Ask HN: How to keep yourself prepared for potential interviews? - <AUTHOR> I'm a software engineer with more than 5 years experience. There have been more than 1 time I am contacted by big companies for interview opportunities. And every time I find myself in a position where I'm totally unprepared for it.
I know the drill, and I know my skills. I'm not terrific with algorithm problems. I need preparation and frequent practice to stay sharp. In the past, I have tried spending 1-2 hours each day to practice. But as I gain more experience, I find myself spending more and more time working on side projects, exploring things that interest me, solving problems at a different scale. I can't really keep myself motivated to practice random algorithm problems anymore.
I do want to be prepared when the chance comes, but I can't balance my time. What would you do if you were me? <comment><USER2> To be frank, I have never gotten a job I've really enjoyed which required me to know my algorithms in an interview. Such questions are a negative indicator which indicate to me that the interviewer is more interested in showing off than getting things done.

The only practice I keep up with is talking to people. Being able to maintain a conversation with a non-technical person for more than a minute will has furthered my career more than any amount of algorithmic knowledge.

<comment><USER3> This is great advice.

One good way to start is to take a project that you've been heavily involved with and create a small presentation out of it. Draw up the architecture in Google Docs, keep any confidential stuff out of it, add some screen captures. Print it out and keep it in a small binder.

Practice explaining the project in under 5 minutes. Try it out on some friends that might not understand the tech completely. Rehearse questions and answers that people might ask.

Being comfortable speaking like this with management and future coworkers has worked well for me, more so than FizzBuzz on a whiteboard.

<comment><USER4> This is excellent advice specifically because it's not about "prepping for interviews"; honing these skills simply makes you more valuable to any company, and it's an aspect of your capabilities that you _can_ show off in a decent interview process... so take advantage of that.

<comment><USER3> Just to add to my comment above, I recently did a round of hiring for a new embedded engineer. I had a handful make it to the in-person interviews.

When asked about previous projects, almost every single one waved their hands and tried to explain how they glued widget A to framework B and <magic> got product C.

 _Exactly one candidate_ brought materials to show things he had worked on and how the skills he used in those projects applied to the work we were doing. You could see eyes light up when he was asked "so, tell us about <project z>" and he smoothly pulled out some pages to show.

He blew everyone else away and got the offer.

<comment><USER5> Did you ask him to bring stuff in advance?

<comment><USER3> Nope. And I always carry materials on my interviews even if I'm not asked to. It's not much more work to carry a small 3-ring binder along with the notepad and resume folder I typically carry to an interview.

 _(Protip: always carry extra copies of your resume to interviews. There 's always someone that is missing theirs and it's nice when you hand them an extra copy)_

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> I reversed my attitude for interviews. If the employer has an interview process that doesn't respect my time, my experience, and my ability, then I don't want to work there.

My attitude isn't "As a candidate, I failed that interview." My attitude is "That employer failed to have a process that enabled them to hire someone as awesome as me." I know that I'm a 10x-100x programmer at the places I've been, and if your interview process can't identify that, then that's your problem and not my problem.

<comment><USER7> My takeaway from being both an interviewee and an interviewer is that the most correct attitude after a failed job interview is "We don't match each other".

The interviewer is testing their own ability to properly conduct a job interview as much as they're testing the candidate. I realized it when I was interviewing candidates myself.

Also, people and companies are drastically, surprisingly and ridiculously different. You may fail badly at one interview, and it means nothing, you can just move on to the next company and prosper.

</comment></comment><comment><USER8> Always be interviewing.

This has a few advantages:

* You get practice and insight into interview questions

* you always have an idea of your worth

* interviewing stops being something you only do when you NEED a new job. Now it's just a day to day thing and it's less nerve wracking. You don't really want a new job so the pressure is off.

* you may find a much better job and decide to take it.

I'm sure there's more positives as well. The downside is it takes time away from other things including work. As you do it regularly though you'll find it takes less and les time since your resume is always up to date and you get better at weeding out companies you wouldn't want to work for.

<comment><USER9> I wonder how you would feel if the reciprocal attitude was adopted by your employer - i.e. if they continually interviewed potential replacements for your position, to:

* get practice at interviewing people for your role

* have an idea of what your market worth is, so they can use this in salary negotiations

* stop interviews being a difficult process they only do when you leave

* keep the option of finding a better candidate and replacing you on such occasions.

I'm going to take a wild guess and assume you would not tolerate that from your employer. It would show a lack of respect, trust, engagement, etc, basically it would convey to you that your employer doesn't even care about maintaining an appearance of giving a damn about you as a person. You've only just started there last week, and they're already thinking about firing you and replacing you with someone better.

Personally, whilst I think the attitude of getting upset because someone leaves the company is immature, I also think your attitude is disrespectful and shows such a contempt for the place where you're working, such an extreme lack of even the remotest sense of loyalty, that I wouldn't want to employ someone with your attitude ever.

This is without even delving into the fact that you're imposing a tax on the system, taking time away from your current employer (presumably with this attitude you're quite happy to pull sickies to cover your frequent job interviews), as well as other potential employers (interviewing people costs time and money; interviewing people who have no interest in changing jobs is a total waste of money for the company). If everyone suddenly behaved like you, regularly applying to even just a dozen jobs a year even though they have no intention of changing jobs, the recruitment process would incur such gargantuan costs that the economy would suffer, if not crash. Basically, your suggestion above seems to convey that you only really care about yourself. At least that's what it makes me feel from the really self-centred way you've described it.

I'm sorry that this reads like a personal accusation, but you made statements about your personal system of behaviour and I find that system deeply objectionable.

If I got the wrong end of the stick (perfectly possible), please do correct me...

<comment><USER10> Companies do this all the time in various forms. Recruiting and HR are entire departments at most companies.

Don't get confused and start acting like a corporation is a person with feelings.

<comment><USER11> Ah, but some corporations are run by people with feelings. And for small corporations the situation is a bit different than for a larger one. The turning point is roughly around the time the CEO no longer knows the first name of everybody that works in the company.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER12> I have reached a point where I am comfortable enough with implementing things that I do not need to practice as long as I understand how it works. So I get to spend all my free time on side projects just like you.

I have a set of downloaded algorithm lectures by Robert Sedgwick from Coursera (text version: [http://algs4.cs.princeton.edu/home/](http://algs4.cs.princeton.edu/home/)) that I watch before every interview. I make it a point to do this even if I think I remember it well. In fact, I now know parts of the course so well, that I can watch it as 2x speed in VLC, and that refreshes everything in my mind.

To be fair, I'm still in college, and all my interviews were for internship positions and algorithms focussed, so it might definitely differ from your situation. However, what I learnt from this set of videos has never failed me with any of the big companies.

PS: I use scripts like these ([https://github.com/coursera- dl/coursera](https://github.com/coursera-dl/coursera)) to download useful courses from Coursera that I can then watch before interviews.

<comment><USER13> How many hours does it take to watch the full set of algorithm lectures that you downloaded, even at 2x speed? That sounds like a significant amount of time.

<comment><USER12> Takes me a day

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER14> Stop drilling pointless "interview questions" and instead prefer employers that value your ability to do the actual work.

If you can build and ship side-projects your _preferred_ employer will hire because of that, not some tricky interview question. You can safely reject employers that want to, if you get the analogy, hire scrabble players instead of writers

<comment><USER14> also, what a sad indictment of the tech sector when someone thinks they need to spend time practising interview questions instead of actually, ya know, programming. Crazy stuff

<comment><USER15> When camels are on sale in the markets, buyers look at the animal's teeth to find out if its a good healthy camel. They don't like to go and do scientific health checkups. Same with tech candidates. Its better to brush up on algos :)

<comment><USER16> Phone interviews, take home projects, all day grillings, we can't decide, come back for more grillings, is not 'looking at the teeth'. Looking at my resume and asking me to explain something on it is inspecting my teeh.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER17> Do something like TopCoder SRMs or CodeForces rounds. They are not only fun but they take up only about 2-4 hours of effort per week. You can judge yourself how well you are doing compared to college kids and competitive programmers. After the contest, read the editorial about the problems that you could not solve during the contest.

After about 3-6 months of this, I can confidently say, I can pass the pure algo/data-structure rounds of any company..

</comment><comment><USER18> > What would you do if you were me?

Ignore recruiters unless I was actively looking and start practising whatever the relevant set of questions; silly flash card memory tricks, etc; were if that became true.

</comment><comment><USER19> I just do interviews constantly. Not frequently but I keep my resume updated and keep alert for relevant positions and some position that aren't an exact fit as well. I will respond to recruiters and do interviews until I am pretty sure that its not a good match. If I happen to find an awesome company to work for in this way then that's just an added bonus. Basically I'm always on the lookout for my next job.

