BREAKING NEWS:

MAN DISMISSES RIVAL

It comes down to whether they're good for the market place or bad for the market place IMO. Corporations are good in one way: they're very smart when it comes to minimising their tax bills, which I thoroughly approve of (although I wish they'd be more aggressive TBH, maybe deteriorating gov finances + use of Bitcoin could help there). The bad with corporations is that they often become monopolies and behave anti-competitively (Microsoft being a good example). But the answer is for every business to become a corporation (or just don't register as a business anywhere), there's nothing stopping anyone from opening up a bunch of Caribbean shell companies to avoid taxes, then the playing field evens out more. It's impossible to stop small island nations setting up liberal legislation and tax policies for big companies to use, islands are trying to compete in a global marketplace too.

And the Microsoft sponsored Red Hat company is basically the cancer that's eating Linux (a certain Red Hat developer ditched the company to work on Bitcoin in 2010, he's now sniping at Bitcoin from the outside after his mysteriously bad ideas for Bitcoin's future design kept getting rejected by the other devs ). Microsoft really do not play fair, ever

everything people dislike about Microsoft tends to be based on facts, not theories. And companies like Microsoft stick fairly closely to the law, so there's little chance you'll ever catch them doing anything illegal, I don't know why you'd feel the need to dismiss such a thing

Why don't you taxpayers just give up 100% of your BTC to the government? The government will feed you, pay your rent, give you their special government information and entertainment TV service, and provide you with their toy money so you can buy toys with it?

If BTC ever becomes subject to total confiscation, I fully expect you all to simply hand it all over. So you may as well get it over with, and hand it all over now, hopefully the government will sell it openly to someone who's got the self-respect to keep things that belong to them. Satoshi wasted his time creating a paradigm shifting technology if you're all just going to stoop and bow to the old paradigm. You're not fit to be an owner of BTC, by definition.

You've already told the government:

• Who you are
• Where you live
• How much cryptocurrency you have
• That you'll do whatever they say

Why wouldn't they come back for the rest, when it threatens their existence and you've made yourself such an easy target?

So please, do the other Bitcoin hodlers a favour, and just give up all your BTC, right now. You're going to do it anyway, so why even bother pretending you're going to defend it?

There's nothing stopping you using Linux and Libre Office, even if it's for your job (unless it's a company laptop, of course). The secret: provide native Office files, and just don't tell anyone



They can't seem to make a success out of anything they buy up either. Seriously, alot of damage could be done to MS right now if people just stopped buying computers with Windows pre-installed, there's more choice than there used to be in that regard these days.
 


There's talk of doing something like that already, I think Gitlab and Gitea would be the main options. It's good this happened, "decentralise all the things" etc.

It's only circular dependency issues, not bugs or design issues. Which are only a problem when trying to restructure the code AFAIU (there's been a long-term mission to remove circular dependency between the wallet class and the server class, which I think blocks any attempt to separate the wallet code into a separate process from the node code)

Any dev can submit code... except people with ideas you don't like, like this guy

Okay Stay consistent

It's consensus opinion among programmers that Satoshi knew alot about cryptography, but was not an expert programmer. I seem to remember that Bitcoin 0.1.0 was just a bunch of functions and a main function, no classes (and that version was of course all Satoshi's work). It's not impossible that Satoshi was a good programmer, but deliberately chose to obscure any stylistic fingerprints by trying to appear to be amateurish. But there's no evidence for that, it's just a possibility.

Re: changes, IIRC the developing team are even today still untangling some of the messy dependencies introduced early on in the project, but who's responsible for those I don't know.

DooMAD (to me): "Don't you try to tell people what's Bitcoin should or shouldn't be, let them decide!"

DooMAD (recently): "Bcash shills can't tell people what Bitcoin is, I proclaim that Bitcoin is Bitcoin and that Bitcoin Cash is Bitcoin Cash!"


And today, DooMAD tells us what Bitcoin is (and isn't), again. Your #1 principle seems to be that everyone must adhere to your principles, even when your principles change to suit your argument. Frequently.

The bigger picture is missing from this piece.

Bitcoin would never have been created if the central banks hadn't decided to save the fraudulent banking system in 2008. Alternate courses of action (letting the bans fail somehow, i.e. capitalism) would have resulted in an incredibly painful economic recession, if not economic & civil chaos. But it would have actually straightened things out sooner. Now we have even more sovereign debt risk, feeding into endlessly levitating markets, progressive collapse in USD demand, plus myriad political factionalism and threats of trade wars to confuse the situation further. If the politicians had had the courage to let the system fail and rebuild it in 2008, at least everyone would have been united in their dislike for the banks. I'm sure the central banks will be much happier if the world is that much more chaotic when the system fails again, as they might assume they won't be considered 100% responsible for it.

Bitcoin was an anonymous attempt at creating an accountable monetary system. And for all it's limitations, it does a considerably better job at providing an honest monetary system than the central banks have. If you're looking at Bitcoin's place in the market from the monetary and macro-economic perspectives, you wasted your breath (and everyone's time, although I fortunately only wasted a minute skim-reading the text excerpt in this post).

