Quote from: gentlemand on February 24, 2017, 06:28:54 PM

Quote from: deisik on February 24, 2017, 06:23:17 PM

With Bitcoin, this obviously won't work, and the free market will be the ultimate judge since no one will be using a service which does something nasty

There only need to be enough happy customers to drown out the ones who are potentially needlessly raped. And no service wants to be nasty, when money's involved they're so twitchy to please The Man they'll go insanely overboard with a breath of provocation.

And this scenario already exists in the form of Coinbase and we can see every day that people are getting nuked by them, often with no explanation. With an accessible blockchain at least Coinbase is purely optional. It wouldn't be if this stuff carries on

This is a meaningless argument

Note that I don't deny that some folks end up nuked by this web wallet. Just today I read about some guy who lost 16 bitcoins there (which were confiscated by Coinbase). What I say basically comes down to asserting that there should always be a reason behind locking someone's funds. I don't say that it is necessarily a legit one, but otherwise we have no other option left but to assume that Coinbase uses a random number generator which arbitrarily bans their clients and takes possession of their money

Quote from: BillyBobZorton on February 24, 2017, 06:32:43 PM

There are only 2 type of people that still haven't understood those facts:

1) Delusional idiots that still don't get the fact that bitcoin is secure is because of its conservative blocksize
2) Paid trolls to trash against blockstream

Bitcoin is not a socialist utopia. Storing transactions in a decentralized network is expensive. Pay the fee and shut the fuck.

The only one who is delusional here is you. Over 90% of all transactions are nowadays confirmed by a dozen (or even less) miners. Now tell us more about decentralization