</comment><comment><USER20> It seems like you've already identified that the problem is you needing to know 'algorithm problems', so I would work on that. You shouldn't need to memorize hundreds of random problems. I think a few simple (not requiring much time to learn or to maintain) things would go a long way if you really are willing to make yourself put in some effort. Learn how to do basic big oh analysis. Learn how to apply recursion to simple enough problems, like the boggle question. Learn how merge sort and quick sort work and be able to implement them (they're not even that many lines of code). If you're already working on side projects and solving problems at different scale, that should help you naturally stay up on these things. Being able to talk about different libraries you learn and how you worked at different scales should also be valuable during an interview.

</comment><comment><USER21> Found myself in similar situations in the past. My tentative solution was to maintain a corpus of resources for practice (beyond the usual suspects of implementing the standard data structures etc.), and hope that when the chance comes, 1-2 hours each day for a week before an interview would suffice. And when I do practice, I don't use a code editor, either paper or plain editor with no way to execute the code, simulating the (horrible) conditions of interviews as best as I can.

Obviously, this doesn't get you the benefit of being constantly drilled, but should provide some advantage. If you do care enough to get yourself a bigger advantage, maybe try to clear a few weeks before a round of job searching (if that's how you operate), then use those weeks for a few hours of practice each day.

</comment><comment><USER22> I do the same as you. For me it's far more important to maintain energy level and motivation in self improvement projects than to do some specific trick question kata for a hypothetical interview. Some people like those, I can't stand them.

I get a huge kick from algorithms when they solve a specific problem at my current problem elegantly. I suppose for me my algorithm learning plan is to constantly ask myself "what is the simplest form of data that I need and which algorithms then process it most elegantly for my current problem".

The only thing I know for sure is a) people learn differently b) each must find a learning strategy that fits his or her strengths the best.

</comment><comment><USER23> The real question is not how you as a well educated computer science professional stay ready for interviews. The question is whether or not the US economy is going to be able to handle integrating and making use of modern technology in an efficient way, or if the US software industry will be collapsed by incompetence in the same way the US auto industry was.

</comment><comment><USER24> Always be looking for a job. Always be interviewing. Because recruiters are whores your boss will find out. Just tell them that you are looking for a part time job. Schedule all your interviews during lunch or after work.

</comment><comment><USER25> Interview cake newsletter is a nice weekly refresher to keep you sharp

</comment><comment><USER26> Interview Cake is great: [https://www.interviewcake.com/](https://www.interviewcake.com/)</comment>


Formal Abstracts: Express Results of Math Publications in Computer-Readable Form - <AUTHOR> https://jiggerwit.wordpress.com/2018/04/09/formal-abstracts-a-long-term-vision/ <comment><USER2> I sense Gödel lurking nearby.

Isn't a formal system for describing maths guaranteed to be either incomplete or inconsistent?

</comment><comment><USER3> One of the most important research projects right now!</comment>


Old Battlefield games re-killed after EA's legal warning - <AUTHOR> https://www.rockpapershotgun.com/2017/10/27/old-battlefied-games-killed-after-ea-legal-warning/ <comment><USER2> What bothers me about this is that people bought the game, but they can't play it because EA doesn't want to run servers for it and prohibits everyone else from doing so. I very much preferred the old days when players had to run their own servers. It was less convenient, but made for great community and avoided situations like this.

<comment><USER3> Well it's not about server, but about MASTER servers. Those used to discover "players own servers" in the internet.

<comment><USER4> Isn't that even worse? That would require even less resources on EA's part, and is even less consequential to the actual game.

<comment><USER5> Yeah right ... showing homemade server by official EA servers. It's a recipe for disaster.

<comment><USER6> This is how it was for many years. Decades even. It was fine.

They weren't exactly "homemade" servers either. There was an entire industry of game server rentals and these were datacenter rack servers connected to fat pipes.

It wasn't unusual at all to find third-party servers with way better pings (and higher player caps) than the official servers.

I don't remember the official bf1942 servers ever having 32v32 player matches but that was fairly common for thirdparty servers for example.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> It's too bad there isn't a yearly tax on the value of 'intellectual property', just like on real property. If a company doesn't pay the tax, someone else could pick it up. It would provide a legal path to handle abandoned things.

<comment><USER8> On the other hand its common for people to inherit property they can't maintain, forcing them to sell it with much regret. If a poor person patented tremendously valuable intellectual property it might be lost to an unscrupulous buyer.

<comment><USER9> > If a poor person patented tremendously valuable intellectual property

Challenge for HN: find the most recent three patents which (a) were filed by individuals not an employer (b) those individuals could reasonably be described as poor (c) aren't subject to widespread infringement by a big company. (and (d) is for something actually useful not a perpetual motion machine etc)

I think it might be quite a hard thing to find.

<comment><USER10> a) is (technically) easily satisfied. In the USA, only persons can apply for a patent. See [https://www.uspto.gov/patents-getting-started/general- inform...](https://www.uspto.gov/patents-getting-started/general-information- concerning-patents#heading-10):

 _"According to the law, the inventor, or a person to whom the inventor has assigned or is under an obligation to assign the invention, may apply for a patent, with certain exceptions."_

and, more explicitly, [http://www.iusmentis.com/patents/crashcourse/applicant/](http://www.iusmentis.com/patents/crashcourse/applicant/):

 _"When someone makes an invention, and does so as an employee of a company, usually the company owns the right to apply for a patent. The exception once again is the United States, where only natural persons may apply for a patent. In the USA, the employee will typically have a clause in his employment contract stating that he assigns all his patent rights to the company. The filing is then done on behalf of the employee, but the rights immediately go to the company."_

<comment><USER11> This reverses the meaning of the question. When last did a poor person get to the patent office first and then retain the rights themselves to critical tech.

Patent law as it is explains much of the 6-fold increase in inequality in the US in the last few decades. [https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/our-biggest- economic-social-p...](https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/our-biggest-economic- social-political-issue-two-economies-ray-dalio?articleId=6327163206116667393)

PS Employees aren't generally amongst the poor.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER12> This reminds me of the old Blizzard vs open battlenet (bnetd) crap that happened in the early 2000s. I think it really hit a full head when people were using modified bnetd servers so they could play leaked beats of WarCraft 3.

It's sad because bnetd lost their case, even though it was a total open source re-implementation and was an amazing work for what it was.

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bnetd](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bnetd)

</comment><comment><USER13> Anyone play Battlefield 2 on the PS2 I think it was? You could look at any allied character on the battlefield and hit a button and you'd take over control of the character. So you could be a soldier on the ground being pinned down by a machine gun nest, look up to an allied helicopter, hit the button, become the pilot, launch missiles at the nest, then look down to a tank, become the driver, then back to the soldier, etc,... So much fun! I think they called it 'hotswap' or something.

Any game devs: This was the single most fun mechanic I've played in years. Please please please make an FPS where you can hotswap between characters like that. For some reason apparently this awesome feature didn't even make it into the PC version of the game. I'd love to play a game with that mechanic again.

<comment><USER14> All of the ARMA games have had this feature if you bother to enable it. It's not usually seen in the popular online "maps" though

<comment><USER13> Thanks! I've set up an alert for when it goes on sale :-)

<comment><USER14> Go in the editor and you can set units to "player" and "playable", playable meaning you can then switch to them in game from the map menu under I think "team".

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER15> In my opinion the question is how do we treat hybrid software products: A part of it runs locally and another part runs on a server.

If you sell/advertise those two pieces of software as a single integrated product but you only give away the client executable, how long after the sale should you be required to keep the server running?

It's a bit like a web app: The user downloads some HTML+JS which makes XmlHttpRequests to a server backend. In theory the user could download the HTML+JS only once and keep working with that initial copy, but after a few weeks the server endpoint might change and break that copy.

I think the expectation for a web app is to keep working for a day or so and the expectation for a console game is at least 20 years?

<comment><USER16> In games traditionally people hosted their own servers.

</comment></comment><comment><USER17> Pretty upsetting, my buddies and me would get together on weekends and play Battlefield 2. Hopefully they find a way to get setup again (torrent client downloads)

</comment><comment><USER18> I found Squad and Planetside 2 to be great heirs to the Battlefield 2 and Battlefield 2142 legacy.

Amazing how Planetside 2 being a free game manages to outclass pretty much any combined arms FPS and is still looking really good visually for 2012 release.

<comment><USER19> Oh man I forgot about Planetside 2! Super underrated, it came out in a huge FPS glut in the market. I dig huge combined arms stuff but man I used to die to snipers in that game so much haha.

</comment></comment><comment> rm_-rf_slash We need to re-think intellectual property. If a creator (or worse, buyer) of an IP loses interest in supporting it, then why should they retain a legal monopoly to do so?

<comment><USER20> That sounds like a rationalization of "But I _want_ it!" If someone owns useful land, but prefers to leave it fallow, they don't lose ownership of it; why shouldn't they have the right to leave their intellectual property idle? Part of ownership is the right to use your property as you please.

<comment><USER21> You begged the question here. The question is whether and to what extent the creator of software _should_ have "ownership".

<comment> rm_-rf_slash Precisely. That's the difference between land and IP. IP is made. Land is bought, maybe worked on, developed, but as Mark Twain said about land, "they're not making it anymore."

