To be fair, though, the "investors" aren't entirely blameless in this regard either.  So many amateur speculators would basically demand a particular shitcoin was listed on whatever exchange they used because they wanted to be the ones doing the pumping and dumping.  If it bit them in the arse, then they mostly only have themselves to hold to account for that.

The problem is that you generally have to compromise on decentralisation to achieve it.  The arguments in support of "stablecoins" generally hit the same wall as the arguments in support of greater throughput, except that stablecoins hit it right away.  With things like increasing blocksizes, centralisation creeps in gradually over time.  But with stablecoins, right from the offset, there's generally a central entity keeping funds in reserve to (supposedly) back the digital tokens 1:1.  While not everyone would agree, many would argue that's too high a cost to pay just to keep the price steady.

At this stage, he can't do anything to hurt Bitcoin.  The only damage he can cause is to all the unsuspecting victims that fall for his lies and believe that his cheap imitation is the same thing as Bitcoin.  It all seems so senseless.  That's why those of us who see him for what he is think he's such a vindictive sack of shit.  He's hurting innocent people with his incessant misinformation campaign.

Any how many exchanges have you both run?  If it's zero, then let's assume you aren't qualified to make such sweeping assertions and that Coinfloor are probably in a better position to judge the demands on their business than you are.  Almost every other post in this topic highlights the fact that this is a small exchange, which means they may employ only a small number of people.  They may not be equipped to handle frequent changes in multiple coins.  Whatever the case may be, it's ultimately up to them how they choose to run their company.

Maybe it was a typo and they meant to type Crap Wright?   He does talk a load of it, after all.  



He should definitely be ashamed of himself, but I can say there's categorically no shame involved for Bitcoin.  Wright has no involvement or relationship with Bitcoin.  He's just a sad, delusional and rather tragic onlooker, who likes to think their opinions matter.  But they don't.

What happened is that markets are fickle and people generally get stressed out over nothing.  I'm honestly past caring whether it's bull or bear season because I have no plans to sell in the foreseeable future.  Given that the traditional economy has effectively failed an entire generation or two, BTC is now, most likely, the only way I'm going to have anything resembling a pension when I retire.  This shit is my nest egg now.  Accumulate and hodl*.

_{*<insert usual disclaimer about not being a qualified financial advisor>}

BTC is Bitcoin for as long as its users say it is.  End of story.  One lone con-artist can't change that.  We also have a little thing called "the truth" on our side, which is always a bonus.

  

The author's account hasn't been active since May 2015. 
Can you please have conversations with active forum participants?
Thank you.

I'm guessing your last topic was deleted because the bigotry and casual racism were not conducive to a healthy discussion.  You have also failed to present a single compelling argument.  The very fact that you think Bitcoin is controlled by miners means that no one in their right mind is going to take you seriously.

The tricky part is that most of the companies in the crypto space normally focus on developing custodial wallets or exchanges, because that's where the profit is right now.  I don't think there are actually that many corporate entities who are investing in work on the base protocol.  Then again, I suppose that could arguably be a good thing.

Basically, what I said in September.  There's almost no doubt in my mind that we'll need that board at some point, but it's not quite yet.  Development & Technical is sufficient for now.

The biggest "if".  Considering things may not have turned out quite as envisioned with how Bitcoin has evolved over time, there can be no guarantees that any any new algo would hold to its intended purpose either.  Incentive has a curious way of shifting the balance and discovering new paradigms.  It could unfold entirely in contrast to how any of us might imagine it playing out, assuming it was ever changed.  That said, there are those who (arguably quite wisely), see a change of algorithm as a nuclear option.  Something we only do as a last resort if all else has failed.  But there's certainly no reason why alternative algos can't be developed and thoroughly tested as a precaution.

I'm not entirely convinced satoshi did get it wrong.  I think people are just taking those words too literally.  Note the use of the word "essentially".  To me, that implies satoshi was merely outlining a general concept, not issuing some sort of decree that it had to mean each user could only use a single CPU.  To the best of my knowledge, there has never been anything in the code that attempts to restrict usage in that way.

