These statements don't make much sense without at least some degree of practical validation of your fundamental argument. Even if you could somehow make it work, it will require a considerable amount of research and development effort. How can one be hypocritical about the superiority of a method that isn't even possible yet?
Dude what are you talking about? I didn't bring up encoin in this thread, I don't even have it linked it my sig.
As I said, you have a good idea, you should go for it. But attacking competing implementations is very premature, considering you don't have one.
I've been attacking bitcoin since before I came up with encoin. Was I not allowed to do it then without having a competing implementation? Or even a proposal for one?
Nope. The issue is about one person changing the rules in a very top-down manner. You are trying to make this about the static generation curve. I don't think anyone ever complained about that feature of SolidCoin.
I didn't say I was selling any or all of my possessions. However, I might sell some for SolidCoins.
Well the people who pre-mined 12M coins and the ones who mined in the first million coins at 1/10,000th the work per coin will thank you for the transfer of wealth.
unlike bitcoin where they'll just tell you to fuck off if you don't like it https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=75157.0
static generation curve? blah blah? what? Just pointing out for the 8,000th time that D&T is so rabidly a fan of bitcoin that he just comes off as a putz. But he's probably got me on ignore again.