>Inb4 South China Sea.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER22> APIs and protocols generally can't be copyrighted in Europe. Not sure where they're based, but what stops them from running this in Europe?

</comment><comment><USER5> What most people don't understand is EA can't legally release server code because they probably use libraries that forbid public distribution, physics engine ect ...

<comment><USER23> I fail to see how is that relevant, people are saying either keep the server up or let other people run their own, reversed engineered server.</comment></comment>


Simperium joins Automattic - <AUTHOR> http://blog.simperium.com/2013/01/24/simperium-joins-automattic/

<comment><USER2> I really hope Simplenote sticks around for a long time to come.</comment>


Steve Jobs' first boss: 'Very few companies would hire Steve, even today' - <AUTHOR> http://www.siliconvalley.com/ci_22884138/steve-jobs-first-boss-very-few-companies-would <comment><USER2> The only thing that worries me about bringing focus to stuff like this is that people will walk away with the reverse impression- that if they're unhireable it must mean that they're just like Steve Jobs.

Steve Jobs could be many things. Inspired is one of them. An asshole is another. Just because people think you're an asshole doesn't automatically mean you're inspired.

<comment><USER3> I'm worried about your impression that if you don't like someone, they can't do interesting things as Jobs did.

Who is actually "unhireable"? And even if they are, does that mean they cannot accomplish anything? Are you in charge of deciding who will never amount to anything?

<comment><USER2> They could well do interesting things, as Jobs did- I'm not saying they can't. I'm more trying to say that there is no guaranteed connection between the two, in the same way that wearing black turtlenecks isn't going to make you any more enlightened either.

<comment><USER4> This reminds me of PG's essay about startups - where he says that all great ideas look like really bad ideas in the beginning. Like black swans, the next big thing, and the person to create the next big thing seem to share the trait of not being easy to predict or spot.

<comment><USER5> Of course, bad ideas also look like bad ideas in the beginning.

<comment><USER6> Humm I disagree

There's "obvious" bad ideas like trying to sell sand in the desert.

There's the bad (underwhelming) ideas, maybe that's the most common of them, it's probably the 'trying to make a weird idea sellable'. Like 'french fries are amazing but unhealthy so let's try to sell potatoes cut as fries, but baked, with no salt'

There's also quirky ideas as bad ideas, which is the way most people go and what PG probably meant. Not to mention sometimes your idea looks like the same as a failed one already but the devil is in the details.

<comment><USER7> How bad of an idea is it to sell a stupid rock to people?

<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pet_rock>

There are some days I must grudgingly agree with screenwriter William Goldman's "Nobody knows anything."

If you're not more confused by life as you get older, you haven't been paying enough attention.

<comment><USER8> Depends on your investment strategy. Fads are nearly impossible to predict. So you have $100,000 to invest and this guy comes up to you with pet rocks. Another guy with toilets that sing. Another guy with shoes that play music.

Who do you give the money to? Any of these guys?

Just because fads exist, doesn't mean bad ideas don't. Banking on the pet rock was a huge gamble for someone and it somehow worked out. Fad toys must have 1 out of 100,000 success rate, if that.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER9> That's sort of straight obvious.

Basically because if somebody like Steve Jobs doesn't have a Steve Wozniak to build things for him in the start he is more or less a arrogant egoistic tantrum throwing hippie kind of a guy whom nobody would like to deal with.

You meet a genius co-founder like Steve Wozniak very very rarely.

Nearly every program manager is a lesser version of Steve Jobs, that is how authority looks cool and glorified. Giving an impression that the manager is automagically creating success out of thin air while a engineer somewhere pushing 19 hr daily schedules to make it happen doesn't count or is irrelevant.

Steve Jobs reminds of Peter Keating from Ayn Rand's 'The Fountainhead'.

<comment><USER7> >>>Steve Jobs reminds of Peter Keating from Ayn Rand's 'The Fountainhead'.

Seriously? You think Hank Rearden developed Rearden Steel without all of the efforts others had first made in steel? Dagny _inherited_ her damn railroad. She didn't create it. Richard Halley didn't invent music. John Galt was working in a damn auto factory. He didn't invent autos nor the idea of an engine. Midas Mulligan was a goddammed banker. He didn't invent currency or the idea of stored value.

</comment></comment><comment><USER10> I do not understand why anyone would find this quote surprising, controversial or even newsworthy.

Employees operate within the rules established by their employers - they have a boss and are expected to be a "good solider" to support objectives of their company / business unit... People like Steve Jobs are successful because of their audacity to disregard the rules and make their own.

These are entirely different mindsets and skillsets. Employees are given direction, entrepreneurs set the direction.

What I find a lot more interesting is that quite a few startup founders act like employees rather than leaders - constantly asking (explicitly or implicitly) for approval of others. Look around and see if you can recognize people who care about the opinions of press/investors/advisors/peers more than achieving product/market fit followed by revenue/profitability/growth.

<comment><USER11> You don't actually have to be that much of a soldier at most places and most places today, imho, would hire steve jobs. I have a day job and my personal ventures and the bottom line is if you do your job, nobody cares. I think the vast majority of successful leaders also had a successful period working on someone else's project beforehand.

</comment></comment><comment><USER12> The sad, harsh reality is, no one would hire Steve Jobs today or almost no one.Why?Because times have changed (In a bad way).We live in a world full of arrogance, stupidity and ignorance.We no longer think how to change the world but how to make a lot of money.

Steve Jobs was a non-technical guy.We have 1 million topics on HN bashing these guys for 1 million reasons.Even on this one we have engineers talking about the same thing over and over.

How about being realistic at least once. We do not give these people any chance of working with us.Because we are so arrogant these days that we think the world belong to us and only we (programmers/engineers) can change it.

We cannot find a Steve Jobs when we are not willing to risk at all.How many of you helped a non-technical guy building a project without asking for a huge amount of money or 100% equity?Probably not many.Most of the help consists of telling the guy to find a cofounder or to quit the project.Not one programmer/engineer would say "hey you know what, you're crazy but I'll help you" or any other similar line.

The truth is we do not own the world and we are not all-knowing. We can be all-star programmers and yet have crap ideas.Nothing is set in stone.Someone out there is always better than you.And history shows us that small things count. Unbelievable things come from unexpected places.

I am not saying that every non-technical guy is a Steve Jobs because I had my own failures with these guys and yes, it's incredibly frustrating.But those were bad selections.A risk I was willing to take.I helped a non-technical guy with a startup 4 years ago.He had a weird idea and he asked me to help him in exchange for a fixed sum of 350K. He came to me with a damn paper and pen to talk about his idea. He had no money to hire a programmer only an ambition that could move mountains.And after 6 months I received the money in my account...the startup was a success...and that's when I changed my mentality.

So in conclusion, if we want to see a Steve Jobs, we have to take risks.Otherwise let's continue flipping the coin and wait for it.

<comment><USER13> I don't think the world is that much different today than it was yesterday. You perspective on it may be different and will continue to evolve over time, but for the most part the world we live in continues much the same as it always has. The problems you speak of is nothing new. Just look on the history of a different industry and you're likely to find much the same.

But, during the early years Jobs was not selling his own crazy ideas, he was selling Woz's. Plus I wouldn't say that Jobs was a non-technical guy as he clearly knew tech, he just accepted his place in that field.

The thing I don't get about your comment is that we see people risking things on non-technical people's ideas every day, so I don't understand your point.

<comment><USER12> I have to disagree here.Even though my perspective has changed, times have changed too.How?Look around.If you do not see it than I will stop here.

Steve Jobs was a non-technical guy.That's why there were so many debates about tech and non tech guys during these years.He acquired knowledge over time through various sources.He had everything on a plate.And you can be a complete outsider in a company.When you spend so much time in your industry, in your environment, you learn.But you couldn't say he was a programmer or engineer.

Saying that people are risking things on non-tech people's ideas every day is like saying people are driving a car every day.Of course they are.In this world there is a little bit of everything.Rich people, poor people, low jobs, high jobs etc. We are talking about the majority or current situation. And for the moment the situation is just how I described it.

If you think it is not true, post a project on HN as a non-technical guy and ask for someone to help you build your project.I am curious how many would help you.

That is just my personal opinion based on my observations and experiences.

<comment><USER13> If you do not see that your third paragraph contradicts your first then I cannot help you.

Jobs was involved in numerous projects creating highly popular technical products in several different roles. Now did he dig in to create the circuit boards and code the programs himself? No, he did not. But that's like saying a team lead is not a technical person because he doesn't code himself. To help create technical products from the ground up there has to be some level technical knowledge involved. Maybe your standard of what constitutes technical knowledge is higher than mine or maybe we just think of being technical as different things.

As I said before, your third paragraph agrees with my point. What you are complaining about has been around for quite a while and will most likely will exist for a time to come.