True, it's likely satoshi didn't envision Pools, GPU mining or ASICs happening quite as rapidly as they did.  Mining did become an arms race rather suddenly.  But I'm sure those words were never intended to be some sort of mantra to explicitly follow.

I'd say the same thing I always say.  Write the code, put it on a testnet, let people actually use it and prove beyond all reasonable doubt that it does what you claim.  Until then, no one is seriously going to support a change of algorithm to something unknown and totally untested in the wild.

This is the THIRD topic by this author on the exact same flawed premise.  Here's the first and second topic.  The author wants to blame exchanges for the fact that they clearly have a gambling addiction and it's ruining their life.

OP:  Seek some help and support.  There are organisations who can provide assistance with this.

If that's the case, then how stupid must the rest of the world be for not adopting LTC and making it the #1 crypto?  I mean, if it really is that much better and all... everyone has had ~8 years to notice it.  Surely Bitcoin should have been left in the dust by now if that were the only consideration?

That, or you're wrong.  As usual.

If performance was the only thing that mattered, people would buy mopeds powered by jet engines.  But they don't, because it would involve making sacrifices in other areas.  The trade-offs are simply not worth it.  If you are incapable of understanding why compromises are sometimes undesirable, perhaps it is you who fulfils the role of dumbass in this conversation.

Ah, brilliant, so my suspicions are somewhat grounded in reality.  I do understand the beast, heh.    

Yep, all things considered, I'm now more confident than before in stating that banks offering crypto "services" won't bear any resemblance to how the exchanges do it.  Every conceivable safeguard will be in place to ensure that customers get nowhere near the crypto.  No touchy!  You'll relay your instructions to the bank, the bank will then make the transactions -if- they approve.  Wholly antithetical to the founding principles of Bitcoin.

I think I see the problem here.  Nuance isn't one of your strong suits, is it?  Everything has to be black and white in order for you to find it acceptable.  The slightest shade of murky and off the handle you fly.  It's pretty clear you wanted a list of posts in this thread by various users saying "Lauda is wrong because x/y/z", because you want some sort of unilateral intervention.  But that's not how trust is designed to work.  Pressure is acceptable, but it's never going to be as clear-cut as an automatic, instant removal from DT (unless the offence is egregious enough to warrant a ban, or theymos decides to step in, that is).  It clearly doesn't matter to you that you have the option to exclude Lauda AND exclude everyone who includes Lauda, which, as if by magic, changes that trusted feedback into untrusted.  You can quite literally build a trust network of your very own.  But nope, that's not enough for you.  You want to overrule everyone and force them all to see it exactly the same way you do.  No dissenting viewpoints.  No ifs, buts or maybes.  

Sorry, but life doesn't work that way.  Find some coping mechanisms or something.

Each person still gets to make their own judgement calls and some of those people are still choosing to include Lauda, despite the fact this isn't the first controversy they've been embroiled in.  Based on the guidelines that have been issued by theymos, that particular rating that triggered you is inappropriate.  But you are not judge, jury and executioner when it comes to what qualifies as "abuse" of the trust system.  It's not up to you to declare who suddenly has to go just because you don't like something they did.  It's currently unfair to eddie13 and that's unfortunate.  But the alternative, where an unsuspecting user who doesn't have a custom trust list might fall victim to a scam because the warning feedback for the perpetrator is no longer trusted, becomes a very real possibility.  And if multiple victims are scammed, that's arguably far worse than a pissy comment on eddie13's page that has already been countered twice.

//EDIT:  Three counters now.

I'm not trying to push people anywhere.  Totalitarianism is your speciality.  Also, I'd rather have the option of there being lifeboats available when compared to your vessel, 'H.M.S. Dumbfuck', where lifeboats apparently aren't permitted and people shouldn't waste their time even building them.   

Pleasant sailing!

Also watch out for people who like to think they'd make better decisions, but don't even know how to navigate.  And based on the comments they've made previously, it's obvious the ship would already be sunk to the deepest depths of the ocean if they had any influence over the heading whatsoever.