There is a HUGE HUGE HUGE HUGE jump from what we have outlined in the initial post IS HAPPENING NOW and 100% fair and equal treatment of all members.
You don't believe then that it is worth moving from an extreme at one end of the scale toward a MORE fair and equal treatment of all members?
The current trust system. The merit system. They are both flawed and failures because they are based on input from human beings who are always selfish and self serving. Prone to form tribes and act in a manner that favors their tribe. Any system that uses humans to try and be "fair" etc is doomed to fail. So unless you can come up with a way to deal with the issues the current systems try and fix, that doesn't require humans, then any other system will also be flawed. Could the current ones be made better? Most likely. How about you tell all of us what your superior system(s) would be. The reality is that no one likes to hear complaint after complaint. You want to be proactive, present options/improvements. Offer up some solutions.
Just because perfection is NOT POSSIBLE in your estimation in terms ensuring fair and equal treatment of all members in terms of their "ecash" satoshi should not have bothered you say?
What are you talking about? The forum, or bitcoin? Satoshi had nothing to do with the forum in terms of how it is or should be run.
Of course many will say bitcoin is not fair, but could you say it is a vast improvement over the central banking system?
The concept of decentralized e-cash is better. Whether or not bitcoin will achieve that we won't know for many years to come. We haven't even reached the point yet where miners have to rely purely on fees to pay their bills. That could completely change a lot of things for bitcoin. It's also not hard to come up with many ways the governments could shut down all crypto if they really wanted to. With all the KYC and stuff already permeating this space, it's a slow march towards it becoming just an extension of the current financial system. But none of that has to do with the topic of this thread.
We believe the true value of anonymints posts can only fairly be appraised by those that have the capacity and the training in the specific areas he primarily posted about. That is like 0.001% of this board or less.
He was really good at making those that don't know better, think he always knew what he was talking about and that he was right. He would overwhelm people with walls of text and he would jump around from one thing to another making it impossible for anyone to effectively debate him and then actually reach any sort of real conclusion as to who was right. It's a common tactic by those that only seek to "win"... "Claiming" you were right does not mean you are. Posting one sided threads saying you're right or you came up with something etc, does not make it so. Most people just couldn't be bothers pointing out where he was right or wrong. Which means he could not really be believed a lot of the time. Having said that, I did value some of his technical discussions up to the point he would start to "go off the deep end" so to speak at which point there was no longer any value in what he would have to say.
However, when he would be debating and arguing on less technical matters it seemed that his central points were again rarely if ever debunked.
You would be completely wrong there but I'm not going to bother digging up instances to this, some of them I was involved with in the past which is why I know this to be true.
This thread is supposed to be about the forum is it not?