I take it you didn't appreciate my response in the other topic, then?  But honestly, that's exactly the kind of thing we should be explaining to the public.  It's not just a "pro-bitcoin stance", to say that corporate blockchains have little to offer.  I genuinely think people will be able to tell the difference between a permissioned chain and Bitcoin once they can see them both in action.  The problem at the moment is that there's not much for them to see other than a bunch of corporate hype and buzzwords.

No, there's a fine line between a businessman and a criminal.  Faketoshi has definitely crossed that line and is a criminal.  There's nothing legitimate about his enterprise.

---

He said, pretending as though he's not the bagholder in this situation.  Talk about flogging a dead horse.  

I'd anticipate that any conflicts would be purely verbal/written and not even remotely a threat to implementation.  I doubt we'll see any alternative codebases popping up in opposition or anything like that.

The usual detractors will follow their predictable routine of trash-talk and stirring the pot, but I suspect that's about as far as it'll go.

It's not quite that simple, because there's an extra step involved.  People in the community follow the media and the media need to post sensationalist headlines because it's seemingly the only way they know how to get attention.  We need the media to stop glorifying baseless price predictions, because that's what causes people to think it's important.  It's not important, yet they keep reporting it.  But, chances are, they probably won't stop, because they generally aren't well informed enough to report on technical matters.  Plus the technical side probably doesn't yield as much click-bait traffic as the mindless speculation articles do.  

Excellent news.  I suspect a number of people will be watching with keen interest.  Have there been any elaborations on timescales?  Or are the waters still a little murky for that with so much stuff to figure out on the technical side?  Obviously with a significant change like this, they'll be treading carefully.

Old news, I heard this two weeks ago.  Here's the topic for it:  https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5215265.0

Also, why does anyone care?  The guy is a crackpot and has no credibility left anyway.  

Indeed.  Short of putting more warning messages in the wallet software, it's difficult to know what more we can do to make sure the message gets through.

---

I think the problem is that newbies don't necessarily seek help until they have a problem, which, by then, could be too late.  So we need to ensure, wherever possible, that newbies are aware of the importance of backups so they can recover their coins in the event something goes wrong.  For all his pomp and arrogance, Peter Schiff was a newbie.  So evidently, either:

a) no one stressed the importance of backups to him
or
b) someone did tell him, but he was too much of an asshat to listen.


It honestly wouldn't surprise me if it was b), but I'm prepared to give him the benefit of the doubt.

Ignore them, they're just trolling.  They've done it in other topics too.  A quick glance at their post history reveals they are fundamentally anti-Bitcoin.

I don't know if it will really be "a lot of things".  There might be a few innovations we can incorporate, but there's so much gimmickry in the market right now that it almost seems to drown out anything that might actually be revolutionary.  Quite a few people talk about altcoins in terms of faster/cheaper transactions, but I think their greatest purpose is to field-test all the weird and wonderful ideas people come up with and hopefully screen-out the failed ones.  Then, on the rare occasion one of those features is a net positive and provides some additional utility that people actually benefit from, it's something we can potentially look at building on top of Bitcoin.  Assuming it doesn't compromise any of the existing qualities people like, that is.  So generally, I'd expect some new features built on top, but not that many.  Then again, who knows what the future holds?  I could be way off, heh.

There's a much higher quality topic in the Press Board here.  People there recognise that Schiff lost the sum that was gifted to him.  People would be well-advised to stop posting in this low-quality (and likely intentionally misleading) topic.


Just because someone registers an account here, doesn't necessarily mean they're your "fellow Bitcoin follower".  OP appears to be a troll account and shouldn't be taken seriously.

Whatever that currency is, it definitely doesn't have a high value.  If it did, the notes wouldn't come in such large denominations. 

If it's Yugoslavia, that country doesn't even exist anymore, so I'm pretty sure that note is worthless unless you are a collector of dead currencies.

In a sense, he's not wrong.  It's all well and good saying he's just a Bitcoin hater and dismissing him, but it's important we get our response to this correct.  People (the ones on the outside looking in, who might be persuaded by Schiff) need to understand what happened and why.  So far in this topic, I don't think we've placed enough emphasis on that, so here goes:  

If you're a complete fool who isn't even prepared to try and understand the first thing about Bitcoin (but somehow still think you're qualified to give an opinion on it), it is a bad idea to dive straight in without knowing what you're doing.  People generally aren't accustomed to being responsible for digital keys.  It's a new skill set for the average person to learn.  And if they don't learn it, they can quite easily lose their funds.

