It's still not fair. And the ongoing opportunity is not fair, you can only get a few millibits and lose money, while early adopters were each getting fat blocks every day.

Hundred thousands of BTC distributed to a handful of early miners is?

At least now we all agree there is source code, that's a good start


In terms of 99.99999% of the population it's irrelevant, they have to buy it, doesn't matter if it's PoW or PoS.
And you're right, it's not fiat that is the enemy, it's uncontrolled money printing that is the enemy. Well, both PoW and PoS models have that under control. And because most of the population can't be miners and have to buy it, they don't care how exactly that crypto is produced.

Are you sure that bitcoin "UP" bitcoin is still down right now.

Simplified example:

Step 1: Well, just like blockchain, git records the hash of the latest commit... and a commit records the hash(es) of previous commits.  That creates a chain of hashes for the source code.

Step 2: Given the git commit id (a hash), obtain a source code tree.

Step 3: Compile the source code, resulting in one or more binaries (bytecode output, in Java's case).

Step 4: Hash the binaries

Step 5: Post a PGP-signed message containing the hash from step #4.

Just like in biology or chemistry, it is critical that the above process is independently reproducible and yields the same result every time.

If multiple developers perform these steps, and all result in the same hashes in step #4, then you eliminate a Man-In-The-Middle attack where an evil developer or evil malware may insert a backdoor not present in the source code, but present in the binaries that users download and trust with real money.

Finally, at any time, any outside developer may independently reproduce this process, proving that the dev team is not inserting backdoors etc.

Deterministic builds are critical for any software you trust with money.

This is how Bitcoin Core handles every release.  Multiple developers must achieve the same compiled result, or no release happens.  We use https://gitian.org/ to assist with this.

Point missed completely.

The vast majority of users simply download and run code.  They do not compile it.  A deterministic build process enables any random outsider, at any time, to prove that the given source code compiles to binary (or byte) code that matches exactly, byte-for-byte with what is produced by the official release team.

"Anyone can compile" is irrelevant.  What is relevant is that you can prove the release team binaries match the source code exactly.

An attacker may otherwise stuff a backdoor into the bytecode, but not the source code.  "Anyone can compile it" developers would never notice the backdoor... yet 99% of the users still have the backdoor.

Furthermore, you want a process like bitcoin's where multiple developers each produce a build, and PGP-sign the produced hashes.  In this way, you need not worry about a backdoor'd compiler producing evil bytecode without the developer's knowledge.

Odd that this impresses you then.

No other altcoin even slightly has the amount of old school Bitcoin supporters. In fact a large chunk of the "core Bitcoin elite" members as you call it pretty much stands behind Monero. I don't see where this is asinine and laughable.

Bitcoin is not as solid as some investors or you make it look to be. In fact Bitcoin is extremely fragile as it solely depends on the support of its initial holders (of which - interestingly - I estimate at least 70%+ are actually direct Monero supporters/members). If these were to withdraw their support ... Bitcoin would crash significantly to a 1 digit price.

wow, so you say btc is perfect and there is no need for improvements?
and i thought it is proved that standstill is a throwback.

It's only unfair as long as you didn't make any money off of it. Given that forging gives extremely minimal returns compared to other options you could spend your nxt on, this argument has grown very tired. Then again, don't the rich always get richer, how does nxt do this any differently?

You should know that more then anyone given the trading capital you likely have at your fingertips.  Pretty unfair if you ask me. You should just leave all your money in the bank. The interest would give you more then forging would!

In what market have this ever happened (one stock/currency has dominated all others due to liquidity/marketcap)? Just as long as the other token/coin has sufficient liquidity/marketcap, then why wouldn't people stay in the other one? In fact, if there were two cryptos of similar market size, the liquidity of both would be improved by the trade between them.

For now Bitcoin is the most liquid store of value. But you said a few posts above that it's just the early days of Bitcoin. Well, if it's just the early days of Bitcoin, one can say other projects like NXT are still sucking breast milk

We don't know what the most liquid one will be in a few years and why people would need to stay in one and have to do exchange operations to use another, if they could just stay in that another one which is more useful and thus make it the most liquid by its utility value.

If scarcity is the only argument you can present, well, that's a weak position. And why does anyone have to prove anything to Peter Schiff? He's in his zone of comfort, no reason to persuade him of anything.

Trivial market caps or big ones, as long as the total market cap of all cryptos grows, that means cryptos perform their function of giving shelter from the fiat system. If you thought you could comfortably stay in Bitcoin and other people would be happy to get a few crumbs from the early adopters' table, well, you thought wrong. Bitcoin is just software. In software world if you can develop better software there is a high chance you can beat the old one. People will always be trying to compete and be the first, that's human nature, and that's how all better things are born.