Is the lack of a git tag for the 0.87 release intentional or an oversight?

I'd be very cautious of assuming that we can know who will be mining and for what reasons 10+ years from now.

I can easily imagine a future in which Walmart running a mining pool just to make sure the transactions of its customers and employees get processed quickly. A pool like that might or might not try to recover its costs via transaction fees.

I'm not sure this is the case. There is an theoretical enforcement mechanism in the form of the Jim Bell protocol. What would happen if a consensus developed that it could be employed in any case where someone distributes a contract-breaking change to the currency and calls the result "Bitcoin"?

I'm not an expert in game theory but it seems likely that merely talking about the possibility would at the very least change the way public figures involved in Bitcoin development think about their personal security. Being a publicly known figure has the advantage of allowing them to leverage their personal reputation, but at the same time makes them potential targets for bribery and coercion. I wonder if it would be better or worse in the long term if more Bitcoin development was done in the darknet.

At this point do you really think that the contradictions, appeals to authority, and other assorted logical fallacies are unintentional?

They also love lower prices, and Bitcoin acceptance can potentially allow a merchant to share some of the savings in payment processing fees with his customers.

Expect continual attempts to do this as Bitcoin gets closer to becoming mainstream.

You don't think the parasites that currently infect the legacy financial system are just going to get go real jobs when the current system is no longer able to feed them, do you?

Prove it.

There's absolutely nothing stopping you from inventing your own cryptocurrency with all the wonderful improvements you can possibly imagine and watching the existing Bitcoin users flock to your superior system. You are also perfectly free not to use Bitcoin if you're worried about the way it works.

1. The conditions needed to spend an unspent output shall not be changed after it is created.

2. The fraction of the total generated coins an unspent output represents shall be predictable for any point in the future.

Promise 1 would exclude demurrage but would allow new transaction types to be introduced. Changes to the mining reward would break promise 2 but increasing the number of decimal places would not.

I interpret a statement like this coming from a Staff account as an invitation to use the "Report to moderator" function on mis-categorized threads.

"Scarce" means the quantity available is less than the amount we would consume if it was free.

In normal circumstances air isn't scarce because we aren't physically capable of breathing more of it than exists. Most products are scarce because if they become cheaper to obtain we'll use more of them.

Is that what namecoin does?

Not to mention all those culty physicists which are weirdly uniform in their measurements of the mass of elementary particles or the gravitational constant.

But of course Reality has a well-known anarchist bias.

Can you add a command line option for benchmarking that will cause the program to exit immediately after a successful synchronization?

He has a four year old daughter, and frequently mentions that everything he's said applies to her.

Unlike some other people the man is no hypocrite. He publicly states she has no obligation to him whatsoever and it's his responsibility to earn a good relationship with her once she is an adult and free to choose her own associations. He treats his daughter with respect and deference as if she is free to leave him at any time so that she has no reason to want to leave.

But Stefan Molyneux is just one of many parents proving you and your barbaric book of fairy tales wrong.

One of the preconditions for a free society to form is a leap forward on generally accepted morality, in the same way that the abolition of slavery was a prerequisite for the invention of mechanized agriculture.

In a free society nobody it's not likely anyone will use force to stop parents from abusing children with circumcision or other forms of involuntary body modifications, but the parents will find it much more difficult to get away with.

Once society evolves beyond actively protecting and apologizing for child abusers it will become much more socially expensive to engage in it. Nobody would want to hire, work for, buy from, or be friends with a child abuser. Parents whose children managed to escape from them would not have a government to call on to force the children to return against their will. This alone would virtually eliminate child abuse. Slavery becomes unprofitable of the slave owners can't offload to the taxpayers the cost of catching and returning escaped slaves.

How much of this article is still relevant?

http://www.fastcompany.com/28121/they-write-right-stuff

Of course we won't. Transaction fees will keep pace with the exchange rate. This has already happened before.Conclusion: you're not interested in the truth because you're just stating conclusions without bothering to learn if they are correct or not, so I'm not going to miss anything valuable by ignoring the rest of your posts.

That would be true if there were only 21 million bitcoins, but that's not the actual limit. There will be 21000000.00000000 bitcoins. That's plenty for a world economy.

Slavery was one of humanity's oldest, and seemingly invulnerable, institutions, right up until it ceased to exist.

It was evil the entire time, of course, but every generation of slave owners escaped the consequences of their crimes until the last one. That generation lost everything.

You might get away with it too, but then again again you might not.

You've just got to ask yourself, "Do I feel lucky?"