Quote from: tvbcof on June 03, 2013, 08:19:13 PM

Quote from: Kempelen on June 03, 2013, 07:57:46 PM

[Try taking your meds first before thinking. You might at least generate something coherent.

My, how clever and original you are!

I'm try very hard to avoid the tech section in order keep in order to keep it marginally useful. I'm out now. I'll sell you some uBTC on the Google 'send money' thingy in a year or two. So, see ya in hell.

Don't give up that quick. Gavin represents the United States-centric, FinCEN fearing above-ground side of Bitcoin; the world is a lot bigger and a lot more diverse than that. I suspect Peter Vanesse and his "we'll help regulators crush bad actors" antics are a much smaller part of Bitcoin than you might think.

Speaking of, reminds me of an email I got yesterday:

Quote

Date: Sun, 02 Jun 2013 02:40:10 +0100 From: aitahk2l <aitahk2l@tormail.org> To: pete@petertodd.org Subject: Your timestamper We spoke a few months back and I sent you some funds to run your timestamper. I'm letting you know we're going back to unspendable txout timestamps for our needs. Your service is great, but I think you have written it prematurely. Like you said in your recent bitcoin-development post on sacrifices if the technology enables a use, people will use it. Inefficient timestamping is one such use and threatens the blockchain with unlimited bloat, but from what I hear from Gavin he doesn't see decentralization as particularly important. You really should turn off your OpenTimestamps servers. They mislead people into a sense of scalability that just isn't there. You'll see some of our efforts at 1MBGavinWuiJCF6thGfEriB2WhDD5nhB2a soon; frankly I think he is the biggest threat Bitcoin faces in the long term and will back us all into a scalability corner with no good solutions. Feel free to forward this message to others.

When I first heard from this guy he sincerely wanted to help out Bitcoin by moving his timestamping needs to my OpenTimestamps service to try to avoid UTXO bloat, and now he's pissed off enough to be adding to the problem as a political statement. Of course, that's a tormail address, and he's been using my service through Tor according to my logs; I suspect he doesn't share Peter Vanesse's thoughts on Bitcoin...

Having said that, nothing wrong with taking a break from the forums - easy to get yourself exhausted by it.

I will say though, Gavin's proposed 75% threshold is kinda funny - right now it would take just three or four pools to meet it.

I really gotta make my decentralizing mining project with pooled-solo mode happen: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=221164.0