Someone with no technical knowledge asking for help on a project and not getting it does not necessarily lead to your conclusion on the community in general. One could say the same if you have a crazy idea for a new type of house, when you've never built a house before, and no one in the construction industry steps forward to build your house on spec for no money down. That's simply how the world works and has always worked. What you want is the exception to be the rule.

But then again, I'm sure the open source world has several examples of what you say doesn't happen.

<comment><USER12> I don't see the contradiction but my point is, if we want to see more steves we should improve the relationship between us and them even if we have the hard part of the startup.Which is almost always the case.

But hey, if you choose to be a programmer, you should do it because you really like it not because you make a lot of money. I can work 30h non stop on a project I like even if it's not mine, because I really like to build projects.

I don't want the exception to be the rule.It would be impossible after all.What I want is tech guys to risk more when it comes to non-technical people.

Btw, when you are smart and very talented you don't really need to get that technical.I already wrote about a non-technical guy I've worked with which had no technical background and no experience with startups that was able to build a product from his mind. I was shocked.I mean he didn't even know how to design it in photoshop.He was able to guide us through the building process almost perfectly.Now, of course he was reading a lot about everything but besides that he had no real technical background.

Should I say that guy was technical or non-technical?We probably see things differently.

We should return to our topic subject because we are entering the eternal debate and we will just ruin the topic.

<comment><USER13> I agree since you keep contradicting yourself.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER14> I'm not sure Steve Jobs would be such a great employee anyway. He was born to lead, not follow. To innovate, not bend himself to someone else's vision. Invest in him? Yes. Hire him? Hmmmmm. Maybe not.

<comment><USER15> A grown man that throws tantrums, belittles subordinates, and never admits when his company has made a mistake is not what I would call a born leader.

<comment><USER16> That's exactly what I'd call a born leader. These types of people do not show any weakness and refuse to compromise on their vision.

<comment><USER15> All three of the attributes I listed are weaknesses. Born leaders don't often lose their temper in front of subordinates.

You should read "How to Make Friends and Influence People" It contains quite a few examples of what true leadership is.

<comment><USER16> >All three of the attributes I listed are weaknesses.

According to whom?

>"How to Make Friends and Influence People"

Leadership isn't about making friends; it's about getting people to obey. Hitler, Stalin and Steve Jobs all knew this well.

<comment><USER15> >According to whom? Anyone with a brain. Steve Jobs wasn't successful because he found it appropriate to act like a 2 year old in a business environment. He was successful in spite of it.

>Leadership isn't about making friend; It's about getting people to obey.

I agree that leadership isn't about making friends, but the other half of the book's title is "and Influencing People," which is about getting people to do what you want them to, which is exactly what you said leadership is about.

Hitler and Stalin were not good leaders. Sure, you can force people to do things if your commands are backed up by the promise of torture and death, but that's not leadership by any stretch of the imagination.

You can be successful for a number of reasons. Most good leaders are successful, but success alone isn't an indicator of leadership ability. Good leaders are far too rare for every successful organization to have one.

<comment><USER16> >Hitler and Stalin were not good leaders. Sure, you can force people to do things if your commands are backed up by the promise of torture and death, but that's not leadership by any stretch of the imagination.

Hitler and Stalin weren't born with the ability to have anyone tortured or killed. They didn't inherit generals and secret police under their command. These power structures they built themselves over the course of their respective political careers. Their ability to rally people to their respective causes was formidable.

For another example of belligerence and downright nastiness as a leadership quality: look no further than the military. Drill Instructors are legendary for the intimidating and degrading treatment of their subordinates and yet I find it very hard to argue with the results. By and large, they're able to produce unshakably loyal soldiers.

<comment><USER15> I'm a 3rd generation Soldier that was in the Army for a decade, what you are describing is called toxic leadership, and it destroys organizations. Slowly, the military is starting to admit that its ineffective when your subordinates aren't a bunch of mouth breathing illiterates.

Also, most Soldiers are loyal because most people who aren't already patriotic wouldn't have much of a reason to go through all the bullshit. Anyone who thinks that you can get brainwashed by 9 weeks of mild exercise and ass- chewings delivered by a group of regular people who are paid to pretend that they are mad at you must have had a pretty easy life. Basic training is the codecademy of military discipline.

<comment><USER16> >I'm a 3rd generation Soldier that was in the Army for a decade, what you are describing is called toxic leadership, and it destroys organizations. Slowly, the military is starting to admit that its ineffective when your subordinates aren't a bunch of mouth breathing illiterates.

Totally different situation. You're talking about maintaining high morale with career soldiers. I'm talking about rousing up a bunch of conscripts and packing them off to war. Historically, these types of people made up the bulk of the armies and didn't live long enough to cause trouble for the organization.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER17> Early stage investing provably cannot be as rational as most try and make it to be. When a group tips and looks like a good score is about to emerge.. the score-keepers have to increment the score ( i.e. give investment ) as that is about the only function they serve.

" Finally, I'd like to once again talk about investment management. That is a funny business because on a net basis, the whole investment management business together gives no value added to all buyers combined. That's the way it has to work. " - Charlie Munger

When people rejected or passed on .. at that point in time .. it would have been entirely rational to do so. I am not certain even Mr.Jobs knew how time would turn.

</comment><comment><USER18> I will never forget. The day Jobs died, Al Alcorn was giving a talk at San Jose State University for my Computer History course. He took about 15-20 minutes before the talk and shared many inside stories from the Atari days about Jobs. Truly remarkable stuff. As he put it, "I was the only boss he ever had". I am sad that his stories got cut out from the recorded lecture, maybe because he said a lot of colorful things :)

Here is a short post talk interview: <http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=odcXGIQuxAg>

And, the talk itself (5th one in the list), plus many other interesting ones from computing legends if anyone wants to check them out: [http://www.sjsu.edu/at/atn/webcasting/archives/fall_2011/his...](http://www.sjsu.edu/at/atn/webcasting/archives/fall_2011/hist/Computing/)

</comment><comment><USER19> " _Bushnell, now 70, could have reaped even more from his relationship with Jobs if he hadn't turned down an offer from his former employee to invest $50,000 in Apple during its formative stages._ "

$50 000 in 1976, the year Apple was founded, had the purchasing power of over $200 000 today. Without the benefit of hindsight he probably made a sensible, if unlucky, decision.

<comment><USER20> He is 70 now, Probably hasn't gone hungry in that time and he has taken on a decent number of fascinating projects in his lifetime.

Cash only makes a difference in the event of a tie-break, and I think he's ahead of most.

<comment><USER21> Plus, who's to say he wouldn't have cashed out at some point during the downward spiral in the 90's?

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER22> It's really insulting to reduce a human being to some kind of archetype incapable of adapting to a situation. Steve was a bright guy -- I'm sure that if he ever found himself in a position where he needed to apply as an employee of a company, he would know how to 'play the game' and adapt to the situation.

Also, I'm sick of hearing people downplay Jobs' role in Apple and giving Woz all of the credit (although I'm not surprised; I'm assuming that many introverted code monkeys here aspire to be the unsung hero co-founder of a company).

It's the same shit I hear about how the Beatles would be nothing without George Martin or LSD. It should go without saying that these revolutionary things (i.e. Apple and the Beatles) are products of both serendipitous events AND the surrounding cultural context. Yes, if you remove one piece of the puzzle, OF COURSE the end-result will be different. But what makes it a moot point is that the converse is also true -- George Martin would be nothing without the Beatles, and Woz would be completely unheard of if it weren't for Steve Jobs.

<comment><USER13> I agree except for your last comment where you do the very thing you complain others are doing with Jobs. You downplayed Woz's contributions by implying that he would have done nothing exceptional unless Jobs was there to hold his hand. Except that Woz is credited with developing the Apple I by himself but I suppose he would have just tossed the thing in the bin if not for Jobs.

</comment></comment><comment><USER23> "Bushnell, now 70, could have reaped even more from his relationship with Jobs if he hadn't turned down an offer from his former employee to invest $50,000 in Apple during its formative stages. Had he seized that opportunity, Bushnell would have owned one-third of Apple, which is now worth about $425 billion -- more than any other company in the world."

Surprised Jobs would have offered so much of Apple, even in the formative stages, for $50k (which surely translates to much more money than $50k is today). It is interesting to consider how that would have changed the control/direction of Apple.

<comment><USER24> But this is wrong. The $50k would have gone through many dilutions. He may have owned 1/3 of Apple. There is no way that today he would have 1/3rd. That said, it does raise the question: if he had gone in to Apple, would Jobs have ever left and started NeXT and Pixar???

</comment></comment><comment><USER25> Optimal Founder/CEO != Optimal Employee

</comment><comment><USER26> You might be the best as an individual but if you are not a team player, the probability of succeeding is minimal. Team members complement each other to make successful products/companies or any relationship

</comment><comment><USER27> No one would hire him today. Companies are risk averse, given the current economic/political climate. If you can't produce and "fit in", don't bother submitting your resumé.

<comment><USER28> It's possible that nobody would hire an unknown Steve Jobs now, but it really doesn't matter. Jobs wasn't an employee, he was a founder. Founders don't have to concern themselves with getting hired.

