Thanks for demonstrating my point by showing us an example of the rage-quit brigade whining I was talking about.

If Bitcoin ever changes due to such nonsense (in which you malign a man cited by Satoshi's Whitepaper), it deserves to die.

Another rebrand?

Perhaps due to trademark issues with the KarDASHians, who just happen to own a chain of stores called DASH?

Or the Dash soap company sued?  Or the all-powerful Ms. Dash spice conglomerate?   

Dish collapsing, DarkFlarb UP!   

Dash instamine scam confirmed:


This is Dash's narrative.  It's not one Evan's Gate cultists want the public to see, but that's just too bad.

Any new investor researching Dash is going to find overwhelming overwhelming evidence of incompetence and/or malfeasance in the fiasco of a launch, bad crypto in the code, and snake oil marketing in the community.

Exactly right.  After the concept has been around for a year, there no good excuse to not understand segwit.

It's not hard.  Segwit takes all of two sentences to explain:

It's not only the "design" of MAID forum that reminds me of Paycointalk, it's the tone.  Long on hype, short on realistic critical self-evaluation.  That was clear in my post, so you ignored the part you didn't want to see.

But it's an unfair comparison because Paycoin at least had a working blockchain, while MAID sells itself with happy talk about a new private internet yet uses Bitcoin's conspicuously transparent blockchain.

If Maid was a serious effort, I'd expect Safecoin to piggyback on a private coin instead of one being analyzed/tracked/monitored by numerous private firms and .gov TLAs.

Please elaborate on how that expectation is unreasonable and makes me a clown.   

Yes, just like Bitcoin was doomed when mtgox went mtgox.   

As you can see in the first quote, Dash has a clearly defined narrative.

The Dash narrative is a tale of a massive "accidental" instamine, bad crypto, snake oil marketing, and 100% centralized control over everything from the code to the brand.  Plus there is the cultish, hostile, defensive, oversensitive, and occasionally stalker-creepy community, which is infamous for its Scientology-like attack-the-attacker misbehavior.

I understand you may dislike and disagree with that narrative, but you should recognize it exists and that's what newcomers see.

Monero Mustangs will be the new Budweiser Clydesdales.  ^{Is it true?}  _{Wow very marketing!}

Another failure to deliver, again with copious excuses and plenty of cheerleading spin (which I didn't quote for the sake of brevity/sanity).



Rats fleeing a sinking ship.  The resemblance to GAW's Paycoin scam is uncanny.  The forum even has the same look/feel/tone as Paycointalk.   

This might have something to do with it.

XMR community collectively decided to delay marketing until such time as RAM-saving database and GUI are ready.  We're long past the first checkpoint, and progress to the second is well underway.

A few Wild & Free mustangs went ahead with some awareness increasing campaigns (xmrpromotions and Pegasus), and those initial efforts have already resulted in (or at least correlated with) large price/volume increases and lots of chatter on /r/* (esp when Zcash/fungibility/tracking are discussed).

When the GUI is done, we'll use the forum funding system to make a Superbowl halftime ad starring Pegasus and Fluffypony!   

Yes, it would kill Bitcoin to reward the whining of the rage-quit brigade.  Thanks for asking!

Right, coin voting indicates something, specifically the preference of the self-selecting group that can be bothered to sign a ballot with their coins.  That socioeconomic indicator plays more of a role in determining what software runs (and doesn't run) the network than node counts (and Consider.it granfalloonery).

Why?  Because node counts include non-economic (ie fake) nodes, so at most they indicate an ongoing Sybil attack.  Coin voting by cryptographic definition cannot indicate non-economic (ie fake) users' preferences, even if it is merely a self-selected sample and not the exhaustively thorough poll we might have in An Ideal World.

Now, what happens when we apply to Bitcoinocracy's coin voting the extrapolation logic used by Classic supporters when they asked demanded slush split his entire pool's block voting according to the expressed preferences of the can-bother-to-vote subset?   

What happens is we get to hear from the losing side deflection about how the venue is flawed, so any results produced therein must biased/invalid/meaningless.   

"Are" != "can be" (OK, notwithstanding the tiny transient edge case of new user bootstrapping)

"A large flow-through" would seem to imply coin ownership or at least possession/custody (however temporary).

Coin voting means something, as does block voting via version bits and whatnot.  Blowing off the resoundingly pro-Core/anti-Classic results on Bitcoinacracy is yet another way to spin politics.

Even if the results are more descriptive than causative, nobody is going to start a contentious fork war with so many BTC pledged to defend Core (and attack GavinCoin with well-funded doublespend-short-doublespend loops).

Potential Bitcoin owners are not "users of the network" (unless we broaden the definition to include everyone).  Economic influence is a much more general and complicated topic (everybody drink when the phrase "intrinsic value" is used  ).

People may disagree about anything, and often do.  The issue here is the reasonableness of those disagreements.

Many Classic supporters, especially the cranky I-hate-GMAX/PTODD/LUKEJR types, disagree with the idea that committing code demontrates merit, but they are not being reasonable (or even interacting in good faith, due to their greater goal of a governance coup).

Unless I start contributing useful code, my DO WANT list only influences Honey Badger to the extent I buy/sell/hold Bitcoins.  Non-economic users, just like non-economic nodes, are irrelevant.

It's not the number of commits that matters, it's the merit demonstrated by their utility that matters.

I'm not sure how I could have made that any more clear.  I guess "number of commits" is just a trigger for some people, no matter how many layers of disclaimers its embedded context.   

I don't care how many extra commits Hearn and Toomin added to XT and Classic, because they were all BS like checkpoints and blacklists.  OTOH, LN and SEGWIT are high on my DO WANT list.

The users of the network are those who own coins.  Like fake AWS Sybil nodes that don't actually store/send coins, non-economic users are irrelevant (no matter how much noise they can generate on Reddit).

As you note with great understatement, "Thus far there has been no real momentum by users toward changing vendors."

http://bitcoinocracy.com/ indicates the socioeconomic majority is firmly with the devs responsible for 90% of all commits to Bitcoin Core in 2015 (as it should be).