I see - so you do think that you are more informed than everyone else - glad we cleared that up.

As I am not as well informed as you I shall let you get back to informing people how uninformed they are without my further distraction.

Well as I read your Wikipedia link and have not made a single comment about the "objectives of a communist" state it is rather hard to see how I (and the majority of western citizens as well let's not forget) are so uninformed.

I think that the objective of any state is power/control over its citizens and I would also assume that the majority of western citizens would also have a similar opinion (although unlike you I don't wish to put words in their mouth).

Perhaps you just like to think that you are more informed than everyone else?

I don't see how uninformed got into it (thought you would just sneak that in did you)?

I don't presume that the majority of western citizens are so uninformed (although presumably you are accusing me of being uninformed along with everyone else).

That doesn't appear to be the view of the US or any other western government (and as they are democracies then I assume it isn't the opinion of the majority of their citizens either).

Free trade agreements being a very good example of the fact that western powers have no problem at all with it.

So it appears to be yourself against the majority of western citizens in the world.

So as they control all aspects of computer manufacturing then the same thing applies to that and to clothing manufacturing, etc.

OMG - the world is controlled by a "state monopoly". 

Well - my opinion is actually based upon speaking to actual (and average) Chinese people who lived through the time of Mao (and none of which remember that time fondly) rather than on some Wikipedia pages.

And back to your whole point about this - if indeed the Chinese government is in control of Bitcoin because mining is a large/significant business operating in China then you must accept that the Chinese government is in control of Apple computers (and of computer hardware in general).

Hmm... wait - the Chinese make other things too don't they (like nearly all of the clothes people wear and toys they buy for their kids, etc.)

So again - what is your point? That the majority of manufacturing in the world today is under the control of the Chinese government?

And from that:


So perhaps rather than 1980 I should have written 1976 - are we quibbling over 4 years now or are you just wanting to argue about terminology rather than actual practice?

(you seem to me to be the type who "just wants to win an argument" so I'm pretty sure I'm wasting my time responding)

Clearly then they cannot contribute anything (as you are uninterested in their opinions) - that is basically the same kind of mantra that used to me said of women (by men) in the western world many years ago.

Indeed - as far as the coding goes there is very little input from Chinese developers (that is a whole other story which is the lack of creativity in China).

What the XT/UB/Classic takeover attempts by the American backers have failed to understand is the Chinese culture - so their efforts to convince groups to co-operate with them will all fail (as they are now finding out).

Core wins not because it is actually preferred but simply because it is what was there first and the Chinese cannot agree amongst themselves to anything else (nor to create any alternative).

Seriously you are confused.

Until Deng (who had been imprisoned by Mao because of his capitalist ideals) China was not pursuing capitalism at all - so are you saying that the objectives of a communist state only started in 1980?
(and what exactly what do you label that which preceded Deng - "pretend communism"?)

Other well known communist states are still *not capitalist* (compared to China which is perhaps the only really capitalist "supposedly communist" country in the world) so again - what you are saying just is silly.

I can only guess that you don't know much at all about Carl Marx and his theories and what they led to politically.

It's perhaps a little strange - but what I have been considering is the idea of how to ensure that the same address is not used twice as a sort of contract.

So if two signatures can be tied to the same public key then that would release funds that perhaps otherwise would be CLTV refundable.

Well I seriously doubt that any private company can just say build a freeway without government consent in the US either (i.e. all governments control what can and cannot be done by major companies).

If the Chinese government has been taking over mining operations can you please show the evidence of this (because major players that are owned and controlled by Americans aren't complaining about this)?

The government has little to do with the vast majority of businesses in China (and in fact most small businesses don't even pay tax).

One thing you should learn about Chinese is that they rarely co-operate with each other (which is why they are well known not to work well in teams).

Perhaps you should actually come and visit to "see for yourself" that there aren't troops in jackboots walking around controlling what is going on. 

Then how about you provide proof rather than insisting that everyone else needs to do so?

You are just making vague and mostly silly claims - the Chinese government had nothing to do with this meeting or what those who were there said (you do realise this or don't you?).

Unless you can provide proof that the Chinese government owns mining companies you are just clutching at straws.

Seriously - are you that paranoid and racist?

The Chinese government has had basically nothing to do with Bitcoin apart from preventing exchanges using banks for quite a while (that ceased a few months back).

Its main concern is the movement of RMB outside of China (which every corrupt official tries to do once they get rich).

BTCC (about the biggest and best known Chinese exchange) has an American CEO. So you think he is in cahoots with the Chinese government because he "looks Chinese"?

It was well pointed out by BitFury's CEO Bitcoin was never designed to be a PayPal (wherever that idea came from I don't know as it isn't actually what Satoshi had written in his white paper).

Bitcoin requires "confirmations" by design (which is why Satoshi never advocated using zero confirmations) and these confirmations take time.

So Bitcoin *is* a settlement network - but it is one unlike any other before (you don't need a license to use it nor expensive hardware). Let's appreciate what Bitcoin is rather than support people trying to change it into something that it isn't.

I think this is a victory for common sense and for progressing Bitcoin sensibly forward.

长命富贵



(a Chinese blessing for our Bitcoin baby)

Have you tried a "listunspent" (assuming there are UXTOs for the watch only address)?

(I've had no issues using that command with watch only addresses)

Indeed - thanks for the input.

Yes - my guess is that this code is not working as intended.