<comment><USER7> >>>Founders don't have to concern themselves with getting hired.

But they still have to do things like pay rent, buy food, buy clothes, buy tech. Those things take money. And money is usually gotten from a job. The point is, Jobs wouldn't have even been able to get a job to survive first. That old guy sweeping floors in McDonald's today? Did you ever stop to think what led him there? (For the Rand worshipers out there, how was Galt employed at Taggart Transcontinental?)

<comment><USER28> That's a nice way to strawman what I said, but I was talking about hiring, not buying stuff, income, or money. Here's the thing: Steve Jobs did not have to get hired, in the employee sense, because he founded his own company.

<comment><USER13> I don't see it necessarily as a strawman since it is essentially true, as he did have jobs leading up to Apple. Keep in mind that he founded his company with funding, it's not as if he founded the company and was instantly making enough money to survive with.

One could make the argument that even a founder is "hired" when he requires somebody else's money to make it happen.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER29> As much as I appreciate the opinion, I just don't think it is valid. Outliers shouldn't reflect everyone...

</comment><comment><USER7> NewsFlash: The older Steve Jobs would not have hired the younger Steve Jobs today.

<comment><USER30> We are all good at recognising our younger selves.

We might not _like_ them, but we can recognise them

<comment><USER7> Yes. And our older selves are more likely to "contain" our younger selves because we know how bad we once were.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER31> The problem is that no one would hire Steve Jobs _as a subordinate_ , but he was an evident great hire for a decision-making role, even then. People like him usually get filtered out before they get high enough to use their talents, though. In fact, Jobs is the opposite of what corporations promote, which explains a lot about them.

<comment><USER32> Sort of OT:

Michael, have you read Managing the Professional Service Firm by David Maister? He writes powerfully about economics, incentives, and culture as they relate to management. I think his book would give you a lot to think about, and you'd find plenty both to learn and to argue against. His focus is a "firm" structured on the partner/associate model. I'd love to see more people thinking about and experimenting with that model for software developers. I think it offers many similarities to what you admire about Github and Valve. And perhaps it is a model where Steve Jobs could find a place.

<comment><USER31> I haven't read it.

I don't like the partner/associate model as it works in law firms, because (at least in 2013) it becomes a two-class system as toxic as the tenured/not distinction in academia.

Also, law firm bonuses aren't direct profit-sharing. What I proposed in my recent essay ( [http://michaelochurch.wordpress.com/2013/03/26/gervais- macle...](http://michaelochurch.wordpress.com/2013/03/26/gervais- macleod-17-building-the-future-and-financing-lifestyle-businesses/) ) is real, motivationally significant profit-sharing extended to all employees. In biglaw, they are hosed if they work hard for 7 years and don't make partner; in VC-istan, engineers in a 50-person company get ~0.04% equity instead of the ~0.45% profit sharing they'd get under my system.

The idea that I have in mind is one where profit sharing's open to all employees and substantial but very few people end up holding equity, because the thing's not built to be sold and equity is only for people expected to be long-term (10+ years) contributors.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER33> IMHO it's strange that we are discussing hiring Mr reality distortion field for a technical position here. If he were reincarnated and looking for a job now, he would probably go into sales. What do they care more about in sales, team playing or closing contracts for new leads? Then there is the "motivational speaking", another fruitful and remunerative area of endeavor for this sort of people :)

<comment><USER13> I would have said he was in sales from the beginning and he focused on tech, of which he had a background.

</comment></comment><comment><USER34> In other news: Grey-haired dude from long-ago bigs himself up for hiring someone who is seen as a bad employee. "I was smarter back then than all y'all are today." Also missed the chance to buy 33% of Apple for 5k, with Apple now being valued at 425 billion USD.</comment>


Bitcoin - <AUTHOR> http://www.avc.com/a_vc/2011/11/bitcoin.html <comment><USER2> Like any cryptosystem, Bitcoin has a fixed shelf life. As algorithms and attacks evolve, the cryptographic hash function that forms its core will eventually become obsolete will need to be replaced. We know this.

The question is, can we build the ability to switch cryptographic building blocks into Bitcoin? I have no idea, but resiliency and adaptability are fundamental to the survival of any peer to peer system.

<comment><USER3> This is already built into Bitcoin. Bitcoin's security can be upgraded if this were considered an imminent threat.

<comment><USER4> how is that update policy enforced in a p2p network? Are bitcoin users allowed to use arbitrary clients?

<comment><USER5> You can run whatever software you want, but if enough other peers think your protocol sounds funny or your transactions are improperly formatted then you'll be marginalized. I don't know if this has ever been tested, though.

<comment><USER6> It has been AFAIK on the test block chain. The test block chain has been intentionally forked many times to test this sort of behavior (orphan blocks).

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> Bitcoin isn't going anywhere anytime soon, IMHO. Works great for intended purpose. Just like a bike works great as a bike (not as a motorcycle or a rocket ship).

Want to conduct an anonymous consumer-sized transaction and/or send money internationally and/or minimize transaction fees? Bitcoin:

1) Make your deal terms, priced in Bitcoins. Include whatever time limits are required, such as payment must be received by x deadline or else commitment expires and/or is subject to repricing.

2) Login to Bitcoin exchange. Purchase Bitcoins at whatever market price is. Send Bitcoins.

3) Done.

Sure, you have other risks that you have hedged, minimized and/or accepted (or failed to recognize or address, and therefore accepted without knowing it). See here <https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/Contracts> for some of the interesting contracts possible with Bitcoin.

Plenty of opportunity for Bitcoin-related designers, developers, investors, etc. to create the services and interfaces required for end-Bitcoin users to feel confortable and be able to EASILY and SECURELY conduct transactions and bank their Bitcoins SECURELY (easy, disaster recover, not stolen or hacked, etc.). Landrush is on. Early dayz are now... still.

Besides Bitcoin-related work, there is the whole, larger, universe of ancillary services. The analogy is Facebook to Facebook Apps or iPhone to iPhone Apps. Micropayments, automated bidding, pricing, incentivizing, etc. Lots of neat possibilities.

<comment><USER8> If you were Google, Apple or MS, would it be better to create one's own blockchain and promote that instead? Gcash, iMoney or Credits respectively.

<comment><USER9> If you want "your own" then there is no point in using a distributed blockchain. You'd just set up a centralized ledger under your control.

<comment><USER8> No, they can guarantee their computers supply minimum level of computing power to make the network trustworthy, they can also cover transaction costs perhaps, and the block chain is still open for all. They can also offer an exchange and make money that way. Ideally, they can protect the network from corporate and government attack or interference -- keep it somewhat unregulated, promoted, trustworthy and developing.

<comment><USER9> They can do all those things with bitcoin without starting their own chain. I still don't see an incentive for a company to do this.

<comment><USER8> They can issue to themselves all the initial coins. I suppose they can do it transparently and fairly, or in a more exploitative way to their financial advantage. (another way to make money off it!)

Not sure, but in terms of government, wasn't bringing the power to issue money away from central banks and into the government's treasury what Lincoln did with his greenback and what had him murdered? A government run blockchain would be what Lincoln would do today if he were a hacker!

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER10> > I think it is, but there are significant ramifications that will result from > the decoupling of currencies from governments.

The decoupling of currencies from governments sounds like a radical shift, but it's actually only fairly recent in history that we use fiat money. That, of course, allows us to do a lot of things that we've gotten used to in the last century particularly, such as taking advantage of monetary policy to address short-term economic concerns.

If alternative currencies catch on, that's something that governments will have less power to do - or at least, less power to do directly and predictably. Certainly, governments are going to push back on that, and probably try to discredit or disable alternative currencies.

At the end of the day, though, while money can be determined by fiat, value is determined subjectively, so if alternative currencies catch on (which I think they well), it will necessitate a shift in the way that people think about money. (Not unlike the way that the Internet has shifted the way people think about tradable goods and IP law - just take a look at SOPA.)

<comment><USER11> > _but it's actually only fairly recent in history that we use fiat money._

What do you consider to be the starting year of fiat money?

<comment><USER12> A good book covering the subject is The History of Money (Jack Weatherford). Money was has had a tradition of being valuable in its own right (gold and silver coin), and eventually banks created paper money that represented an amount of gold held in reserve.

The Bank of England, was at first a private entity (established in 1688) and was only nationalized in 1946[1]. The notes they issued were backed by deposits of coin, gold, or silver. They broke with the gold standard in 1931, and it's then we see money tied not to a specific asset, but rather as a debt instrument; it's valuable only because someone promises to pay you back.

When the debtor is a nation-state, we have fiat money, and the money is backed only by the faith and credit of the nation who issues it.

As Weatherford's book points out, fiat currency was not invented by the British, as the Chinese were using a similar system in the 1st or 2nd century, and continued to use a paper money system until 1399. Abuses destroyed the value of the paper currency, and it did not reappear in China until the 20th century.

