Quote from: brg444 on September 06, 2015, 07:33:05 PM

Quote from: Peter R on September 06, 2015, 07:24:33 PM

According to the Bitcoin white paper, it was designed for "small casual transactions" that are too costly with conventional trust-based online payment methods (e.g., Visa, Paypal, etc.)

Man... that's like your own interpretation. Have you considered that Satoshi's proposition was to create a trustless layer from which services enabling these transactions could be created?

I really don't see how you're still trying to fight for including all of the world's transaction on the blockchain when there is consensus among pretty much all the qualified engineers (that would include Gavin although I'm increasingly doubtful about his qualifications) that a POW system is simply not able to efficiently service this type of load/transactions.

You and cypherdoc's crew are really alone in your own little world and it's quite worrying to see you entertain this cargo cult

I like people (such as Luke-jr) who intentionally choose to reside in elaborately constructed private worlds of Baroque fantasy. At least they aren't boring! Grin

But Gavinistas aren't independent thinkers, so they suck. All they do is tediously rationalize their externally implanted desire for a Magical UniCoin capable of piling every proof-of-work quorum system in the world into one dataset.

Even non-specialists can understand the logic of trickle-down honesty best explained by davout and (more recently) Holliday:

Quote from: davout on March 09, 2015, 11:08:02 AM

The true value that Bitcoin brings to the table is not "everyone gets to write into the holy ledger", it is instead "everyone gets to benefit from sane and non-inflationary financial instutions whose sanity and honesty are ensured by the holy blockchain". -davout

Quote from: Holliday on September 06, 2015, 04:57:07 PM

All transactions do not need to be censorship-proof in a world where censorship-proof transactions exist. The possibility of censorship-proof transactions by itself will cut down on censorship because it will be seen as futile.

Peter R and Frap.doc's problem is Dunning-Kruger. They have outsmarted themselves, in pursuit of (preferred but incorrect) conclusions within domains where they mistakenly consider themselves experts.

Oh well...their ensuing cognitive dissonance, as XT/101 burns on the ash heap of history, is at least a source of entertaining lulz and cautionary precedent. Tongue