Where is the proof for your claim?

Neither Theymos nor tvbcof nor NewLibery nor sardokan nor davout nor Pete Dushenski are "associated with Monero."

Monero Maximalists should be happy about the Great 20MB Schism, as Monero and other alts could benefit greatly from the fallout of a Bitcoin Civil War.

I hold both and wish to avoid this particular drama, however amazingly entertaining it promises to be.   

But Gavin.gov and the other BTC.mil spooks seem to be going all in with their efforts to Embrace/Extend/Extinguish our little experiment.

So we're in for another enthralling season of All My Bitcoins, regardless of what we dastardly "associated with Monero" types do or don't want.

So what?  Am I not allowed to express/explain my own unique opinion on the matter?

Neither Theymos nor tvbcof nor NewLibery nor sardokan nor davout nor Pete Dushenski mentioned Monero.

That should be your clue that the minor details of my idiosyncratic perspective on the matter aren't especially germane to the issue at large.

Ah well, since you aren't good at thinking or argumentation, go ahead and seize on any little thing that helps you feel like you found a 'Gotcha.'  

You think that because you are an idiot.

MP is certainly no fan of altcoins.  Neither is Theymos or tvbcof or NewLibery or sardokan or davout or Pete Dushenski.

Any other stupid baseless easily demolished opinions you'd like to share?   

I'm beginning to think you only support the Monopolist Maximalist fork because you want altcoins held back, so that your Bitcoin can rise.

Since you love Embrace, Extend, and Extinguish so much perhaps you should suggest we bundle Internet Explorer in all BTC clients!   

If you're so determined to have everyone's less "valuable" transactions on another chain, why are you opposing the fork?  Once we've forked, you'll never have to see another $2 coffee wasting precious space in your blocks again.  You should be happy to see us go.  Unless, of course, you end up having to admit that you need the rest of us to make this whole thing work.  Somehow it feels like we still haven't had an honest answer from your side about your real motives here.  I mean, which is it?  You say you want a system that doesn't include small transactions, but you want us all to stick around and support a network that will eventually be of no use to us because our "lesser" transactions won't make it in because the blocks are full?  You can't have your cake and eat it.  Either it works for the masses or it doesn't work.  That's Econ 101.  

You know full well that if you had a coin that only whales used, it would die a horrible death.  Otherwise you'd have done it by now.  You don't want to be kings of a worthless little molehill, so you need the rest of us.  So climb down from your high horse, admit that you're nothing without the rest of us and drop the whole elitist utopia bullshit.  You know that if there's a fork and you don't tag along, your ideals will only last about as long as the value of your network holds out, which I doubt would be very long without anyone else to hold it up for you.  All the bad things you claim will happen with a 20mb block won't happen to you if you stay on the old 1MB chain.  So why do you care if we fork?  Why are you so scared that we might leave you behind?  We'll survive without you, but you won't survive without us.  You know it.  We know it.  You have no other reason to oppose the fork.  

You.  Need.  Us.

When blocks grow to >1MB, less important (IE valuable) transactions will simply move to other less cluttered blockchains.

Individual central/local banks and payment networks will be replaced by any combination of sufficiently secured blockchains (merged mined and/or using different POWs).  The dark pools will be denominated in Monero.  Bitcoin isn't a one-size-fits-all solution for everyone and everything, although its blockchain technology will be extended for those purposes.

It would definitely have a much different outcome than simply returning to the drachma.. The wouldn't necessarily be lever to pull, and if there was, it could be an easy way for greeks to get a quantity of currency in their banks, even if not worth much, to trade into bitcoin…

Adopting bitcoin is akin adopting all major fiat currencies… Varoufakis is very well educated about crypto currency. It may be the only option…  

They really don't like not having the ability to print and create monies out of thin air...

That doesn't work, because women require more than looks.  They do require looks, but they also require money and high social status.  That's why they pay celebrities to do commercials - women don't care what you say unless other women already want you, because women only value the opinions of women.