[1] <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bank_of_England>

<comment><USER13> _As Weatherford's book points out, fiat currency was not invented by the British, as the Chinese were using a similar system in the 1st or 2nd century, and continued to use a paper money system until 1399. Abuses destroyed the value of the paper currency, and it did not reappear in China until the 20th century._

This is accurate, but incomplete. Wikipedia has a decent page on the subject of fiat currency in the 18th & 19th century: [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fiat_money#18th_and_19th_centur...](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fiat_money#18th_and_19th_century)

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER14> Fred's post has an hidden agenda.

There's no clear message in the article -- except expressing a strong believe for Bitcoin or related tech. So, I guess he's trying to get some heavy co- investors on board by creating some hype on Bitcoin again. Any other ideas?

Besides: I love the Bitcoin idea and I'm sure it's not over yet (I still have Bitcoins).

Edit: Don't get me wrong, I am not into bashing Fred -- I just want to get the real message behind his post and to raise HN readers's awareness for influence by media (media manipulation). Before happily discussing a new topic by a VC celeb we should ask why is HE now posting about Bitcoin. Look: Fred and his blog have a strong reach and influence, so it should be legitimate to question his actions. More on this topic: <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Media_manipulation>

Edit2: just read another reply in this thread (which is downvoted as well) about that he just want to give the Bitcoin price another bump.

<comment><USER15> Is an agenda hidden when a VC says he's interested in a new technology? I'd say it's in plain sight as much as any post you'll see on any other blog.

<comment><USER14> Fred and his blog are very popular -- so he is not just "a" VC, rather a strong opinion leader in the VC and startup world. I am just saying: Take Fred's words with a pinch of salt

<comment><USER16> It's a good idea to take someone's opinion with a pinch of salt, but it's bad idea to speculate and have no evidence to back up what you're saying.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER17> This is naive in the extreme.

We all live in nation-states and are required to abide by their laws as a result. Though it's theoretically possible to separate currency from governments, if that's not what the governments want, it will never be legally permissible. As it is, Bitcoin operates in a legal gray area. That's not going to improve.

Most of the VCs I talked to about FaceCash refused to invest because they were afraid of the regulatory implications. But throw in some bad economics (verified as such by Paul Krugman, see [http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/09/07/golden- cyberfett...](http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/09/07/golden- cyberfetters/)), a catchy buzzword or two, and some political philosophy, and you've got yourself an investor?

Venture capital is even more broken than I thought.

<comment><USER18> _Most of the VCs I talked to about FaceCash refused to invest because they were afraid of the regulatory implications._

Having followed your comments on this topic for a while, it seems just as plausible that VCs did not invest in FaceCash because they believed that _you_ cannot take on the challenges(regulatory or otherwise).

VCs invest all the time in enterprises that are in the gray area because the potential upside negates the obvious risks.

<comment><USER17> I think you have more of a problem with me than any of the VCs I talked to.

Besides, I'm the only one suing the government over this issue, so the hypothetical case you reference wouldn't even be correct.

<comment><USER18> Willingness to sue the gov doesn't say much about your ability to take on a challenge. In fact, your inclination to litigate may well have scared VCs who'd rather you get traction with your product even if it means operating in a gray area and litigate when forced.

I'm sure if payPal tried to meet every rule and take on what they deemed as unfair laws in their early days they'd never be able to focus much on their product.

<comment><USER17> I didn't even think about suing California until months after meetings with VCs, so your implications are false.

PayPal had to scramble at the last minute to deal with licensing issues right before its IPO, because it had ignored them up until then. This is well- documented.

I have no idea who you are. I do know that you are critical of my abiding by the law, and critical of my challenging it. You don't think that building an incredibly complex technology from scratch and suing a government demonstrates an "ability to take on a challenge." (Which leads me to ask, what does?)

I guess you can't please everyone.

<comment><USER18> _Which leads me to ask, what does?_

You answered your own question:

 _PayPal had to scramble at the last minute to deal with licensing issues right before its IPO, because it had ignored them up until then. This is well- documented._

<comment><USER17> I see: in your opinion, unless I'm willing to risk incarceration--a risk PayPal never faced because the USA PATRIOT Act had not yet been passed--I'm not willing to take on "the challenge."

You have a strange view of the world, my anonymous friend.

<comment><USER18> So you weren't able to raise money because the VCs were scared you'd be incarcerated?

<comment><USER17> No, the VCs were scared that they wouldn't earn a high return on investment with most of the money going to license fees, application fees, and surety bond premiums; and that in the alternative, they might be at risk of going to jail themselves. See 18 U.S.C 1960(a):

"(a) Whoever knowingly conducts, controls, manages, supervises, directs, or owns all or part of an unlicensed money transmitting business, shall be fined in accordance with this title or imprisoned not more than 5 years, or both."

<comment><USER18> So how are your competitors, who you claim are breaking the law, able to raise money?

<comment><USER17> You'd have to ask them.

<comment><USER18> _Most of the VCs I talked to about FaceCash refused to invest because they were afraid of the regulatory implications._

Given you have competitors that have raised money, this leaves two possibilities:

1\. You were talking to the wrong VCs

2\. You got rejected by the VCs for reasons other than the _mere existence_ of the regulatory challenge(for example, they may have rejected you because they believed the regulatory challenges were surmountable but that you did not possess the skills etc. to deal with them in the manner that they'd like)

In either case, your attributing your failure to fundraise to the regulatory implications seems dishonest and/or misguided.

<comment><USER17> A sample of e-mails from VCs explicitly stating that regulations were a primary factor in their refusal is available as an appendix to the white paper I wrote about the laws, here:

[http://www.thinkcomputer.com/corporate/whitepapers/heldhosta...](http://www.thinkcomputer.com/corporate/whitepapers/heldhostage.pdf)

In addition to those references, several more investors told me verbally that the laws were the primary issue. Beyond that, I'm not sure what skills you would be referring to that you are absolutely certain I (but not other entrepreneurs) lack, in order to deal with regulations.

Furthermore, the two possibilities you listed are not the only two, and I'm not clear as to why you are so insistent on refusing to acknowledge the possibility that regulations might be a hindrance in my case. Specifically, it's also possible that:

3\. I was talking to the right VCs, but I was more honest in my assessment of the regulatory situation than the few other competitors I know of that recently did raise money;

4\. I was talking to the right VCs, but both my competitors and their investors were genuinely unaware as to the situation regarding a brand new law.

If you'd like to continue the discussion you are welcome to e-mail me.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER19> What happens if someone releases bitcoin2? right now bitcoin exists as a unique entity, but with competition what happens to it's value? bitcoin to me seems like how beenie babies were to moms in the 90s. Super fun and interesting for a while, but a couple years later and everyones trading pokemon cards.

Plus I don't think I'm ever going to be able to get over how lopsided bitcoin favors early adopters.

<comment><USER20> There already is Bitcoin2, and 3, and 4, etc. Lots of forks, and even forks of forks (Bitcoin -> Ixcoin -> I0coin). Solidcoin is probably the main one, and has some interesting critiques of Bitcoin:

<http://solidcoin.info/faq.php>

Fundamentally, the value of anything is a function of its supply and demand, even currencies. In Bitcoin's case, the demand derives from the new utility provided by a unique and clever solution to the problem of distributed consensus among untrusted parties. Eg, people want to transact and neither trust each other to deal honestly nor trust a central monetary authority (either not to devalue the medium of exchange, or not track them, etc).

Bitcoin created a system to make that possible, and hence has demand (and limited supply) and value. As long as the underlying reasons for that demand don't vanish, it should always have some value.

The question is, can forks of Bitcoin provide that utility in a significantly better way, that gives them enough marginal demand over Bitcoin to incentivize most people in the Bitcoin network to switch? Same as the general competing currencies idea espoused by Ron Paul and others (for the record, I'm a skeptic, but find the idea interesting), just applied to virtual P2P currencies that are created by hackers rather than nation states (of course, there's nothing stopping a nation state from creating one either except their own laws, mindset, and momentum).

As for early adopters being favored, you can only make that observation with the benefit of hindsight. Had bitcoin failed early or never taken off, early adopters would have lost. The expected value back when early adopters decided to commit and mine and accumulate bitcoin is decidedly different from the realized value of bitcoin now.

Also, most currencies favor early adopters, even (especially) gold and silver. I don't think that's really anything new.

<comment><USER19> we all know what supply and demand are, and i understand the basics of crypto currency.

 _The question is, can forks of Bitcoin provide that utility in a significantly better way_

Thats not really the question is it? It's not about better utility. It's about where you can unload the currency and for what/how much. It's not about usefulness it's ultimately about money. Real money. Bitcoins are only valuable in a world where there use is necessary. I wish I could bold that on HN, NECESSARY. Without the necessity any normal consumer would use a more convenient, less volatile system.

