jeff Booth.
Peter needs to prepare much better next time and read about the topics Eric is talking about.
Once in my lifetime I want to hear Eric say “you’re right, I’ve never thought of this”
I wish you would have stopped thinking yourself smarter than Eric, stop being cute and clever, and stop trying to teach him something.. So that instead, you could have unlocked his knowledge and his perspective on something so important to you.. Your bias is showing.. Eric was begging you to innovate this conversation and you failed for like an hour.. Let's see if you can turn it around by the end
Lol it didn't happen, sadly. If you haven't finished, don't bother, it only gets worse. You'll be better off listening to the latest podcast with lex
Eric is one of the few Bitcoin critics whom I respect. He has at least done the research to be able to have a productive discussion with the Bitcoin community. Most critics don’t even understand what they are criticizing
These guys can’t resist falling backwards into Twitter-like bitcoin maximalist arguments
The average bitcoin investor is not going to "pick a fight" with academic economists. The average bitcoin investor just wants to have a reasonable retirement without having all of their life savings inflated away. If anything, they may want the inflation thesis to play out so that their bitcoins will have more purchasing power.
hes not talking to the average bitcoin investor, he's talking to bitcoin millionaires and billionaires
@@3thereal Bitcoin and Ethereum and Dogecoin are essentially identical cryptocurrencies. They have zero inherent investment value. They merely have a perceived investment value and sometimes a transactional utilty value for commerce. Art is a better investment as if others don't value it enough to buy it off you then you can still look at it and appreciate it aesthetically. Elon Musk temporarily affected the percieved investment value of Bitcoin. The investment value is an illusion. It is inherently worthless. Gold still wins as it has practical uses besides being just rare: conductivity, jewelry. Bitcoin may be okay as an investment until 2022 when the midterms will be won by the Republican Party and the inflationary policies of Biden will be restricted and the US economy have a delayed surge out of the pandemic Lockdown, transferring into Gold ahead of their win whilst Gold is undervalued as a store as Bitcoin is temporarily preferred will gain a boost that will compensate for any perceived late losses from jumping off Bitcoin whilst it is still on the rise, as Gold will rise after 2022 as funds decamp from crypto into Gold. There is zero long term future for crypto to change the world.
@@____uncompetative " will be won by the Republican Party and the inflationary policies of Biden will be restricted" might want to go back and see who started up the printing press there, bud.
Eric's on a different level. Amazing intellect.
Peter has never been a good listener. He was looking for validation of Bitcoin and he could not accept Eric’s scepticism. Still, I think Eric’s deeper thinking theories came across. All was not lost in this conversation.
I think I get Eric's idea but isn't he just impatient. Bitcoin is disrupting technology but that doesn't mean it happens overnight. Talking about Star Wars didn't Luke suffer from his own arrogance and confront Vader only to be beaten and crushed? He didn't become á Jedi overnight. But Eric wants Luke to fight him now. Eric bitcoin will do its own thing in its own time.
Agreed !!
Going head on full blast ,is a sure way to loose the race !!
It leaking into the system a little bit at a time is the way in my opinion..
The only attention bitcoin gets from the elites is price action attention
The longer it stays that way the better imo... but I'm just a pleb but sounds like a bad idea to me ,it's too early
This
The reality of a man who got rich and makes his money by nothing other than holding bitcoin and talking about whether or not the price is going up or down. Would be nice to see Eric speak with someone of intelligence.
Peter’s answer to everything is ‘if you’ve been in the space long enough...’
Absolutely correct! This is the lack of confidence that Eric spoke about.
Yeah, Peter was definitely struggling to keep up with Eric.
there is a 7min video "what economists fail to understand about economics | Eric Weinstein and Lex Fridman" that explains very clearly what Eric was trying to say throughout this whole video. His idea is good, it's about using more refined measures of CPI for better incentivisation of actions, ie rewarding good activity. Eric really needs to move this discussion to Cardano, not Bitcoin.
relatively painful to watch... the linear bitcoin maxi thinking with all the classic arguments are showing and contributing to a one-sided conversation. Maybe next time get someone like Nic Carter to moderate
Having spoken with Jeff Booth before, I think he would be great to interview Eric. This episode was ok, and Eric is close to being onto something, but he has always struggled a bit with explaining to the masses, but he doesn’t need to; he can explain to Jeff who is an equal intellect imo, and a great listener and builder of conversations
He only answers to Thiel . Eric is brilliant,perhaps genius, but undeniably tied to the legacy finance and politics.
or Jordan Peterson
So basically, Eric wants someone to give him money so he can live his dream of battling economists on a big stage.. And somehow it's a limitation of Bitcoin that he hasn't found anyone that owns BTC willing to finance him?
