IMO their only failure was not making it open source.
Christmas 2010 there was a fire and 6 months later there was a fire-sale.
You can still see a few traces of people talking about the attack:
https://encrypted.google.com/search?q="diplomas_here"

M&A at it's best

Caleb


On 05/27/2014 09:28 PM, Manfred Karrer wrote:
> you are not alone.
> for me to trick out regulation is not something super revolutionary. and in the "success story" of skype i neither see any really revolutionary ideas...
> to offer services for free and then later sell the users to a monster like microsoft, is nothing revolutionary at all.
> if they would have built a mesh network instead docking into the telecom layer, that would have been something really new.
> if they would have found a way that the actual users become the company owners/investors, that would have been something new.
> to build a closed source p2p network for free telephone and video was for sure technically a challenge, but there where others which had better open and secure solutions.
> they just got the mainstream and so got the big cake like facebook and then sold it to MS as cheap trojan installed on nearly every computer...
>
> the problem is not how to deal with regulations for exchanges, the problems ARE the (centralized) exchanges.
> we dont need banks storing our btc and therefore we dont need any regulation for those usecases.
> we dont need a new amazon accepting bitcoin, we need a darkmarket and get rid of amazon and those monopolies...
> we dont need the silicon valley VC, we need new models how we can fund our infrastructure by ourself.
> we have with bitcoin all the tools, we can program money, we can use that in our infrastructure.
> lets replace spotify with a bitcoin version where the musicians and the distributors get the money and not the middleman.
> lets replace the cloud with DHT networks.
> companies with open communities.
>
>
>
> Am 27.05.2014 um 19:06 schrieb Adam Gibson <ekaggata@???>:
>
>> Signierter PGP Teil
>> But the founders of Skype sold out (and the very fact that they
>> *could* sell out just proves it is not a decentralised system like
>> Bitcoin). I'm not sure I want to take advice on how to deal with the
>> regulation monster from people who took the money and ran, allowing
>> their creation to become an NSA surveillance tool.
>>
>> I seem to be in a minority of one here. Feel free to correct me :)
>>
>>
>> On 05/27/2014 01:46 PM, Amir Taaki wrote:
>>> http://www.coindesk.com/bitcoin-regulation-lessons-early-days-skype/
>>>
>>> finally someone speaks sense.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________ unSYSTEM mailing
>>> list: http://unsystem.net
>>> https://mailinglists.dyne.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/unsystem
>>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> unSYSTEM mailing list: http://unsystem.net
>> https://mailinglists.dyne.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/unsystem
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> unSYSTEM mailing list: http://unsystem.net
> https://mailinglists.dyne.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/unsystem
>