Quote from: danielpbarron on February 13, 2015, 09:12:06 PM

False. If you have pre-fork coins, you have equal amounts of post-fork coins on each chain. There is no "worthless transaction." You can safely split the coins and spend them both. The split is achieved by broadcasting a transaction on one chain and a doublespend of it on the other. If you don't doublespend it, someone else will probably leak the transaction to the other chain; you will still have coins on both, and can just try to split again until it works. There is no risk of accidentally making your coins unspendable, and I suspect you have implied this possibility for the purpose of tricking people into not trying. I know it's tempting to believe that your stupid fork will happen because of the overwhelming amount of USG clones spamming this thread, but the fact of the matter is this: #bitcoin-assets will win the fork war, and the doublespending of coins will only benefit us.

20 years a man gave lectures on exactly how bitocin will do exactly this to our civilization, and we would rather ignore logic and reason. People casting aside netwon, copernicus, Nash, as if they know this subject at all.

Quote

But the famous classical "Greshams Law" also reveals the intrinsic difficulty. Thus "good money" will not naturally supplant and replace "bad money" by a simple Darwinian superiority of competitive species. Rather than that, it must be that the good things are established by the voluntary choice of human agencies. And these resp-onsible agencies, being naturally of the domain of polit-ically derived authorities, would need to make appropriate efforts to achieve such a goal and to pay the costs that are entailed before their societies can benefit. And the benefits would come from the improvement in the quality
of this public utility (money) which serves to facilitate the game-theoretic function of "the transfer of utility".

What is so broken that we feel so privileged to act so ignorant and blind? Should we function on science or religion?