Quote from: iCEBREAKER on August 10, 2015, 03:45:34 AM

Quote from: justusranvier on August 10, 2015, 02:33:49 AM

Quote from: iCEBREAKER on August 10, 2015, 12:11:52 AM

Yes, how dare anyone take care to insulate debates from ad hom fallacies and protect their families/careers from internet whackjobs?

Fuck Satoshi Nakamoto for being an anonymous coward! Nobody ever said disrupting gold, central banks, and fintech settlement would be safe or easy! Man up and make sacrifices! The revolution needs martyrs!

And fuck Publius for writing all those mean things about how the King of England treats his American Colonies. Such a gutless terror-symp, am I right?

The purpose of anonymous speech is, as you mentioned, to avoid adverse consequences of speaking.

In general you can divide this further into two categories:

1. Avoiding the adverse consequences of telling the truth
2. Avoiding the adverse consequences of telling a lie

1. Is admirable, 2. is contemptible.

Quote from: iCEBREAKER on August 10, 2015, 12:11:52 AM

PS Still waiting for your concern over lack of an objective, precise definition for Bitcoin network "overcapacity" to result in some amazing new concepts and dimensionless numbers.

After all the hand wringing you performed over our unforgivably sloppy use of "decentralized" I'm sure such research is your top priority. Grin

I have no idea what you're talking about now.

You are half right. Here, let me help:

Quote

The purpose of anonymous speech is to to avoid adverse consequences of speaking and ensure an abstract debate of the issue's merits in a vaccuum, free from nonsense about personalities and biographies.

Fixed ^it^ for you. Cool

I didn't *only* mention avoiding adverse consequences of speaking, although that is the part of my main comment to which you responded.

The neglected other half was about insulating debates from ad hom fallacies ("GMAX BACKAMOTO = THE BLOCKSTREAM CONSPIRACY!!1 PLUS PETERTOAD VIACOIN WTF?!?").

I understand that consequence, which is to the benefit of the audience as much as (or more than) the speaker, does not further the anonymity-implies-something-to-hide meme you seek to promote, so small wonder you ignored it.

The PS is fairly simple. Given your Great Concern about a rigorous definition of decentralization, your silence about the same issue with 'overcapacity' is deafening.

You say we can't (usefully and without concern trolling) discuss decentralization without assigning it a number from 1 to 10 (with 20 decimals places for precision).

Fair enough, let's attempt to define our crypto-terms. Now, where is the same demand when Frap.doc starts hyperventilating because the network is "choking" and "overcapacity?"

You don't get call out sloppy "I know it when I see it" use of one crypto-term while ignoring another. Wink

just stop with all the iCEBLOW. admit it. you're greedy.