Lets shift for a sec. Think about the silk road marketplace. What they should really do is come out with a bitcoin clone of their own, get a bunch of early adopters behind it and then switch the website over to only accept their crypto currency. The'd rake in the cash and have a pile of it on hand from getting in early. They'd be selling the currency and the products you buy with it. The worlds best drug dealers. In fact theres no telling whether the bitcoin early adopters are involved in this very practice at silk road. It's not about beating bitcoin in usefullness, it's about real money.

 _Also, most currencies favor early adopters, even (especially) gold and silver. I don't think that's really anything new_

Gold and silver don't compare. They're not currency, they're commodities that have actual use and value outside the realm of wealth exchange, and they didn't favor early adopters(thousands of years ago). That comparison holds little to no value and frankly I'm growing rather tired of people pretending like it does.

<comment><USER5> _It's not about better utility. It's about where you can unload the currency and for what/how much._

This sounds like the Bitcoin-as-investment thinking that produced the bubble. Imagine a fork of Bitcoin that clears transactions faster, has less volatility, and has a better GUI; would you still judge it only on its exchange rate?

<comment><USER21> _would you still judge it only on its exchange rate?_

the idea is that the market will judge it on the features you enumerated (GUI/settling speed/volatility) and the exchange rate will reflect that, n'est ce pas?

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER22> I think a large factor in adoption of BitCoin is the uncertainty of it's security. You have to be close to a hacker to truly understand how BitCoin works. General public has little to no chances at being able to gage how safe bit coins are to hold, and with no government to back up the investment, they will understandably be very hesitant to participate. Especially since it already got hacked.

<comment><USER20> Also, simply losing your wallet to bitrot, accidental overwrite, or whatever is a big problem for general public users.

<comment><USER23> The image from the Wired article shows this pretty clearly: <http://www.avc.com/.a/6a00d83451b2c969e2015393a8b4c3970b-pi>

One of the biggest drops is after "Mt.Gox, the largest bitcoin exchange, admits its database was compromised and user information leaked."

If you bank "lost" your money there would be outcry. Until people understand and trust these establishments it'll never take off.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER24> If nothing else, this story ought to trigger a small bump in te price of a bit coin. The price seems to be directly collated to the amount of press it gets.

<comment><USER9> Indeed, the google trends graph for "bitcoin" looks remarkably similar to the bitcoin price history:

[http://www.google.com/trends?q=bitcoin&ctab=0&geo=al...](http://www.google.com/trends?q=bitcoin&ctab=0&geo=all&date=ytd&sort=0) [http://bitcoincharts.com/charts/mtgoxUSD#rg360zvztgSzm1g10zm...](http://bitcoincharts.com/charts/mtgoxUSD#rg360zvztgSzm1g10zm2g25)

<comment><USER25> I'm sure that peak being the $30 mark and everyone Googling for Bitcoin to cash in on it had nothing to do with it.

See also, cause and effect.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER26> "...decoupling of currencies from governments..."

Yeah, because it worked so well when we let the banks just do whatever they wanted during the past 15 years.

</comment><comment><USER11> Fred: Redo that plot substituting gold, a currency going back to biblical times, for dollars. Do you think there is still a chance bitcoin will follow the Gartner hype cycle?

</comment><comment><USER8> I think it is a lot easier for the people to remove a ruling party, than for that ruling party to remove a software application that the people want.

What made email catch on? Did it put the post office out of business? Maybe the future is an online currency with <$5000 transactions used by smartphone users and somehow baked into the web like email, a server app. Apple, Google (or really the banks) should be onto this.

</comment><comment><USER20> This is a good article, linked in the comments:

[http://themonetaryfuture.blogspot.com/2011/11/air-guitars- an...](http://themonetaryfuture.blogspot.com/2011/11/air-guitars-and-bitcoin- regulation.html)

Apparently there is a contingent among Bitcoiners and academics that wants it regulated for various reasons, and is working to achieve that.

</comment><comment><USER27> Some restaurants are already using bitcoin as a payment method, but it's still very hard to use it in real world situations. I still think that when we'll have a lot of NFC phones around, that's when Bitcoin payments will really start to become a common thing in the real world.

</comment><comment><USER28> _the emergence of currencies that are not controlled by nation states in my lifetime_

What we expect is the emergence, not of currencies, but of _a_ currency. Money is a natural monopoly, and a single currency is the free-market equilibrium. It's the current system of multiple separate floating currencies—each with its own name, exchange rate, and central bank/counterfeiter—that is the anomaly.

</comment><comment><USER6> this entire debate would greatly benefit from tabooing the word "money" and talking more concretely about wealth.</comment>


How to Leak to the Press - <AUTHOR> http://www.wired.com/opinion/2013/05/listen-up-future-deep-throats-this-is-how-to-leak-to-the-press-today/ <comment><USER3> Feels a bit overkill and way too identifying - security cameras + internet records + GPS locations will all help track you down, even if they are intermittent.

Buy a stack of envelopes from a supermarket. Buy a stack of stamps. Buy a USB. Acquire all with cash. Transfer all files to the USB via live CD - make sure all meta-data is stripped and files are redacted to avoid fingering you. Handle the envelopes/stamps/USB with care - gloves + hairnets + have a shower before handling (skin cells). Print the addresses (be careful here - <USER2> sometimes put identifying marks - get the most common inkjet that doesn't use dots). Print a message and stick it in the envelope - e.g. "USB contains leaked NSA documents on massive domestic spying. Copy files to your computer then destroy and dump USB then burn the envelope to ensure your own security." Put the stamp on. Drop the letter in the mailbox - try and get a journalist's home address, they'll read it.

Repeat for multi-journalist dump.

Make sure you don't lick the stamps and drop the letters off in physically separated postboxes without security cameras.

You _do not_ want to be in constant communication with journalists/people whilst doing any of this, because the more you talk with them, the more you leak. You want to just strip all identifying data, dump your leak, and run. This tactic has been used for ages to transfer sensitive data, most notably by kidnappers (ransom notes), spies (easy data transfer), whistle blowers (documents) and serial killers (think Ted Kaczynski).

<comment><USER4> >Print the addresses (be careful here - printers sometimes put identifying marks - get the most common one)

Printer steganography is usually limited to color laser printers and high-end inkjets. Buying a common one unfortunately won't help you. Included in the codes that have been cracked is the serial number of the printer as well as a date and time stamp of the printout.

Source: [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Printer_steganography](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Printer_steganography)

<comment><USER3> Cut the letters out of a common magazine or newspaper then.

<comment><USER5> Just write with a thick generic pen using your non-dominant hand.

<comment><USER6> Use a letter stencil? One of those plastic stencils.

<comment><USER5> That should do it too, you can even make it yourself with a piece of cardboard and a sharp knife.

<comment><USER7> Probably take fingerprints of someone on the envelope too? Randomize it and complicate it so much that the idea of finding you dies the most desperate death.

Ha ha, the situation feels 'arrived' at fictional level already!

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> This advice is dangerous, because the author fails to mention other precautions the user can and should take, such as:

* Use a Linux live CD on the "burner laptop" \-- don't trust the preinstalled OS

* Change the MAC address of the Wifi used to connect at the internet cafe

* Use Tor, most easily via the Vidalia browser bundle

The author also does not mention that leaking documents can expose the whistleblower via watermarking and user information embedded in the file (most infamously in MS Word documents with versioning).

Edit: update formatting

<comment><USER9> > Use a Linux live CD on the "burner laptop" \-- don't trust the preinstalled > OS

Tails is a Linux distribution aimed at privacy and anonymity.

([https://tails.boum.org/](https://tails.boum.org/))

<comment><USER5> I know I'm being paranoid, but I feel uneasy using a privacy-aimed distribution for privacy. The whole obvious target thing.

<comment><USER10> This is where the 'many eyes' things comes into play; if the whole distro is OSS, then you can be pretty sure that it's good.

<comment><USER11> Most people never review source code, and they certainly don't disassemble and review all the binaries. 'Many eyes' is a security fallacy in cases like this.

<comment><USER10> Tails is ridiculously well known; if something was bad in it, it would be big news.

<comment><USER12> If it was found. Which is the point.

Debian, which is much better known and in much wider circulation than Tails generated weak SSH keys for _two years_. Yes, it was indeed _very big news_. When it was found. After _two years_.

Oh, and tin-foil-hat on: Do we _know_ (actually know-know, not just assume, think, trust) that the weakness wasn't planted there?

<comment><USER13> TAILS is actually now done by the Tor Project, so I think they have a vested interest in vetting it before it is released.

[https://www.torproject.org/projects/projects&#x2F](https://www.torproject.org/projects/projects&#x2F);

<comment><USER12> And Debian doesn't have a vested interest in making sure a central security component isn't weakened?

Also, how do you know that Tor and Tails aren't infiltrated by the enemy (for any value of "enemy")?

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER14> _...feeding the information to the phone company which retains this information for weeks, months, even years. Just a warrant-step away._

The warrant comment suddenly sounds old-fashioned.

</comment><comment><USER15> FTA: "There's another option I didn't originally mention here — leaking over mail. Investigative journalist Julia Angwin of the Wall Street Journal points out that physical mail, dropped in a random post-box with a bogus return address, is perhaps the best way for anonymous one-way communication."

