Quote from: captnCrunch on Today at 11:12:35 AM

You mean people who don‘t blindly trust you and try to understand your blockchain? I admit I made one mistake reading your code but that‘s not a reason to make fun of me and call me brain dead and id*ot. Especially after the other critics were true. It just shows that I was right with my suspicion. You behaviour is clearly a sign that you are not trustworthy.

Your arguments have a name: ad hominem fallacy. So according to you, being called dumb for a mistake was unfair? Yet you're fine doing the same to others? In fact, you’ve made several other mistakes, like claiming that with the current reward system we’d go beyond 21M.

No. If you’re so smart, you must have noticed that transaction fees are burned, not added to the block reward.
You also must have seen that a tail emission is configured to start once we hit 20.9M. Maybe in your mind, that tail emission makes it go over 21M, ignoring over 15 years of fee burning.
And let’s not forget the obvious: we still have almost 20 years to decide whether to eliminate the tail emission entirely. You keep acting like every line of initial code must be followed religiously. Otherwise, I can’t understand your limited way of thinking.

But let’s go back to the ad hominem fallacy. So we, seeing your repeated mistakes, which show you don’t really understand what you’re talking about (not saying you know nothing), can’t form an opinion about you?

But you, on the other hand, over one "mistake" in the code, and I’ll call it a mistake just for argument’s sake, feel entitled to say I’m not trustworthy? Fine.

And let’s be clear: whether I decide the block reward or the halving method today, tomorrow, or through a vote with my community (which was and still is the idea) it’s none of your business. But sure, let’s call it a mistake. Does that give you the right to claim I’m not to be trusted?

You’ve shared your nonsense, and we listened. Now please, go away.