This, and also he seems to be frustrated in the general case that no current efforts exist to solve "big problems' outside of money itself.
No he doesnt understand why no one that has made F U money from bitcoin/whales aren't doing it themselves since it is A) Morally correct B) Mathematically correct and C) In their own financial interest.
@@DG-kr8pt the thought of an economic theory "rebound relationship" isn't very attractive for anyone. Especially if you have doubts that the field of economics has anything more impactful to add to reality versus the long list of more important problems to solve (education, energy, etc). High caliber math applied to the social science foundations in economics seems like a house of cards made from different suits.
Thank you for trying Eric.
Weinstein recognises another brilliant mind in Vitalik and easily dismantles these fragile maxis.
I think you misrepresent him. He's not trying to beat them, he's challengeing them, as current leaders of the space and future members of the 'Fuck You Money Class' to ask better questions.
Thanks guys!
The only solution that Bitcoin provides is to be the secure savings account for the world, which in our current system, is a BIG THING.
At the end of the day, the goal of humans is to ensure that they can take care of their loved ones. You need money to do so.
We save so that we can buy resources for our and our family’s survival.
We currently have the wrong goal.
The goal of the world should be to make our essential resources UNLIMITED.
When that is achieved, who cares about money.
Amen bro
Yeah, the natural price of things must approach zero. All cost is friction, which technology eliminates. Given exponential technological development, we will get exponential abundance, and we will all move up Maslow's hierarchy of needs.
@@jakemeadows3478 this thread is really interesting! I need to think more about this!
Eric, the answer to using crypto to measure inflation is that it needs to be posited as a digital currency to measure the total lifecycle of every unit of currency as it moves through the entire production cycle. It allows for near perfect information and where the blockages are occurring. Central banks role is to be the plumbers with brute force pressure hoses opening/closing valves and filling up the pressure tank. Crypto could be algorithmized to redistribute the pipes to reroute the entire system dynamically. I have an idea that solves the government control aspect , but keeps market pricing without forcing redistribution as a tax, but keeps inflation as a feature instead of a bug to backfeed into blockages. The only issue is the transition to stability of value/adoption to move in that direction.
great talk! it's insane that some people think you can have the crazy gains in bitcoin over time without monumental systemic risks. every time i recommend bitcoin to someone i can't help to feel some dread.
I recommend people get free Bitcoin. Lots of ways to get it now. They won't get a lot, but if Bitcoin is as good as it appears, they won't need much.
The current system is beyond salvation. Why do you think our dear leaders are talking about great resets? And where are the escape? Cash? Bonds? Gold? Nah, if you want to protect your life savings you put it into Bitcoin. And then you start working on getting sovereign. You might want to use jurisdictional arbitrage in case your state is turning authoritarian.
nobody that bought and held bitcoin over a 4 year period ever lost. ever (in past 10 years or so haha)
I am quite proud of the community of this comment thread, not only that people stuck with it through the end but that people are really taking away what Eric was saying which unfortunately, I think the host just felt like the community or the idea of Bitcoin was being attacked. Eric made excellent points, we’ve got this thing that can change the world, but if all it’s going to do is let individual people make some money and nothing else is done with it, then he’s not interested. He’s interested in changing the world and he thinks Bitcoin is a tool to do that.
Peter doesn't go well conversing with intelligent people.
Because he's a dumbass. He's the embodiment of what the Bitcoin community has become.
The nervous nature of the other two to Eric’s presence was palatable, even through video. Not dissing, but observed. I agree, so in the end what!? What are we doing here.. ?
We are learning how to avoid making the same mistakes others made. It's all about making your own new mistakes and not repeating old mistakes, yo.