Okay, hooray for science.  But the point is, the average person can't do it.  And you certainly can't spend them even if you could.  There is no practical everyday application for measuring anything in atoms. 

I'm trying to keep an open mind about this one.  

If this INX token had been any sort of attempt at emulating what Bitcoin does, then sure, it would be a slam dunk, they'd be absolute hypocrites for promoting this.  But, this doesn't appear to be emulating Bitcoin in any way.  It's a different beast entirely.  The project seems to have different goals and a different target audience.  

How many of you, over the years, have discussed the potential of blockchain impacting other industries and having different tokens for things like property deeds or other assets?  I don't see any difference between that and this, except that with this, they're actually building it this time.  If you want to pigeon-hole these people and believe that they're only permitted to talk about Bitcoin for the rest of forever while you believe you're still free to discuss the application of blockchain in other places, then maybe the hypocrisy lies with you.  I'd argue it's perfectly permissible to call a shitcoin a shitcoin whilst also still being able to experiment with cryptography in other areas where Bitcoin clearly isn't appropriate to use.  

I mean, consider the alternative.  Imagine the uproar if they started clogging up the Bitcoin blockchain with corporate playthings like this and other projects started springing up to do the same.  We don't want any part of that, so just leave them to it.

Firstly, why would anyone want Trump or any of his fuckwit cronies anywhere near Bitcoin?  He's an erratic, narcissistic, reactionary simpleton.  The worst kind of toxin.  The further away from Bitcoin he stays, the better.  I would warn strongly against supporting state-sponsored mining of ANY kind, but particularly his joke of a government, which appears to be a special kind of balance between stupid and corrupt.  Introducing petty national interests to a global system is utterly shortsighted.  Consider carefully what it is you're proposing here.

Secondly, don't paint it as a "war".  Wars have winners and losers.  However, with this system, if one entity "wins", we all lose.  Bitcoin at its core is neutral.  It is not a weapon for political influence or intrigue.  And that's what it could potentially become if nation states start vying for control.  And the US in its present guise definitely sees itself as "world police".  They want to control everything.  Antithetical to the entire concept of crypto.

Lastly, for the topic in general, people still seem to treat China as though their people and their government are one and the same.  I suspect that most of the people who are mining and are based in China probably have some pretty strong opposing views to their government.  In fact, I'm pretty sure advocating state-sponsored mining would be a less popular idea in China than it would be in the US.  So if increased mining in the US means more state influence, I'd honestly prefer China remain on top.  Arguably, Trump supporters are even more blindly fanatic than supporters of Xi Jinping.  They'd do anything the bloated orange windbag tells them to, regardless of how much self-harm it inflicts.  I don't trust that level of indoctrination.  It's honestly scary how much faith those in the US can often have in their farcical buffoon of a leader.

Think of miners as individuals with minds of their own.  Because, for the most part, that's what they are.  They aren't government puppets.  But the potential for government puppets increases dramatically in my view with a pro-Bitcoin Trump and his fervent, mindless followers.  

And...?

Atoms aren't spendable units last time I checked.  What's the relevance of this comparison?  Surely it would make more sense to compare troy ounces instead of atoms.

Unless you're offering some sort of conflict mediation service, I can't think of any ways to settle these various running disputes.  It might be a headache to read sometimes, but it's generally better that grievances are aired rather than covered up.  I guarantee you the problem would be worse if people didn't have a place they could vent, because otherwise it would just spill over into other parts of the board where it isn't wanted (well... more than it already does, I mean).

Best just to put that section on ignore if you're tired of the drama.

On a serious note, I've definitely witnessed a few examples of people displaying signs of addiction here on the forums.  This example springs to mind.  Take a look at the last topic they started along with the subsequent replies and then try telling me they don't need some serious psychiatric help.

I don't get why the hospital is singling out Bitcoin in particular, though.  It's no different to any other form of gambling addiction when people demonstrate poor impulse control.  It's merely a new medium in which people can indulge their existing problems.  The root cause is the same, though, I'd imagine.

