Re: Satoshi proposed a gentlemans agreement to postpone GPU mining (2009)
Crumbs, you are quite simply an imbecile, why are you talking about poop, cream cheese and crackers?
You tried to posit that in order to accomodate more users (up to a level matching the banks' current level) would require more (electical) power usage than the banks:
Then you regress on this assertion, by agreeing that the hashrate is not "required", and so that in order to accomodate more users, theoretically, might not even require any more hashrate than we have now, although we both know that practically it will.
Then you agree with me.
Then you talk about cheese and the moon, and then again. I think you have made a total of about 3 analogies in this thread now, of which all three were completely nonsensical and not appropriate for (well, anything) the topic at hand.
I can't believe I even replied to your ramblings. Your ignore light is about to be lit up a little bit brighter
You tried to posit that in order to accomodate more users (up to a level matching the banks' current level) would require more (electical) power usage than the banks:
Lol, if traditional banks burned as much power as bitcoin miners (who will continue mining until energy cost=bitcoin value), they'd have to plug into the nearest sun, conventional power grid would be just piss in the ocean 
Then you regress on this assertion, by agreeing that the hashrate is not "required", and so that in order to accomodate more users, theoretically, might not even require any more hashrate than we have now, although we both know that practically it will.
We do not "require" the current hashrate to secure the network.
Then you agree with me.
Then you talk about cheese and the moon, and then again. I think you have made a total of about 3 analogies in this thread now, of which all three were completely nonsensical and not appropriate for (well, anything) the topic at hand.
I can't believe I even replied to your ramblings. Your ignore light is about to be lit up a little bit brighter