It sounds like a solution that's searching for a problem.  The whole idea of a blockchain is that it lessens the need to rely on trust, so trying to shoehorn trust back in to the equation is regressive.  We used to have some hardliner fanatic types around here who maintained their own "Web of Trust", but they were just elitist loons and they've (thankfully) fallen pretty silent in recent years. 

Bitcoin has had an open and permissionless ethos from day one and I can't ever see that changing.  Would-be gatekeepers don't tend to make much progress around here.

Or, in a world becoming increasingly more restrictive on personal freedoms and with privacy at a near all-time-low, maybe some people will see the upside of this situation.  Here is a network where freedom reigns supreme. 

Certain people demand that we shouldn't need Core's approval to introduce new things.  Now we find ourselves in a situation where that's exactly the case and yet those same people are throwing a shitfit.

Freedom is my top priority.  Authoritarianism is yours.  Even though I'd rather not see silly novelty pictures stored on the BTC chain, I'm not going to tell people they can't do it.  That's your favourite thing to do.  I'll call it wasteful and inconsiderate, sure.  But I don't see it as my right to place restrictions on the freedoms of others.  Lemme guess, you're still calling for it to be banned but you're failing miserably at achieving anything?  Story of your pathetic life, isn't it?  Guess we'll just add it to the growing list of things you despise but made absolutely zero progress preventing. 

If this tech investor can't distinguish between genuine crypto and the third party middlemen exploiting crypto, then they're in the wrong business.  It doesn't matter if the SEC targets custodian "services".  Crypto was never designed to be used in that fashion.  You aren't meant to trust third parties and treat them like banks to hold your funds for you.  

Centralised Exchanges are a vestige of traditional finance.  Something we shouldn't be looking to replicate in crypto.  They introduce too many points of failure and are too easily shut down by regulators.  It's far better when things can be done at protocol level.  More resistant to regulatory shutdown, fewer points of failure, better privacy and security for users and many other benefits.  Over time, crypto will naturally gravitate towards protocols, simply because they are more robust.

As for Chamath Palihapitiya, all I'm hearing is a whiny speculator who looks a bit silly for making outlandish predictions.  And now they're lashing out and blaming others for the fact that they didn't understand any of this as well as they thought they did.

If it's not your address, it's not your concern.  It's a simple enough concept.  What business is it of yours if someone decides to move their funds after a period of inactivity?  None.  People need to focus on looking after their own wealth and leave others to do the same.

If it were your money, would you appreciate it if random people on a forum were commenting and speculating about it?  Provided there's no ties to a hack/theft/scam/etc, then there's absolutely no reason for anyone to be keeping tabs on these funds.  Leave them be.

My stance falls somewhere between the two extremes.  I don't see it as an attack, but it is a tremendously wasteful and inefficient way to do things.  I certainly wouldn't encourage the use of this exploit when there are far more suitable ways to implement it.

It's about finding the right medium for a given task.  Much like how a toddler's crayon doodles can definitely go on the fridge, but displaying them in a major art gallery wouldn't be appropriate. 

As we speak, the UK government are, once again (for the third time in living memory), attempting to ban end-to-end encryption (source: https://www.independent.co.uk/tech/uk-online-safety-bill-signal-whatsapp-privacy-encryption-b2324483.html).  They're clearly too short-sighted and reactionary to be capable of recognising the benefits of Bitcoin.

Encryption is merely a branch of mathematics.  Only a total moron would propose banning numbers, yet somehow these people always find their way into positions of power.  Screw governments and their abject stupidity.

In most cases that's true.  However, Doom's predecessor, Wolfenstein 3D, was banned in Germany for a fairly significant length of time (for obvious reasons).  So there may be some fringe cases where censorship resistance could be a legitimate need.  But a blockchain remains an incredibly inefficient way to do it.  Particularly when filesharing technology has come such a long way and is purpose-built for that task.

Any protocol that doesn't cater to a niche generally won't perform well in an open market.  Every chain needs to serve a purpose.  Like them or loathe them, NFTs are definitely a niche interest and are undeniably better served on their own dedicated protocol.  The very existence of NFTs on Bitcoin's blockchain is a bit of a kludge.  Effectively, they're exploiting a loophole.  Bitcoin wasn't designed with such a purpose in mind and handles them in a very inefficient way.  People are free to waste their time and money on trying to do it with Bitcoin, but it's pretty clear there are far more elegant ways to enable the trading and transfer of silly novelty images.  

The lines may be getting a little blurred here.  Bitcoin, as in the network and the protocol, is not debt-based and cannot become insolvent.  However, anyone using Bitcoin, whether they be a company or an individual, can still find themselves in debt.  Bitcoin can't stop you from making questionable financial decisions or simply having bad luck.  You can still end up bankrupt if you don't manage your money carefully.