Why would MS want to kill Nokia? Or Skype? Or Office? Or Windows (lol). But they either did or are in the process of doing so, Windows will be no different to owning an X Box or a Nintendo console once MS have completed their latest "tech" roadmap

Oh noes, real capitalism is accessible to the serfs! Only show's exactly how desperate the South African regime has become, they want people to pay income tax on something that isn't money. Why not just get everyone to pay income tax on every other good that's gaining price too, no goods would be increasing in price if the central bank wasn't printing away everyone's purchasing power. Shoelaces, hats, pots, glass bottles, cookie jars; all are subject to income tax on any annual realised gains!



Not on assets you haven't even sold yet.

Think logically: if all profitable assets must be sold once every year to pay the taxable gains to the taxman, then all property owners and mortgage holders must find a buyer for their house once a year, sell it, pay the gains to the taxman, then somehow buy back THEIR OWN HOUSE without enough money to do so. This contradicts basic property rights.



I'd pay, if I knew the money wasn't paying off ponzi style debt schemes that the central banksters created to control citizens & governments. You pay if you want to, but please, keep your eyes on the ground, where they belong. Shame on you.

don't sweat it WindFURY, these characters have been around a long time, and it only serves to illustrate how strong Bitcoin is. If the only way to attack Bitcoin is with name calling, alternative "facts" and ghost stories, you can safely ignore it most of the time

The Mastercard network already worked in a blockchain-like manner before Bitcoin ever existed, so on both points you're wrong 

You can say all that about any currency. Except gold, which has lasted as a currency for longer than anything ever has. If you don't consider gold a currency, then you just don't understand money as a concept.

And in fairness, if you can't recognise any longevity in cryptocurrency after nearly 10 very successful years (or understand why it happened), then what are you still doing here? Being the in-house contrarian?

I'm pretty sure that it was Jeff Garzik (that's right, Mr. "Satoshi's Vision") that broke or decided against that particular agreement (Garzik publicly released some crucial part of GPU mining software for Bitcoin).

I guess he could've kept it to himself, but it definitely helped to exacerbate the "early adopters" complaints (however short sighted those comments are, even today), and Garzik certainly didn't want to respect Satoshi's thoughts on the matter (which were arguably a little naive, if people like Garzik had held back, someone else would have written GPU mining code eventually anyway).

If you take a look at achow101's post above, there's apparently no evidence that any miner was ever running BIP91 code, only that they were signalling for it in the blocks they mined. This was enough to get 95% of miners to signal BIP143 (that activated mainnet Segwit). BIP91 was essentially a MASF (miner activated soft fork) that was possibly never deployed widely, or even at all, but the contemplated losses from getting blocks orphaned was enough to get BIP143 above 50% signalling, and that's enough to convince the remaining 45% needed to activate a soft fork to signal (and start making blocks with a client compatible with the soft fork) too. The miners/pools are not going to be confident enough that remaining on an incompatible client won't lose them money, and in the case of BIP91, they knew that if it was really being run, then they could be totally confident they would lose money. So you're right that an economic consensus was reached amongst the miners.

The whole point of a fiat currency is that there's no need for central banks or governments to compete with free market alternatives when they simply use violence or threats instead of competing. The list of competing money systems before Satoshi published is a testament to this; Liberty Reserve, e-gold, Liberty Dollar etc all got shut down by armed agents and legal threats (which are violent threats in practice).

Bitcoin changed this by making it impossible to use violence as a weapon against it (despite far too many Bitcoin babies claiming they'll pay taxes on it anyway, I mean why not just give a mugger all your money when they're only going to come back for 70% of next year's money?). When used to defend yourself against any of the central banks' self-serving policies, there's not a single thing these violent pieces of shit can do. When their raison d'etre is theft, how can they possibly seek to compete with a currency that (when used by those with backbones) can prevent any form of theft against it, be it inflationary, seignorage or your basic garden variety tax collection theft? None of these IMF proposals are based on the idea that central banks and governments can compete by doing less stealing.

Assuming magic bytes are only for finding nodes to connect to on the network (I believe that's so), and other hard fork changes in Bcash don't stop you spending in the old transaction formats (they've done something like 4 hard forks on the Bcash blockchain now, so who knows), then maybe alternatively:

3 b) Use your own Bcash software as your push service


This assumes you trust their software, and all the other assumptions at the start of this post.

The only advantage is that It could increase your privacy a little. Bear in mind that if you push a bunch of transactions to a website acting as BCH push service, then that website could easily collect some tasty data. If you push every output of BCH you own all that in the same browser session, it's reasonable for the website to assume that whoever pushed all the transactions also owns all the associated outputs being sent, and that's effectively deanonymising any corresponding outputs on the original Bitcoin blockchain (that also belong to you). Don't leak that information if you can avoid it!