We won the fight against censorship and aritificial limits - consensus is near

[Lauda]

No, to talk with authority you HAVE TO be there. And you are trying to talk with authority over others. You have the same zero percentage proof to back up your argument.

I've completely disregarded that word. I've listed an example and an additional way of confirming it yourself, that's more than enough. A example that you've intentionally chosen to ignore. Again, instead of writing additional posts I suggest that you do research or use IRC.
Update: I'm wasting my time as you're derailing the thread. I will not respond further.

[1715028630]

1715028630

[Minecache]

No, to talk with authority you HAVE TO be there. And you are trying to talk with authority over others. You have the same zero percentage proof to back up your argument.

I've completely disregarded that word. I've listed an example and an additional way of confirming it yourself, that's more than enough. A example that you've intentionally chosen to ignore. Again, instead of writing additional posts I suggest that you do research or use IRC.

You do realise what I say and do in public can be the complete opposite of what I think for reason unbeknownst to you? Think about it. FFS

[RodeoX]

Not sure if I made myself clear enough, in case I haven't:
The appeal of Bitcoin, the sales pitch, was that Bitcoin is immune to human failings, corruption, etc., that instead of needing to trust people, it's sufficient to trust in math ("backed by math").
Turns out no -- just like everything else, you got to trust people, in this case a bunch of manchildren who'll never play nice together.

Welcome to democracy. The system was always supposed to work this way. It was designed to be extremely change resistant and only change when a huge percentage of users agree to the changes. If you don't agree with the proposals then you should do something. Anyone can mine or run a node of their choice, and no one has any more control than what you could have. This is a trust-less system. Only the completely predictable math in the protocol controls the supply, distribution, etc. If you want to change anything just make a version and convince the overwhelming majority of users to follow you. That is what others are doing.

[bargainbin]

Not sure if I made myself clear enough, in case I haven't:
The appeal of Bitcoin, the sales pitch, was that Bitcoin is immune to human failings, corruption, etc., that instead of needing to trust people, it's sufficient to trust in math ("backed by math").
Turns out no -- just like everything else, you got to trust people, in this case a bunch of manchildren who'll never play nice together.

Welcome to democracy. The system was always supposed to work this way.

... Bitcoin is not a democracy. How many times does this have to be explained to you guys? ...

--Lauda, Bitcointalk staff.

[RodeoX]

Not sure if I made myself clear enough, in case I haven't:
The appeal of Bitcoin, the sales pitch, was that Bitcoin is immune to human failings, corruption, etc., that instead of needing to trust people, it's sufficient to trust in math ("backed by math").
Turns out no -- just like everything else, you got to trust people, in this case a bunch of manchildren who'll never play nice together.

Welcome to democracy. The system was always supposed to work this way.

... Bitcoin is not a democracy. How many times does this have to be explained to you guys? ...

--Lauda, Bitcointalk staff.

Well, I call a system that requires a consensus democratic. But perhaps he has a more nuanced definition of democracy. My point is that nobody is making you do anything unless they convince most everyone to go along with a change. It does suck to try bringing all these competing interests to a decision, but that has always been the plan. We could just change the code so that one person or a bank would decide on all changes. But who the hell would want bitcoin if that was the case? 

[bargainbin]

Not sure if I made myself clear enough, in case I haven't:
The appeal of Bitcoin, the sales pitch, was that Bitcoin is immune to human failings, corruption, etc., that instead of needing to trust people, it's sufficient to trust in math ("backed by math").
Turns out no -- just like everything else, you got to trust people, in this case a bunch of manchildren who'll never play nice together.

Welcome to democracy. The system was always supposed to work this way.

... Bitcoin is not a democracy. How many times does this have to be explained to you guys? ...

--Lauda, Bitcointalk staff.

Well, I call a system that requires a consensus democratic. But perhaps he has a more nuanced definition of democracy. My point is that nobody is making you do anything unless they convince most everyone to go along with a change. < snip >

No. The only people that need to be convinced are right here:



Welcome to Bitcoin!

