More like

"Theymos = it is impolite"

But I'm sure your myopic mind is only capable of seeing it the way you'd prefer everyone else interpret it, so I guess your mischaracterisation is to be expected.



Couldn't have been that vague if you picked up on the fact that I was referring to you.   

Just grow up already.  Try to accept that you have a very unique take on things.  Very few people share your views and your methodology in attempting to convince them otherwise is clearly not working.  Your constant sniping in new and novel guises does nothing to endear you to the people you seem to be attempting to win over.  Forget everything you thought you knew about interaction with other humans and start again.  You'll find it's easier to persuade people when they aren't repulsed by your behaviour.

I love how 99% of the topics in Meta are treated by some users as opportunities to bitch about something a user they don't like did in the trust system at some point in the past. [/sarcasm]

Can you not just answer the damn questions and leave the sniping for the Reputation boards? 

This.  It's a relief that all the disgustingly intolerant bigotry is quarantined in one easily-ignored corner of the board.  The last thing I'd want to see is for that shit-slurry to come pouring out over the other parts of the forums that I actually want to read. 

Let the neanderthals keep their tar pit and, more importantly, let the tar pit keep them. 

As far as I'm aware, the possibility is *zero* because there is no individual or company to file a lawsuit against.  Ask a legal professional if you can file a lawsuit against TCP/IP or HTTP.  I'm pretty sure they'll tell you that's not possible (unless they're just looking to bill you for the time it takes them to find out for certain that it's not possible). 

Protocols are just bits of code that people agree on and use to build networks together.  I don't see how you would initiate legal proceedings against them.



Nope.  Irrelevant.  Even if the real slim shady satoshi nakamoto stood up and said they were taking Bitcoin to court, the answer would be the same as above.

Stop paying attention to the pantomime sideshow of who satoshi may or may not be.  It's just a distraction from the facts, which is that Bitcoin is an open-source protocol and you can't sue it because it's just code that people on the internet are running.  It can't be shut down without killing the internet.  No one can issue a court order and say the network now belongs to whoever was trying to litigate against it, because that's simply unenforceable.   

Faketoshi is a fraud.  Ayre is knowingly complicit in the fraud.  They are the architects and the ones who stand to profit from said fraud.  You and anyone else foolish enough to read and subsequently repeat the words of Faketoshi and Ayre are unwitting accomplices in their fraud.  They rely on you to perpetuate the lies for them.  They are using you.  You will suffer financially for buying into their scam.  Your reputation will suffer for being associated with their scam.  There is literally no benefit for you in promoting their fraud.  Only consequences.

Seriously reconsider what it is you are choosing to advocate.

Consider moving this to a new topic, then.  The topic started as pruned/full nodes, yet once again, you've somehow managed to drag it back to your favourite whinge of ASICs and pools.  Via any means necessary, right?

The only theory, huh?  Can't say I'm convinced on that one.  Are you sure you don't mean the only one that reinforces your preconceived notions?  Because there's a world of difference between the two.  I'd say there are enough theories in this topic alone to refute that.



Regarding making progress, maybe it's you who needs to take a few steps in our direction in order to see the bigger picture?

If I wanted to make a stool, but knew that everyone who was ever going to sit on it had to agree with how it looked, or else no one would use it, I probably wouldn't bother at all to be honest.  That's just me, though.  If you still think it's worth the effort, go for it.

He knows he can't offer proof of his "identity", so instead he now offers false hope to those who lost funds in exchanges in an attempt to garner an audience.  Much like a corrupt politician making promises they know they'll never deliver on.  "Please listen to me, you'll get your money back".  It's just a desperate cry for attention from someone who has literally nothing to offer.

Or maybe just let the topic die already since there's clearly nothing positive coming out of it?  Objectivity was seemingly never the objective, heh.  

Sorry to burst your bubble here, but I don't think you're grasping the magnitude of what it is you're proposing.  Bitcoin's network handles more wealth in a day than you are ever going to see in your entire life.  If you want your proposal to gain any traction whatsoever, it needs to be seen in action to be as robust and resilient as the current algorithm.  No one in their right mind is going to go along with a fork to a completely untested algorithm based on nothing more than a forum post and something on google drive.  We're not just going to take your word for it and go along for the ride.  Either code it up or pay someone to code it for you, put it on a public testnet and open beta, stress-test the hell out of it, get other developers involved, etc.  Prove beyond all doubt that:

a) it works
b) it still provides the right economic incentive for miners to secure the chain
c) it really does provide advantages over the current system

And even after you do all that, there might still be no one willing to go forward with your proposal.  Again, there's quite a lot at stake to be playing around with the security of network. 

