Re: Analysis and list of top big blocks shills (XT #REKT ignorers)
This sounds like a MBA school failure example: Ignoring your strengths and trying to match one on one with a competitor in an area where you're weakest and the slowest to improve and they're strongest and the fastest to improve. Especially since considering payment networks as the primary competition for a _currency_ is a bit bizarre. Yet a payment network is all that some have wanted Bitcoin to be... I don't begrudge that, but the weirdness of the goal doesn't relieve it from having to have a logically consistent roadmap, or permit it to take down the whole currency in its failure.
Wow, good find. The Gavinista Big Lie (Bitcoin replaces commercial, not central, banking) goes back much farther than I thought.
Looks like Hearn isn't the only one who was never really a good ideological fit for Bitcoin...and whose misalignment with Bitcoin has existed forever.
I plan on using Bitcoins as a convenient, very-low-cost means of exchange.
I don't plan on saving a significant number of Bitcoins as a store of value.
If you use Bitcoins as a store of value... well, then you're a currency speculator, which can be highly profitable but is also highly risky. Whether you're hoarding dollars or euros or yen or Bitcoins...
I don't plan on saving a significant number of Bitcoins as a store of value.
If you use Bitcoins as a store of value... well, then you're a currency speculator, which can be highly profitable but is also highly risky. Whether you're hoarding dollars or euros or yen or Bitcoins...
The circular logic is inescapable: 'Bitcoin is a currency, not a store of value; therefore holding Bitcoin as a store of value is currency speculation.'
I guess from Gavin's POV holding gold and silver makes me a "currency speculator."
blame it on his "evil little mind"
I don't believe a second, compatible implementation of Bitcoin will ever be a good idea. So much of the design depends on all nodes getting exactly identical results in lockstep that a second implementation would be a menace to the network. The MIT license is compatible with all other licenses and commercial uses, so there is no need to rewrite it from a licensing standpoint.
Good idea or not, SOMEBODY will try to mess up the network (or co-opt it for their own use) sooner or later. They'll either hack the existing code or write their own version, and will be a menace to the network.I admire the flexibility of the scripts-in-a-transaction scheme, but my evil little mind immediately starts to think of ways I might abuse it. I could encode all sorts of interesting information in the TxOut script, and if non-hacked clients validated-and-then-ignored those transactions it would be a useful covert broadcast communication channel.
That's a cool feature until it gets popular and somebody decides it would be fun to flood the payment network with millions of transactions to transfer the latest Lady Gaga video to all their friends...