Quote from: Carlton Banks on September 23, 2015, 03:14:33 PM

Quote from: knight22 on September 23, 2015, 12:54:18 PM

Quote from: Zarathustra on September 23, 2015, 12:40:41 PM

Quote from: Carlton Banks on September 23, 2015, 11:41:22 AM

Quote from: Zarathustra on September 23, 2015, 11:28:42 AM

Quote from: Carlton Banks on September 23, 2015, 10:50:25 AM

Quote from: knight22 on September 23, 2015, 04:11:41 AM

Quote from: brg444 on September 23, 2015, 04:07:06 AM

Again, it doesn't matter what "the market" wants, Bitcoin is not governed by free-market but by rules enforced by a consensus of its peers so as to keep every network actors' incentives aligned.

How soon we forget the peer-to-peer network is useless and worthless if it doesn't serve a market...

It's tiered. 3 tiers.

(welcome to Bitcoin by the way, I understand you're new to the subject)

Tier 1 is the development team writing rules for the consensus algorithm. This happens in the first instance (i.e. Satoshi etc)

That's how Bitcoin has been since day one.

Until it changed. It's the same with all Open Source Projects. 'In the first instance', there is the team. Later, there are the teams (competition).

"Bitcoin is the Devil's way of teaching geeks [and communists] economics."

Quote from: Carlton Banks on September 23, 2015, 10:50:25 AM

We all know you simultaneously believe that Bitcoin already has the users at Tier 1 and also that the users should be promoted to tier 1. My advice to you and Peter and the rest of you cohort; go and do it if you believe in it so much. But don't keep implying your preferred model is the reality, or to alter the bitcoin system into that model; the model is as stated above.

Take some more advice: if you wish to make meaningful replies in any debate, it helps to establish your credibility as a participant if you can demonstrate that you comprehend any points you seek to reply to. If you cannot do this, the literal context for the argument cannot even take place, i.e. discourse, but not an argument

Notorious ad hominem users are not in a position to give advice about credibility.

Let them do their ad hominem. This is just a natural reaction of defenceless people with no solid arguments. It only hence points of those with real arguments at the end of the day.

It's difficult to know what to do with you two, as you consistently make non-meaningful replies in this debate. It can only be either ineptitude or willful distortion, and you reject both when presented to you publicly. I wonder if the rest of the reading humans can identify "defenceless people with no solid arguments" as they choose for themselves.

Well then you should just continue with your ad hominem which you are very good at. Now you should also cross you fingers in hope that it will adds up to your credibility (I wouldn't bet on that though).