Not to mention it would open up a new type of attack vector where people could create dozens upon dozens of copycat chains and then sue when exchanges can't keep up with them all.

Part of me feels like we're overthinking this and that it's not really going to look much different than the present infrastructure, but simply minus the physical cash.  These people aren't natural born innovators.  I'm pretty sure they'll spend a few years researching, but then they'll stick with exactly what they've got now and just start removing notes and coins from circulation.  Ardent cash users aside, most people have already made the switch to digital money.  So why would they build something radically new from scratch?

Bit premature to be talking about the potential for that, heh. 

Besides, Bitcoin has reached that stage where it appeals to both pro and anti government types alike anyway.  I don't see there being any dramatic swings away from the fairly neutral balance we have at the moment.  Whether someone might want to suck up to banks and governments, or wipe them out entirely, neither of those extremes will ever likely possess the level of influence it would take to enact the types of changes within the Bitcoin protocol to support their goals, because they would need the support of all users.  So we remain with the status quo where Bitcoin is kind of okay at privacy if you use it carefully, or you can be totally transparent about your dealings if you so choose.  Suits everyone equally.

That's just the base protocol, however.  There's no doubt in my mind that some pretty interesting ideological battles are going to be waged on the layers that get built on top of the protocol.  We could see both some very conformist and very anarchic things happening there.

They might be referring to this topic, but it's definitely not "many businesses" doing it.  We're probably talking about a tiny fraction of a percent of companies.

I wouldn't even give them that much credit.  They probably want your fiat.

It probably goes a little something like this:

1)  appeal on an emotional level for people to help you "save the world".
2)  accept national currencies to support you to "carry out your mission".
3)  achieve nothing, don't actually help anyone, keep the money.
4)  repeat ploy with the next "noble cause".

It doesn't look like this is going to change the world, though.  Unless the change is wasting money developing needlessly convoluted and inefficient ways to (ab)use blockchains.

Wrong.  Guess again.

The factory and payment pool ideas might be conceptually similar, but they're not the same thing.  Not that I'd expect the master of pseudoscientific technobabble to be able to tell the difference.

You don't need to be using LN to utilise the advantages of payment pools.

Call me cynical, but I think this Hedera Hashgraph is just another organisation trying to exploit all the current blockchain hype for profit.  The type of "collaboration" they're talking about with regard to mental health isn't the kind they're going to get out of this.  Blockchains are about collaborative number crunching, not collaborative healing.  They want a chat platform for people to talk about their issues.  You don't need a blockchain to make that.

It all sounds very misguided, despite being well-intentioned.

Well... not with that attitude.  How much do you want to weaken Bitcoin to gain their blessings?

If you're going to throw a white flag up and surrender at the first sign of disagreement, you're not going to get far.  It's better to stand your ground a little first, then later, find a reasonable compromise.  Be patient.  Let the banks and businesses take a few steps in our direction first so they can realise the benefits of the way we do things.  Remember, we're the disruptive and revolutionary tech.  They're the outmoded system under threat.  There are good reasons why this stuff works the way it does.  Don't just cave in to all their demands and sacrifice everything we've got going for us from the offset. 

Otherwise BTC will just end up like XRP.  If you're willing to turn Bitcoin into that kind of centralised, permissioned, bankster's wet dream of a crapcoin just to achieve adoption, you're missing the point.

This seems to imply that the last banking crisis ended and that we're due for an entirely new and different one.  I'd argue it's been one long, ongoing crisis since the events that sparked the inspiration for Bitcoin's creation to begin with.  Over the course of the last 15-20 years, the banking industry and associated regulatory bodies have effectively shuffled the deck-chairs around on the Titanic.  The ship is still sinking, albeit more slowly due to the stalling tactics they've employed.  It's not a new crisis.  It's same shit, different year.

