I recently inquired about this issue, and the general response was that pruning is already emplimented in the reference codebase, but isn't yet enabled for the offical client.  This is mostly because of concern about what kind of impact widespread pruning would have on the "many copies keeps data safe" stragedy that the blockchain employs.  Some of the developers don't believe that there are enough full clients at the moment, and that enabling pruning would result in a significant drop in the number of compete copies of the blockchain from which new clients could bootstrap.  I'm not a programmer, but it was strongly implied that certain power users with the programming skills to enable this code themselves already do prune.  So when they say that pruning will become available when it's necessary, they kind of mean that they will turn it on when they feel that the burden of running a full client is reducing the number of full clients, and that we are not to that point yet.

This is no more true as an absolute than the false meme that an equal spread of wealth leads to prosperity for the greatest number.  The causes of such wealth disparity is also important to consider.

I think your admiration for the German solution to be misplaced.  It's not just that neo-nazi based ideologies or israeli dissent that is verboten.  Any kind of subculture at all is verboten, although (obviously) some are ignored.  Notablely, however, Christian based homeschooling is not ignored; and a ban on home education of any kind remains in effect as the last edict started by Aldolf hitler still in effect.  Put another way; while politics in Germany functionally ignores the dark side of Islam, but puts devout Christians who consider German state schools to be contrary to their faith in the same catagory as neo-nazi hate groups.  One might come to the conclusion that German polticos fear the idology of such (non-state) Christian spreading into a greater percentage of the electorate. 

Of course not.  If there were any real evidence of God, or even of a spirtual plane of any kind, your freedom of choice would cease to exist.  You choose to not seek, which is fine.  Your salvation is your problem, not mine.  I have no interest in convincing you otherwise, but to assume that just because wars have been fought with religion as the official cause are the true drivers for the kings and warlords that prosecute such wars is to be woefully ignorant of both history and human nature.  The principle of 'Baptists & bootleggers' has been true for thousands of years, or as long as human civilizations have existed, whichever is longer.

If you knew as much about the bible as you think you do, you would also know that the term 'slaves' as used in the context of the old testament is a mistranslation into English.  When we think of 'slaves' we think of chattel slavery, but the old testament does specify that, not only did "slaves" have rights (including work rules), but a faithful "slave" earned the hand of the master's eldest daughter after 7 years of service.  This was for the infidels that Jews captured in warfare, they were forbidden from buying servents from either one another or from infidels.  Can you imagine "modern" Islam (that considers Jews to be infidels) offering their eldest daughters to a Jewish man after seven years, even if he openly converted to Islam?

The concept of chattel slavery has no equivalent in the Bible, old or new; and was not permitted for the ancient Israelites, either.  For the most part, our modern concept of slavery (i.e. the ability to "own" another human being) can be traced back to the Persians.

You think that is low?  It was $17 at the start of the year!

I don't suppose that you'd be willing to link a copy of your template, would you?

Ethical, no.  Quite legal, though.  Doctor patient confidentialtiy is now a meaningless term in these United States; partly due to Obamacare, and partly due to other percurser laws.

They don't need a warrant anymore.  I've seen this first hand.

Just because you say it, does not make it so.  Challenge my reasoning, accept that I'm correct, or fade away.

Usually.

Baseball cards are designed to be exchanged as a collectable, not as an actual medium-of-exchange.


A bitcoin is as much of a unit of value as the US Dollar is, as I have noted repeatedly in this very thread.  A unit does not require an external reference, as you seem to claim.  All that is required that a unit exist, is that more than a few people agree upon a (preferablely not vague, but even that is not a requirement; take a look at the variance in the concept of a "cord" of firewood) standard.  The bitcoin exchange markets set the 'standard' of price for a bitcoin on an ongoing basis.  But in the long term, a bitcoin is a bitcoin in as much as a dollar is a dollar.


Okay.  Your opinion is well known on this matter, but it doesn't change the fact that Bitcoin is a currency.


Just because it may not work for you as a currency, doesn't mean it doesn't work for me.  I've used it as such on numerous occasions in the past. I expect to continue to do so; but even if I'm wrong about such an expectation does not imply that Bitcoin is not presently a currency, because it provably is.  A Continental was a currency once as well, but that doesnt' mean that they must be 'worth a Continental' today to have been a currency in 1778.  Maybe Bitcoin will fade away like so many others here believe, and maybe it won't; but if I can buy stuff online using Bitcoin, and only Bitcoin, in trade; then Bitcoin is a currency now, regardless of how or why that is so.

Bitcoin does not generate revenue.  Bitcoin goes up and down in market value, that is quite different.


While a stock is often a speculative investment vehicle, stocks are (at the core) contractual evidence that you own a definable piece of a business venture; which (presumedly) exists to turn a profit.  It's the profit that makes the stock an asset, not it's speculative nature.


Nor is it a commodity, because it has no non-monetary utility.  No one desires to aquire bitcoins for their own sake, but to spend or sell them at a later date.  You can't really do anything else with them, at least not yet.  (Colored coins might change that analysis later)


Bitcoin is a currency, as I noted in the "bitcoin is not a currency" thread on several occasions.

A "currency" is a designed medium of exchange, that may or may not be "backed" by a commodity, or may or may not be "backed" as legal tender by some government.  While a money, such as gold, can be minted into coins (and thus also be a currency) a true money is a common commodity that functions as a medium of exchange in a free market, but may not have a 'standard' unit.  By coining that gold into a standard unit, such as a one troy ounce shape with some king's face on it, and declaring it the official money of the realm, a currency is created.  However, the past 100 or so years are proof enough that once a currency is well established and trusted to continue; the original money behind the currency is often no longer necessary.  All fiat currencies are designed by men, whether or not they ever contained (or were otherwise backed by) gold or silver.  Bitcoin is a currency because it was designed (presumedly by one or more human beings) to function as a medium of exchange on the Internet.  Whether or not Bitcoin is a good currency or not is up for debate, and whether or not any particular government agency desires to recognize that Bitcoin is a currency or not is irrelevent; but Bitcoin is a currency regardless.

It is not, however, a true money; because regardless of how useful it is as a medium of exchange, or even as a store of value, Bitcoin never had a pre-existing and non-monetary utility that would have driven it's adoption in a free market as a highly marketable good.

Nor is Bitcoin a fiat currency, because no government institution requires it's use in any context.  Bitcoin is difficult for some to explain, or even wrap their heads around, because it's something new in the realm of exchange mediums.  It's closest to a LETS (Local area Exchange system) wherein the local area is the entire Internet, and that uses triple entry accounting to track exchanges; but it's not a debt based system and the total number of currency units are fixed and known at any given point in time.

That's savings, not new value, more commonly known as "income".  Of course, unless you're renting it out, real estate doesn't qualify as an 'asset' either; so this is another one of those economic terms that have a bit different common usage.  If you have a mortagage, your home is a 'liability' not an asset.

I can and have.  Your problem is that you won't accept my definition of "currency".

Short answer: yes.

Long answer: Yes, all of the above.