I think the reasoning of decreasing block reward is strictly economical and has nothing to do with Development & Technical Discussion

By design, after the initial inflationary period (during which the coins are being distributed into the circulation), Bitcoin is supposed to enter a deflationary state - that's why the reward decreases in time to eventually get down to zero at some point.

Does that mean you'd prefer not having the Winklevoss ETF? (even thought that could be a massive boost for Bitcoin)

Incorrect.  "Purchase" is most definitely not legally required and is not synonymous with "consideration".  See for example this legal definition (pg 3 at http://www.revenue.pa.gov/FormsandPublications/PAPersonalIncomeTaxGuide/Documents/pitguide_chapter_15.pdf:

"Consideration in this context means any valuable advantage or benefit that the person conducting a competition, contest of chance or lottery expects to realize as a result of conducting such competition, contest of chance or lottery. The term, therefore, may include, but is not limited to, bets or wagers of cash or property, making a purchase, being present at a drawing, giving a testimonial for a product of the donor of the prize, filling in an application or contest blank, following any rules; or expending time or personal effort." 

This legal definition includes expending time and personal effort and resources to come up with a crypto block that, when added to the Bitcoin blockchain, allows the multi-billion-dollar Bitcoin juggernaut to continue functioning for another ten minutes.



When he first spent money to acquire a computer and electricity / bandwidth to take a chance at calculating a "winning" crypto block.


Incorrect.  When a miner "finds a block", that's the moment he is awarded a "prize".   He gives "consideration" to the Bitcoin community BEFORE he finds a block and BEFORE he wins a prize by chance.


Incorrect.  The "consideration" is the computer purchase money and electricity the miner dedicates to trying to finding a block whether he succeeds or not.


Everybody who participates as a Bitcoin miner.  Bitcoin is a decentralized group consensus lottery that uses the internet to allow participation among consenting members.  That consent doesn't make it legal.

Incorrect.  I agree that banks do receive interest as a fee or "prize" for payment processing.  However, they do not randomly select who gets payment processing and who does not - there is no "chance" selection of customers.  Everybody who submits a request for payment gets equal service.  No element of "chance", no lottery.


Incorrect.  Consideration is not about a "player" (mining) OBTAINING something of value from a "lottery runner" (Bitcoin).  Consideration is about the "lottery runner" (Bitcoin) RECEIVING something of value from the "player" (miner) - namely, the addition of a block to the blockchain from a single miner that it designates as a ten-minute "winner".

Thank you for thinking this through instead of just insulting me.  You will eventually conclude that legally I am right, as uncomfortable as that will be to admit.

I agree the intent and objective of mining is to secure the network.  However, you can have noble intent and objective and still be in violation of the law by your choice of method to achieve your objective.  

If you secure the blockchain with the efforts of volunteers who personally pay for a small number of very cheap Raspberry Pi 2 computers that do block crypto computing, and personally receive nothing in return for providing that service other than a civic sense of participation, then you are meeting the law because you are not providing a "prize".

If you offer 50 / 25 / whatever bitcoins every ten minutes that are ultimately intended to be sold off and pay for $350 million in infrastructure, $550 million per year in electricity, and a huge ASIC mining arms race, then you are providing a "prize".  If that prize is distributed by "chance" (ie, your block has X leading zeros, congrats!) then you are running a lottery and you are in violation of US State gaming laws.

Intent and objective are not relevant here, prize is.  Only if miners mine for free without receiving a prize via chance will they be legal.  

if you need to ask yourself how to secure it. just simply compare it to fiat, or things in your house that hold value.

1) would you hand it over to a stranger you have never met?
2) would you store it in a place thats not insured/secure?
3) would you leave it out in the open for anyone to grab?
4) would you shout out to everyone around you that you have X funds just sitting on your table

Wasn't the show about living on bitcoin only?

Or was it a documentary of learn everything about bitcoin?

What Satoshi (will) do with his own bitcoins is his own business. Stop the gossip about this. If he was so brilliant to put up the bitcoin protocol, he will do a very wise use of his resources, no matter what.