If you give people a platform and a captive audience, sooner or later, someone is going to abuse it to try and make some money.  You can pretend to blame the people posting the tweets, but if you're choosing to read them, then you're equally culpable as far as I'm concerned.  The entire platform and the way it functions is the issue.

Step back and look at what's actually happening here.  Large numbers of people are choosing to read what is effectively promotional material or marketing because they've somehow been convinced it's a form of entertainment.  How in the fuck did that happen?  How did the human race become that stupid?

Break the cycle and stop using twitter unless you're solely using it to keep in touch with people you actually know in person.  Otherwise it's just a cesspit of largely worthless opinions with no context for reference.  Don't give these vacuous nobodies the attention they crave and then you won't fall victim to their profiteering schemes.

In that case, please cite sources for such claims.  Who are these so-called "experts" you're referring to, claiming Bitcoin might copy Ethereum?  Sounds like fake news to me.  The internet definitely doesn't need yet more click-bait under the false guise of "journalism".  I'd have thought a journalist might interview qualified people to get the facts and quote them directly, rather than just repeating vague, unsubstantiated rumours.

I don't doubt that some people would like to perpetuate the myth that BTC was looking to follow suit, as convincing people to believe such a fairytale might help assuage the doubts the denizens of the ETH chain probably have that switching to POS is going to be a massive farce leading to a split even bigger than the ETH/ETC spectacle.  

Pretty sure BTC is going to be eating all the popcorn and watching with amusement from a safe distance, not preparing to wander off the cliff after them.

I guess people can take it too far, sometimes.  But I suspect such comments are merely made in reaction to having spent years listening to those who push far too hard to promote the "next big thing" which invariably turns out to be a whole load of nothing in practice.  Sure, the "maximalists" could probably phrase it more politely, but everything they've experienced in their time looking at this stuff tells them that the vast majority of coins are going to fail pretty spectacularly.  I'd say in many cases it's quite natural (perhaps even healthy) to become skeptical and dismissive of other coins.  There comes a stage where you just can't bring yourself to continue to give all of them the benefit of the doubt just for the sake of being polite.

It's almost as though people use the phrase "first mover advantage" like it's the only reason Bitcoin achieved dominance.  But the simple fact is, network effects are a huge factor.  If Bitcoin had been poorly designed, simply being the first of its kind would not have been sufficient to sustain it.  An objectively better coin would have come along.  It's clear, however, that Bitcoin is very well designed.  It has tangible benefits and people can see the advantage of using Bitcoin over what other networks can offer.  

And it really is a question of what's on offer.

For example, some coins have filled a niche that Bitcoin simply doesn't cater to, so these types of networks can be successful in their own right.  These are mainly legitimate altcoins.  They have a real purpose and people find them useful.  They have something to offer.
 
Some chains serve as a useful testbed for experimental features.  It's not always a good idea to speculate on such coins, though, because features alone are not necessarily enough for the coin itself to be useful and actually serve a purpose in the real world.  On rare occasion, these coins can be legitimate, but there are also plenty of occasions where they can turn out to be shameless speculative devices by hyping up a feature beyond its true potential.  Beware the buzzwords and gimmickry brigades.

But, for the most part, since many coins are effectively copycat clones that can only manage minor tweaks to the basic formula, or perhaps add some novelty bells and whistles that aren't really worth the compromises they often entail, they have little to offer.  As such, they can't compete.  Network effects will clearly never sway in their favour because people will never use them.  If people won't use them, these coins become useless.  So why waste time on them?  It's survival of the fittest.  Sugar-coating it isn't going to make it any easier.

The example tweets listed in the second post are definitely crude, blunt and generally disrespectful.  But, blatant trolling aside, some of them aren't necessarily wrong.  If they hadn't been phrased in such a clearly provocative fashion, I doubt anyone would take exception to it.  As for whether they're harming the space?  Difficult to say.  Clearly some people will take affront, but then, people being offended by things on the internet just seems to be a part of everyday life now.  I'm not worried, personally.  Hopefully people just see it as the modern equivalent of "banter" and don't take it too seriously.