Note Josh Zerlan the troll and scammer's generous provision of yet another example why nobody but a moron would do business with the scam operation BFL.

So you mean "literally no miners," but then your definition of "no miners" means you just ignore miners if they include people you disparage.  That would not be "literally no miners" in any sense normally understood.  That would be a small number of miners.  If there were a small number of miners, the supply would be reduced.  If any demand remained, that would increase the price by simple, inflexible laws of supply and demand.  Eventually, the price would be enough to encourage people to mine again, or the remaining miners to step up their game and do more mining, at which point they wouldn't be "fetishists."

So long as anyone is actually mining, you can't have a "literally no miners" situation without changing the meaning of the words.

Do you think the recent Arlington v. FCC decision increases this deferential standard of review, or just extends it to an agency's interpretation of its jurisdiction, and in either event, does it have any likely relevance to Bitcoin regulations?

This is sort of like gold has lost all its value and nobody can buy or sell it any more because it is difficult to mine?

The NSA making a statement about what is constitutional or not is like Hitler saying a certain food is kosher.

If he was acting there like he's acting here (belligerent and stupid), he'd be banned pretty much anywhere.  Sticking around whining and ban-evading after that is just begging to be used as a chew toy.

Well, you know what Mel Brooks says:  never give a saga an even break.

I remember when they used to say the highest bandwidth connection was a station wagon full of tapes on the highway.

This forum is not Bitcoin.

Nor, if it's ever going to be generally accepted money, is mining Bitcoin.  Mining remains a considerably high risk activity that many will not engage in.

Maybe OP should start ButtHurtCoin.  Generates a new block with every unlubed thrust.

ITT:  angry, clueless newb is angry and clueless.

I'd like an option to block self-moderated threads rather than waste time with them.  They're usually started by trolls and morons who then delete posts just to piss you off.

Scammer without scammer tag, scam threads still open.

Let this be an example.  The scammer tag idea is BULLSHIT.  Scammers are allowed to scam uninterrupted, when there's nothing ambiguous whatsoever about what they're doing.

This guy is just a pure thief, and the admins do DIDDLY FUCKING SQUAT.

Another major issue is that these micro-transactions basically take up as much of a limited resource (space in a block) as "real" transactions.  I know I get infuriated when I am waiting for a 5 BTC transaction that is actually time-sensitive, waiting for another block, and when it comes, it's filled to the brim with bullshit .0000001 transactions and somehow, my 5 BTC transaction has missed the train despite having a transaction fee.  If the micro-transactions only consumed a commensurate amount of resources to transmit as "real" transactions, there would be less conflict.  As it is, though, often microtransactions with multiple (also tiny) inputs are actually MUCH LARGER than "real" transactions.

Worst case, there's always TCP/IP Over Carrier Pigeon as described in RFC-1149.

If you do, I wish you luck.  More competition is better than less.  Just choose wisely with the field of scammers out there in the ASIC arena.

While Bitcoin may be an anarchy of sorts, it is certainly not a democracy in the traditional majoritarian sense.  I still don't see how Gavin is a dictator.  It is more like the community of miners are an oligarchy.  There's nothing forcing them going along with Gavin's ideas other than their seeming belief that it is in their interest to do so.

People generally do act in their own interest when money is concerned, and this is not necessarily a bad thing.  It seems the more configurable the Bitcoin client is, the more capable people are of doing whatever they want with it, even if that is not what Gavin wants.  Anyone doing mining is, I think, entirely capable of deviating from the default settings and, in fact, will probably have to do so just to get it to work with their systems unless they are operating with systems straight out of the box.

It just strikes me that if there is a market demand for "dust" transactions, people will figure out how to do it.  After all, once it is actually in the blockchain, it is going to continue to get confirms.  It's just that first step, which only requires ONE miner willing to include these things in mined blocks.

So how is a boycott effective unless it's miners doing the boycotting?  Are they joining in?

Anything that can take a rawtx printed in some standard font (preferably one optimized for OCR) and printed on paper, accept it into a scanner and dump it straight to https://blockchain.info/pushtx would do fine.  An automated system could even feed the paper itself directly into a shredder afterwards.

What stops anyone from using 0.8.2 and setting it to accept microtransactions?  Unless it's just that the miner is too dumb to do that, the newer client is even more customizable than the last.

Excellent reminder of why never to do biz with BFL.  It's run by convicted criminals and represented in public by an Internet troll.

Also, there's an escrow who can release the funds if it takes too long.  And the escrow is trustworthy.