If you use Bitcoin in the way it was intended, with one sender, one recipient and no middlemen involved, any wealth you transfer using Bitcoin is incredibly secure.  If you're doing things properly and taking all reasonable precautions, there should be no factors outside of your control that would result in you losing your money.

We already have https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1650522.0 and it's still fairly recently active, so this topic is somewhat redundant.  I'll be continuing to use that one if I spot any future references.

That would be the ideal outcome, sure.  But we are talking about a populace that consistently votes against its own interests at every available opportunity.  If there's a choice that would empower them and a choice that hands more power, control and influence to those who are trying to steal from them... Well, let's just say Brits have a remarkable propensity to take the dumbfuck option.  

I'm convinced I reside in a country full of masochists.  They must enjoy suffering or they wouldn't keep inflicting it upon themselves.  

The establishment will use Unicoin and that's all it'll need.  Traditional banks will use it to move money internationally, which by itself should be enough demand for it to live.  But even if it wasn't, the IMF won't allow it to fail if it further entrenches their influence.  They likely have sufficient funds to prop it up for as long as their plans require.

//EDIT:  Perhaps I spoke out of turn.  It seems to be far from confirmed that the IMF have any interest whatsoever in this project yet.

For the supposed "Land of the Free", you'd think America's ideals would align more closely with Bitcoin's fundamental principles.  I guess their priorities changed.  "The Almighty Dollar" is now more important than Liberty.  What Bitcoin represents is simply too much freedom for them to handle, because it's effectively freedom from the Dollar.   

I kinda see where Natalie Brunell is coming from, but government types are never going to see it that way.  They'll always perceive anything they can't control as a threat to the economy.  And, donkey or elephant, party politics makes no difference on that front.  It's all about control.  They have to have it.  There's no other way from their perspective. 

But, as a non-US citizen, I'm actually pretty grateful for that.  I'd be more alarmed if they did suddenly decide to embrace Bitcoin.  Leave it well alone, thanks. 

Collectibles have never been of interest for me and I've never really read much in that particular portion of the forum.  But kudos that you can make a video which can hold my attention even when it's not an aspect of the community that I'm involved with.  You still made it interesting and informative. 

Is it bullish when people with significant failures on their resume tread the "if you can't beat them, join them" path?  I'm not wholly convinced on that one.

---

Oh, I see.  Because you've now finally realised that telling people what they "aren't allowed to do" was never going to work (took you long enough), your new ploy is to helpfully suggest they start from scratch?   

So, before they begin this total redesign, should they consult with you first on what design choices you would personally approve of?  After all, it's vital that we gain your "consent", right?  I guess I just keep forgetting that all these devs exist solely to bow to your demands.  For someone who doesn't code or have any skin in the development game whatsoever, basically a glorified armchair-pundit with no relevant experience or qualifications, you sure do think highly of yourself.   


Sometimes I wonder if your ego could be any larger.  And then you write another post.

What choice do you give us when you allude to knowing something but won't disclose what?  You've been on this forum since 2017, Gox was hacked in 2014 and you only just pipe up now claiming to have relevant information?  Surely even you can see how suspicious that looks.  Look at it from our perspective.  We get all kinds of people here claiming they supposedly "know something" but the vast majority don't know anything.  

But if you are genuine, the Trustee for handling repayments to Gox's creditors is called Nobuaki Kobayashi.  Contact them.  They'll be far more actively involved than Karpeles is.  Even if Karpeles wasn't a useless, grossly negligent tit, the insolvency means it's likely that he's not even permitted to be involved in the proceedings by this point.  The lawyers are in charge now.


//EDIT:  These lawyers, specifically if you can't figure out how to contact them.  And some other lawyers involved are listed here.

It's almost as though these exchanges don't understand the part where they're painting a target on their back by putting so much money in one big, easy-to-steal treasure trove.  Is there some unspoken rite of passage I don't know about where all custodians have to be hacked at least once before they can call themselves a real exchange?  Feels like that's what they're all aiming for. 

It's just dismal.

Well it's a good thing that no one is "replacing" anything, then.  Please stop being so precious and petty.  Lightning is there to supplement and support Bitcoin.  It's an optional extra.  People can use it if they want, but no one is forcing them to (much like all the other things you appear to hate about Bitcoin).  You can keep hating, but devs are going to keep coding.  And that's why they're going to achieve great things and you're not. 

Most people appreciate being given a choice.  Maybe one of these days you'll explain what traumatic event you suffered that caused you to be so overtly hostile to freedom of choice.  I assure you. normal people don't act like this.  Seek counselling or something.  You need help.

Also franky1:


Backwards as usual.