[RodeoX]

No. The only people that need to be convinced are right here:



Welcome to Bitcoin!

Completely incorrect. You must get an overwhelming majority. If there really were only 20 miners in the world then the question becomes "why aren't you mining?" If you put millions of dollars into bitcoin, like those guys did, then you could compete with them. Bitcoin rewards for work, it's not free money, it's fair money. Any consolidation is limited to what the market will logically allow. Too much and other profit minded players start mining. True centralization is possible only when people leave money on the table, which is illogical.

[bargainbin]

No. The only people that need to be convinced are right here:



Welcome to Bitcoin!

Completely incorrect. You must get an overwhelming majority. If there really were only 20 miners in the world then the question becomes "why aren't you mining?" If you put millions of dollars into bitcoin, like those guys did, then you could compete with them. Bitcoin rewards for work, it's not free money, it's fair money. Any consolidation is limited to what the market will logically allow. Too much and other profit minded players start mining. True centralization is possible only when people leave money on the table, which is illogical.

Nah, I'm fine.
To begin with, democracy doesn't work by "how much money you sunk into it" (or, at least, not in principle).
So You might want to brush up on your democracy.

But, even humoring the notion of "financial stake," let's say I own half of all the bitcoins mined, but don't mine: no voice. If you think it's possible for an average user to mine Not_At_A_Loss, you're simply wrong -- economy of scale & subsidized Chinese power.
GL.

EDIT:

[RodeoX]

Nah, I'm fine.
To begin with, democracy doesn't work by "how much money you sunk into it" (or, at least, not in principle).
So You might want to brush up on your democracy.

But, even humoring the notion of "financial stake," let's say I own half of all the bitcoins mined, but don't mine: no voice. If you think it's possible for an average user to mine Not_At_A_Loss, you're simply wrong -- economy of scale & subsidized Chinese power.
GL.

EDIT:

Your right about small scale mining. It has gone to an industrial scale and entering the mining business would require large capitol investments. But anyone, anywhere is free to take a shot at it. That group in the picture has no ability whatsoever to stop you from going even bigger and eating their lunch. They have power, but not authority.

Let me compare it to a true unholy system, the "qualified investor". This law is changing right now but until this year poor people were not allowed to invest. It was illegal for you to invest a few thousand dollars in a local business.
Say a hardware store near you needs money to expand. They can seek investors, but only qualified investors. And what qualifies one to be an investor? You simply must be rich, that's all. You must have a million dollars in the bank and show that you will likely make a million in the next year. The idea is that poor people should work to make capitol gains for the investor class.  They must be  barred from investing and protected from making bad investment choices. So if I had a doctorate in economics but were poor I am unqualified. But if I had down syndrome and a million bucks I can be trusted to make the right decisions and can be a qualified investor. How fucking insulting is that. 

[bargainbin]

^^
How did we get from Bitcoin's consensus mechanism to US market regulations?
But fine, if you want to trot out that pony, I'm game.
To get a TL;DR of why civilized countries have regulated markets, go to this forum's "securities" section. Yeah, ded. Died of fail & AIDS, that's why. That was unregulated market in action: all the issuers OKTHXBAI & all teh intrepid investors still liking their brass balls, wondering wtf happened.

I understand that you think you're as smart as anyone in the securities market, that you're plenty good enough, and that you have a right to make your own mistakes, but nannystate won't let you.
Life is unfair like that.
You get to be bummed about your limited investment options, the other half of the world worries about getting enough to eat. You don't get to invest in Crystal's Massage & Casino? Roughly half of humankind get to live on less than $2 a day.
Chin up, Buttercup -- you'll get by.

>So if I had a doctorate in economics
So if you had a doctorate in economics, you wouldn't be posting this bullshit. Read up on late 19th/early 20th century stock market.