"You have reported 1760 posts with 100% accuracy"

I actually haven't since he's on my ignore list (and I'm only replying to satisfy my masochistic tendencies), but I did Google the phrase and fail to find anything useful. I'm just going to assume it means "SegWit plus all other Core updates I don't understand or like".

So then what does that mean? The SegWit code has been released ages ago. Do you mean the version of Bitcoin Core that merges the code? It's sure to have a whole bunch of new features completely unrelated to SegWit (mostly bugfixes) and anyway nobody can be sure exactly what features it will have until it is actually released.

"Alternative node implementations"? Is that what we're calling altcoins now?

That's to be expected. SegWit bashers are weird people.

It's a pity the Apostles never thought to hire James Randi the way the Pharaoh did when Moses tried to fool him with his conjuring acts; Christianity might never have happened.

How can I be aware? I've actually never heard the phrase "The SegWit Omnibus Changeset" before your post, and a Google search for that phrase doesn't turn up much either. You say it's "more stuff" than SegWit, but what exactly is it? Who's selling it? Is anyone buying it? You need to define your terms.

So what? SegWit only makes linear verification time possible, it doesn't necessarily implement it. And the reason there's no rush to implement it is because scaling is not the purpose of SegWit! How many times do we have to explain that before people get it? It seems like people have the expectation that when SegWit is "implemented" (a word which seemingly nobody can agree on a definition) blocks will stop "being full" and transaction fees will drop to almost nothing so they can buy their coffee on the blockchain. These people then get inexplicably angry every time someone tries to tell them that this is not actually the case.

First, I'll resolve to lay off the absinthe. Next, I'll ask my dog what the Hell it was drinking to make it forget that it's a fucking carnivore.

I think the sun's disintegration rays are affecting your brain. Next time you go outside, don't forget to put on your hat.

No, Satan does not tolerate fools.

Why do things by half measures? Behold, Bitcoin Classic 1.1.0!

My mistake; it seems I had multiple pages of your post history open in different tabs and I thought they were different users. Your posts are all so similar to each other I thought they were copy-pasted. So... it looks like you were just spamming the same short posts over and over in slight variations. You can't do that either.

His PhD is in theology. There are only two kinds of people who take a degree in theology, priests and conmen, and Craig Wright sure as Hell isn't a priest.

You were spamming by copy-pasting other people's posts, thinking nobody would notice.

The door's that way. Don't let it hit you on the way out.

Except they didn't. Even back then, cheapskates were complaining that free transactions took too long to be confirmed, and I've been trying to correct their attitude pretty much ever since I got into Bitcoin nearly 5 years ago. Since then, we've had new anti-spam measures, dynamic fee calculation, RBF, CPFP, and now SegWit* and LN to deal with problematic fees, but it's all useless: these are technical solutions to a social problem, and the problem is that people are too cheap to pay 50 cents to use an international payment system, and too impatient to wait more than 10 minutes for their funds to clear.

*Yes, I know SegWit is much more than a capacity increase, but the idiots I'm talking about don't know that. They only know that their barista won't serve them their coffee until they have 6 confirmations.

Consent just means "agreement". The creators of the DAO (rather stupidly) agreed that "code is law", and the attackers agreed with the code. It's generally assumed in contract law that anyone agreeing to a contract understands it completely, including any loopholes. Abusing a loophole in a contract is perfectly legal and can be legally enforced if it works against the person who wrote the contract (it's his fault, after all). A person who discovers that a contract allows them to collect free money can't be blamed for agreeing to it; it's the responsibility of the contract's author to ensure the terms of the contract can't be turned against him.

No, you were wrong. You said "we are in some serious trouble" and we aren't. Everyone who paid attention in high school science class knew there was no danger.

If you learned science, you wouldn't have to guess.

Speak for yourself. I already know that we won't "get disintegrated up & shit". Whether you will ever know things remains to be seen.

Yeah, you do that.

I don't see why not. If a paper contract allows multiple valid interpretations (even unintentionally), the courts normally allow whichever interpretation is worst for the author of the contract, on the grounds that it's their responsibility to write the contract correctly.

Doubt it. Even if the exploit is found to be illegal and the hacker is ordered to return the money, a court can only decide that after allowing the hacker to present a defence. I don't think they will be too happy with Vitalik and Co. making that decision completely unilaterally (especially since they claimed Ethereum was completely neutral in such disputes - code is law and all that).

It is part of a long chain of unconfirmed transactions, none of which can confirm until the first one does. Which it likely won't, since it pays no fee.

TLDR: OP neither understands Base58 encoding nor big numbers.

False. They can in fact pay the transaction fee out of their own pocket without charging the client since most or all of the exchange's profit comes from the trading fees. Some exchanges do just that, for example BTC Markets in Australia.