DO NOT DO THIS! Every printer leaves a microscopic fingerprint on every printout. The printouts can be traced back to your printer. If it's an office printer, that still narrows it down considerably.

Even electronic documents can have watermarks, etc. For photographs, there's the EXIF information, for instance. If you want to share a photo, pipe it through "djpeg | pnmscale 0.99 | cjpeg -quality 90" first. It will get rid of EXIF, and also re-compress the image, changing its signature.

<comment><USER16> Interesting, I didn't know about printer fingerprints.

But I think there are still ways to workaround this. You could print the doc in an internet cafe, or buy a cheap printer and then destroy it, or print it and then take a low quality photocopy. You could even write it by hand or on a typewriter.

<comment><USER15> A photocopier is a (scanner+printer), so the problem remains.

Your best bet is large flea markets, where you can buy stuff like WiFi dongles, etc. with cash. Then wait a while before you use them.

I can't believe I'm having to write this, either. This is like giving instructions to a Soviet activist in the Cold War days, but ironically it is in my own country. How did we fall so far?

<comment><USER17> > How did we fall so far?

Fall? You'd have to give the same instructions to a Soviet activist in the Cold War days _here_.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER18> What about "simply" using DeadDrop?

[http://deaddrop.github.io](http://deaddrop.github.io)

[http://www.newyorker.com/online/blogs/closeread/2013/05/intr...](http://www.newyorker.com/online/blogs/closeread/2013/05/introducing- strongbox-anonymous-document-sharing-tool.html)

Or Retroshare:

[http://retroshare.sourceforge.net](http://retroshare.sourceforge.net)

[https://retroshareteam.wordpress.com/2012/12/28/cryptography...](https://retroshareteam.wordpress.com/2012/12/28/cryptography- and-security-in-retroshare)

[https://retroshareteam.wordpress.com/2013/01/06/privacy- on-t...](https://retroshareteam.wordpress.com/2013/01/06/privacy-on-the- retroshare-network)

<comment><USER19> It seems to be often said that on the order of 1/3 of the Tor Exit/Entry nodes are run by the NSA.

<comment><USER20> Interesting, do you have a source for this?

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER21> In Russia you have to provide passport in order to buy a sim card.

<comment><USER22> That may be the law but in places like Russia you can also just hand them 20 USD to look the other way.

</comment></comment><comment><USER23> Question about cash: do banks keep track of the bills that are dispensed through ATMs? If so, it's probably safer to break your bills first.

Also, be aware of cameras near the internet cafes or places you intend to use the burner phone.

</comment><comment><USER24> Love the quote "Even the head of the CIA can't email his mistress without being identified by the FBI." :-)

</comment><comment><USER25> The leaking via gmail has an issue:

In many cases when creating a new gmail account, you have to provide a phone number for an automatic text verification code.

<comment><USER26> True. The article has so many mistakes in it, it's almost as if it's written by the government !! We need a new article.

</comment></comment><comment><USER27> Pull the sim card, and smash THAT with a hammer. Don't just smash the whole phone - you're unlikely to destroy the sim card, which is the most incriminating part of your phone.

<comment><USER28> Or toss the whole thing in a fire.

</comment></comment><comment><USER29> Or use a website that has an Anonymous Drop Box. Wikileaks did have one, but its no longer operational. I think a few mainstream media organisations copied the idea and claimed to have anonymous drop boxes?

e.g New Yorker has one, called Strongbox - [http://www.newyorker.com/online/blogs/closeread/2013/05/intr...](http://www.newyorker.com/online/blogs/closeread/2013/05/introducing- strongbox-anonymous-document-sharing-tool.html) \- powered by Tor, designed by Aaron Swartz and others, and open-sourced as DeadDrop [http://deaddrop.github.io&#x2F](http://deaddrop.github.io&#x2F);

<comment><USER29> Although, first comment on the new yorker post is a good explanation of why StrongBox might not be enough [http://fyre.it/i3tCXN.4](http://fyre.it/i3tCXN.4)

<comment><USER30> Clicking on the comments link does not reveal any comments. I'm getting a "Subscribe now to get more of The New Yorker's signature mix of politics, culture, and the arts. "

<comment><USER31> I get the same. Might be related to the fact that I use Ghostery to block absolutely everything. I was starting to feel too paranoid about that, but now I think it's totally justified.

<comment><USER30> Oh, correct! Must be Ghostry as I use it as well.

<comment><USER32> It is Ghostery. Pause it and the comments will appear.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER33> Out of curiosity, why not just send a letter in the post?

Pretty hard to trace an anonymous letter.

EDIT: Just spotted the update. Question answered.

<comment><USER30> Take in account they'll look at fingerprints, sweat, DNA, type of paper, ink and type of printer used. Spelling errors, how you wrote something, etc can also be used to identify you. (Every printer leaves it's own watermark). Perhaps best to print and use a old 2nd hand xerox machine to copy everything or fax it from a public faxservice.

<comment><USER34> There are plenty of old typewriters lying around. Although you would still have to take precautions like getting rid of it afterwards and make sure it does not make use of polymer tape ribbons (in which case you would have to destroy and discard that as well).

<comment><USER35> Typewriters have signatures too: [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Typewriter#Forensic_examination](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Typewriter#Forensic_examination)

<comment><USER22> Sure, but the government wouldn't have a database of those anywhere and getting rid of a typewriter isn't likely to get anybody noticed (I cleaned up in the attick the other day, can you believe what I found?).

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER36> The Boston bombing also shows that you should cloak your identity physically. Hat and sunglasses at least. The one who didn't hide his identity is the one who was easily identified.

<comment><USER22> Hat and sun glasses?

No, get a burka (the muslim body clothing that hides the entire body) -- not only will people want to avoid you, but they wouldn't even be able to write in the description what sex you are (and with a little bonus they might assume it is not a disquise in which case they are truly looking in the wrong direction).

<comment><USER37> Probably one of the easiest ways to stand out in a typical US crowd. More noticable than hat and sunglasses. If the purpose it to make video surveillance not as notable but also not attract attention than a large hat and sunglasses in hot weather or a scarf and hat in cold weather (even better) will do the trick. Also, modifying hair color and facial hair features is a good trick.

<comment><USER22> You may stand out, but that isn't necessarily bad, so long as what they remember about you isn't enought to identify you and might even misdirect them into thinking muslim terrorist.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER38> This discussion revolves a lot around printer watermarking documents. It seems that it mostly concern color printers. Here is an advisory by the EFF which tested quite a few of them [https://www.eff.org/pages/list-printers-which-do- or-do-not-d...](https://www.eff.org/pages/list-printers-which-do-or-do-not- display-tracking-dots)

</comment><comment><USER39> Honest question: what prevents someone from feeding misinformation to the press if all IDE tidying info is stripped away? If the journalist has no way to contact you, why should they trust your leak? Could the FBI or NSA send out bogus leaks and the go after journalists that publish the fake info for revealing what they believed to be confidential information?

</comment><comment><USER40> "I don't need to be fast. I just need to be faster than you!"

Your trail-covering only needs to be better than the investigation capability of those who are investigating your leak.

</comment><comment><USER41> Last time I purchased a prepaid cell phone, I had to show government photo ID. The RadioShack clerk entered my license number in a database.

So the burner phone may not be the best route.

<comment><USER32> This is why you go to a package store, or some other non-tech establishment. Probably in a shadier part of town.

</comment></comment><comment><USER42> A test would at least increase my confidence. I guess step 1 is to find something worth reporting, and the article pretty well demonstrates how hard that is.

</comment><comment><USER43> "When you are done you must [...] turn off the Wi-Fi before turning off the computer and removing the battery. The dedicated computer should never be used on the network except when..."

This is silly on a "behind 7 proxies" level. Just go the library. If you're worried that investigators are going to swoop down CSI style to track you down because of your important secrets, maybe you should speak to a psychiatrist.

<comment><USER44> Security cameras are quite often placed at the entrance/exit. Having your device connect and making a DHCP request as you walk in seems like a legitimate concern.

<comment><USER43> Yeah, I get it. I just don't feel this level of caution is productive. If you aren't being currently tracked, then your concern is about whether someone can backtrack forensically and find you. I think a simple trip to a public computer at a library, particularly at a busy time, affords as much pragmatic anonymity as jumping through all the hoops described in the article.

On the flip side, if you are already are under suspicion, then all your efforts to anonymize a leak are in vain. You'll be the first person interrogated after a leak, and if your beliefs about the Orwellian nature of the government are true, the $10 hammer to the kneecaps (thanks XKCD) will undo any clever hiding you did.

I just don't think it makes much sense to go to these lengths. It's already understood that governments are corrupt. Are the specifics of what secrets you want to publicize worth the personal risk? If no, then you're playing spy, which is fine. If yes, then they'll probably find you if they really put their heart into it.</comment></comment></comment>