Owning some bitcoin is a good idea if you have taken the time to understand how to use it safely.  If you are too ignorant or lazy to do that, then Bitcoin is not suitable for you.  Personal responsibility is a fundamental requirement here.  Chances are, no one is going to bail you out if you screw it up.

How many of you would go out and buy a firearm if you didn't even know how to use one?  That would be a bad idea too.  People don't tend to buy a car until they know how to drive one.  It's basic common sense and Peter Schiff clearly has none of that.  Even if it was a gift, the person who gave it to him should absolutely take it as a sign of ingratitude that he didn't take the time to learn how to use it.  

My hope is, the more exchanges who introduce prohibitive KYC, the sooner the incentive arises for people simply stop using them and find ways to simplify and encourage the use of peer-to-peer trading.

The adage always goes that "necessity is the mother of invention" and this is clearly something we need.  Exchanges are a throwback to legacy finance.  Something we reverted to out of habit.  Except it's a bad habit that we need to break.  We're supposed to be disrupting middlemen, not creating them.  In the grand scheme of things, I don't see exchanges as a significant part of Bitcoin's future.  I have a suspicion they're going to force themselves out of the equation by becoming too cumbersome to actually use.  Architects of their own demise.  The moment peer-to-peer trading becomes the easier option, the average user will simply avoid exchanges and it'll solely the most dedicated full-time speculators that will still use those platforms.

If anyone else had said that, I might give it greater credence.  But when you say it, it sounds like:

"Look for random coincidences that support your pre-existing biases, ignore empirical facts, treat the nonsense spread by all the shills who support CSW as legitimate and trustworthy sources."

Because that's clearly what you're doing.  You are in absolutely no position to lecture us on fake news, given the drivel you freely choose to believe.
 

I can see why it's best to prepare for all contingencies, but I've yet to hear any governments proposing ID checks for everyday physical fiat cash payments (tobacco/alcohol/etc aside) and would expect fierce resistance from the general public if they ever did.  So it would be a rather impressive double standard to apply an ID requirement to bitcoin payments in such a fashion.  Naturally, the only sensible course of action open to us would be to resist if they did try to do it.  Even if principles weren't a factor, it would be far too intrusive and bothersome to be worthwhile implementing.  I don't think retailers would be supportive of it either, because it would be a lot of extra effort on their part.

Out of interest, where are people currently seeing all this KYC?  I've only noticed it on exchanges and I rarely use those nowadays.  Is it really "everywhere"?  Or was that more of an embellishment to make us consider the slippery slope argument?

I tend to agree with the OP, although I'll add the disclaimer that it's very easy to be wrong about this, because we've never had something quite like Bitcoin during all the previous global downturns.  

But the impression I get is that, because the connection between the traditional economy and Bitcoin's economy is not as... mature(?) as it otherwise could be, the two will remain somewhat separate.  If the traditional economy falters, I don't believe the mere existence of Bitcoin is sufficient to bolster it.  It's almost as though we're standing adjacent to all the drama and able to observe it clearly, but we're not directly involved because we're busy doing our own thing.  Perhaps that's what contributes most to the perception of Bitcoin being a "safe haven".  Then there's the part where we've built a debt-free monetary system, so we can't really provide direct assistance to that other system which relies on the creation of yet more debt in order to keep functioning.

Which is why we ideally need to steer the conversation with the general public more towards the tangible benefits they can gain from actually using Bitcoin, rather than the fiat money they may or may not make speculating with it.

The only "reason" prices move like they do is that markets are fickle and traders are seemingly quite susceptible to hype and FOMO.  It doesn't really make a lot of sense and it's certainly not very easy to explain to the uninitiated masses in simple terms.

Unless this is your not-so-subtle way of asking for help writing some code, posting your wishlist on a forum is not going to achieve anything.  First you need some code, then you need to test it to breaking point and prove it's better than what we currently have.  Then, if people are supportive of the new code, you can start planning your fork.  Until then, you're in the same league as a kid sitting on Santa's lap hoping that a grown-up is listening.  Sorry, you're not getting a pony.

If you present arguments that Craig Parasite is satoshi, you are facilitating criminal activity.  You are an accomplice in an act of identity theft.  You are as much of a fraud as CSW himself.

You tell me.  How long is it going to take you to figure out that he's not what he's pretending to be?  How many times does he have to lie to your face before you finally figure out he's using you?  Every time you defend him, you are enabling a charlatan to defraud more people.  Does that not bother you?

At this stage, I honestly don't care if you share some ideological views with Faketoshi.  Keep pushing for larger blocks if you genuinely think that's what is best.  But stop supporting this absolute parasite attempting to coopt satoshi's identity.  You are currently complicit in his crime.