You can't just take $200Mn from the people, without doing vast amount of researches on your product
That insouciance is what happens when you put Millennials in control.
Barry Silbert says:
Although Silbert is excited about Ethereum, he does not agree with the vision held by some of Ethereum’s most-ardent supporters. He explained:
“I sense there’s a certain utopian view of society, which I may or may not agree with philosophically, that I just don’t see from a real-world application perspective happening anytime soon.”
I have a new theory that the altcoin speculation market is largely stratified by generational differences (in addition to for example cultural differences between Europeans and Americans for example).
On one end of the spectrum, we have Millennials (Z generation) who were raised spoiled by their middle-age boomer parents, and thus have this sort of
unrealistic cartoonish or "everything is a game" (and take money from the rich like we did to our parents) outlook similar to how Vitalik described himself:
Buterin won’t commit to a full explanation of why he became interested in Bitcoin on the second go around. He had recently quit playing World of Warcraft, and perhaps he was just looking for the next obsession to take its place, he says. But he does admit to having a dualistic worldview that faulted centralized powers with many of society’s sins.
“I had a much more cartoon mentality,” he says as he squeezes a lemon wedge into his green tea, then begins looping the string on the teabag incessantly around the handle of his mug. “I saw everything to do with either government regulation or corporate control as just being plain evil. And I assumed that people in those institutions were kind of like Mr. Burns, sitting behind their desks saying, ‘Excellent. How can I screw a thousand people over this time.’”
In this way, his worldview was harmonious with the vast majority of Bitcoin early adopters who fully expected the technology to operate as a stealthy foil for the status quo. And though he says he has substantially updated his binary assessment of good and evil, Buterin is still motivated by a conviction that the powerful have far too much power.
“I think a large part of the consequence is necessarily going to be disempowering some of these centralized players to some extent,” he says. “Because ultimately power is a zero sum game. And if you talk about empowering the little guy, as much as you want to couch it in flowery terminology that makes it sound fluffy and good, you are necessarily disempowering the big guy. And personally I say screw the big guy. They have enough money already.”
Just older than them are the Tweeners (Y generation) such as Daniel Larimer who were born in between the neglected X generation and the spoiled Z generation, thus they have a confused identity with some mix of wannabee Libertarianism like us GenXers but needing the pillow of increasing collectivism/socialism under which they were raised.
I am GenX. We were abandoned by our parents and the socialism wasn't very well developed yet in the 1970s and 1980s when we were growing up. So we had to fend for ourselves and thus are very pragmatic.
...
What Steemit is trying to do is collectivize our funds amongst the entire social network, then redistribute our funds based on who receives the most valid up voting.
Sorry but people don't want to join a social network to have their funds taken from them (for all those who are average) and redistributed to those who are above average.
Dan Larimer is a smart guy but in my opinion has always been (since I first debated him in BCT in 2013 about his plan to pay every token HODLer a dividend) a socialist/collectivist in a faux Libertarian skin. And that is why in my opinion all his designs have failed to achieve greatness.
Here are more recent examples I've experienced when interfacing with these irresponsible youth:
It is about you failing to respond to any of my technical points and wanting to just ignore the reality.
You don't want to have substantive debate with an expert.
Seems you are offended by something. I asked you what is 'rancid' in the other thread I linked to which had expressed some of the same logic as your OP, and you said the threads smell like fish. That isn't a very substantive response. You are all fluff. How about focusing in on the issues instead. I raised many issues and you seem to not be interested even though they are directly related to your OP.
Any way, I don't care. Enjoy what ever you are doing with this thread.
The reason I mentioned ego is in response to your statement, " With such "Technical superiority" your modesty is astounding.". I asked you to be aware of my knowledge set and not brush off my comments nonchalantly. You got offended by my lack of modesty.
It seems you don't comprehend the seriousness of the situation facing the world right now. When you are stuck in a 666 enslavement system some years from now, it will be too late to get your freedom back.
I have been working night and day for many years to prevent that from happening. You made an OP that seemed to recognize that Bitcoin is in dilemma. I am making you aware that it was designed to be in that dilemma. Because it is designed to enslave the world.
I have studied the consensus design and even explained that Satoshi didn't solve the Byzantine Generals Problem. I have studied the SegWit and other changes being made to Bitcoin. There is a pattern to all of this.
Your technical expertise are appreciated elsewhere this was a
logical discussion about Bitcoin and only Bitcoin's future. Not the future of the whole world.
Bitcoin can't be fixed. The issue that your OP explains in insoluble. You can only hope to replace it. Bitcoin will be scaled up centralized. And it will enslave the world. Period. That is the answer.
I offered another option, but you don't want to discuss it. So end of thread.
The centralized Bitcoin won't be 51% attacked bcz those controlling it will have the 666 control system they designed Bitcoin to accomplish. In the transitionary phase now, the Chinese miners will be handed lots of wealth as the process of centralizing mining proceeds. We can't say every Chinese miner today knows he is part of the ultimate plan. We can't even say the Blockstream devs know they are part of some diabolical plan. They are just trying to fix a design that can't be fixed without restarting from scratch. Compartmentalization is the modus operandi of the DEEP STATE. This is a process. The DEEP STATE that designed Bitcoin has a plan over years.
Our other hope is the system blows up technically. But that is why Blockstream is receiving so much funding, because they probably have the expertise to centralize Bitcoin sufficiently whil still being able to give some illusion of decentralization for sufficient time that Bitcoin maximalists fall into the trap, of which SegWit is a major step in that direction.
In all honesty the Vcash project moves fast. It's only a year and half old and has evolved quite a bit since genesis. Because of Johns rapid pace of development on the Vcash project we (the community) are consistently trying to play ketchup understanding his technology and architecture. It's a learning process for us and much as it is for you. We are only human. Unfortunately the very people like Fuserleer who could take a deeper look into John's code is unwilling. So what more to discuss? His mind is made up already who are we to tell him he's wrong?
I pity you n00bs. Sincerely good luck.
Welcome back TPTB. I thank you for your sincerity but I don't really need your pity. I have every confidence in John Conner's work because he actually developing and pushing real software. He doesn't just talk, he does. In my n00bie opinion that's what matters most. Talk is cheap because action speaks louder than words.
Action. Like the 1000 shitcoins that came before and died. And Vcash is apparently not entirely launched yet.
Yes you are welcome to hump any random garbage can along the side of the road. That is a form of action. Again I pity you.
Vcash is in beta sure but damn guy you don't have be to rude. Sure we have different views no need to get hostile and start insulting others for it.
I am not intending to be any more rude than the rudeness of your insinuation that I have not done action. How is
for example this action by myself not action?
Action is a nebulous term. That is what I am explaining to you by example.
I am also explaining you are quite blind to the action that others are doing. A single-minded focus on the random tree stump in front of you, is what a dog does.