If the above sounds like more effort than you're willing to put in, I'd suggest it's probably not worth your time.  We hear lots of half-finished ideas that never even make it to the code stage.

Users have tried to help you in your previous topic, but you completely ignored their questions:


So instead of shouting about it, provide us with more information.  What section did you post it in?  If you posted it in the wrong section, it will likely be deleted.  My instinct is that it probably belongs in Pools (Altcoins).

You were also told:


So maybe stop ignoring that as well.  Shouting isn't going to fix your problem, try some understanding instead.

Is anyone recording stats for the ratio between earned merit and total posts?  I wouldn't mind seeing a leaderboard for that.  Considering I got here at the tail end of 2013, my ratio seems pretty decent.

Calling it "bluffing" is far too generous.  A bluff is when you deceive someone into thinking you are going to do something.  So if people know that thing can't actually be done, as is the case here, it's not really a bluff.

Call it "bullshit", because that's all it is.

Maybe now that he's spent so much time in court, Faketoshi believes himself to be some sort of legal expert.  Next he'll provide "proof" he's a judge.   

Can someone not just have him sectioned already?  The man is clearly not well.

It's not that devs "don't care", it's that checkpoints turn it into a game of pot luck, creating disparity.  If 'user A' received their transaction before the checkpoint, their transaction is safe, but if 'user B' received a transaction after the most recent checkpoint, they could still lose their funds, destroying any faith they had that the blockchain is impartial, neutral or fair - all things we generally claim it to be.  

Or in reverse, users sending payments might profit illicitly if it was rolled back to a checkpoint and they got their BTC returned after using it to purchase a product or service.  How pissed off would you be if you were the merchant providing that service?  

So, if Bitcoin's security ever fails, it fails for everyone equally.  No two-tier lottery where some users win while others lose.

Worse still, game-theory seems to indicate that, understanding the above concept, it could conceivably create additional incentive to attempt a hashrate attack in order to game a checkpoint system.

I mean... that's certainly one interpretation.  Another could be that users simply don't want to take your recommendations on who they should or shouldn't trust.  If you had simply left it at the part where you said anyone could opt in as long as they follow the tenets and stopped there, perhaps people may have been more receptive to the idea.  Each member could then form their own conclusions on who is and isn't following the guidelines and adjust their trust list accordingly.
 
But you had to go and "suggest" people exclude the users you don't personally trust.  Then you act surprised or indignant when people infer that it looks like you're trying to reshape the trust system in a way that just so happens to cut out all the people you don't like.  

I did ask:

And don't recall seeing it answered in your subsequent replies.  So I can only conclude you don't actually want those particular users to be more objective, you just want to reduce the impact of their tags by encouraging other users to distrust them.  I suppose you'll reply with more yet more indignation and claim that I'm being disingenuous for pointing out that funny little coincidence, but that's honestly how it looks.

Indeed.  Over a long enough timeframe, Bitcoin can be considered deflationary, but not in the short term.  To be fair, though, it is other of those things that Bitcoiners have generally struggled to agree on over the years, heh.  Have a look at this stackexchange question from 6 years ago and the decidedly mixed answers given as an example:  https://bitcoin.stackexchange.com/questions/19961/is-bitcoin-deflationary-and-inflationary-at-the-same-time

Fixed the title.

I suppose it's a potential worry for the day-traders, but far less of a concern for the long-term holders and those who believe the functionality is more important than the fiat value people are willing to ascribe to it.  It's hardly a revelation, markets are fickle and not as easy to predict as many tend to assume.

People just need to ask themselves honestly what it is they want to get out of it.  For me, if Bitcoin did happen to make me rich one day, that's just icing on the cake.  I fundamentally believe in what it is and what it does.  That's what keeps me here.

No fear-mongering about the "price" is going to sway me because the real value for me doesn't currently correspond to a number I could conceivably sell it for.  I have no plans for the foreseeable future to sell any Bitcoin for fiat, so am not concerned in the slightest if there's a dip at the halving.  Maybe one day in the very distant future I'll be looking at purchasing power.  

What performance is that, then?  You seem to be once again comparing apples with celestial bodies.  Bitcoin's blockchain already grows faster in size than Litecoin's and you think users will be willing to increase the speed at which it potentially grows by a factor of 4?