I completely and absolutely disagree.
Satoshi created a revolutionary currency model - if you call that a "bad precedent", perhaps you're on the wrong side of the wall.
1. It's not revolutionary, it copies gold with a highly accelerated timescale and the
2. inability to cope
at all with demand. The concept and the structures realized in code - absolutely brilliant, no question. The monetary system - barf.
There was no "community" before Satoshi - he built the community based on a generational leap in socioeconomics theory and cryptographic utility.
3. A community that has a few thousand people that will rabidly support bitcoin to the ends of the Earth and are unwilling to even discuss alternative systems without foaming, a few thousand more that are trying to engender their own rabid fanbase, and a bunch of people that are taken for a ride. Meh.
A consensus-based unregulated digital currency that exists independent of the existing fiat currency system sans traditional gatekeepers, and as I've said earlier, based on a generational leap in socioeconomics theory and cryptographic utility - you barf at this as if even a remotely similar, competing technology exists before? Your have a strange definition of revolutionary.
2. "inability to cope at all with demand"
Please elaborate. I''m curious to see which end you'll be leaning towards. It would be good if this doesn't veer towards your own crypto.
3. I realize your earlier account was banned, which would explain your intense dislike of the Bitcoin community as a whole. However, it doesn't change the fact that said community exists because of Satoshi. You originally accused Satoshi of "fracturing" the community, oblivious to the fact that he created the community and said "fracture" occurred long after he's left the scene. The fact that you keep returning here to promote your crypto shows you too want to leverage the knowledge/wealth of the community. Am I wrong?
Further, I noticed you missed the third part of my quote. I'll just repost it to keep the discussion in perspective.
Fyi, I'm excited to see how you will substantiate your rather extreme positions.
I think Satoshi set a very bad precedent, and he also knew it. Instead of uniting a community, it is totally fractured based on greed.
I completely and absolutely disagree.
Satoshi created a revolutionary currency model - if you call that a "bad precedent", perhaps you're on the wrong side of the wall.
There was no "community" before Satoshi - he built the community based on a generational leap in socioeconomics theory and cryptographic utility.
As far as "fracturing" the community, Satoshi made his position quite clear during the early days with BitDNS (the precursor to Namecoin).
I think it would be possible for BitDNS to be a completely separate network and separate block chain, yet share CPU power with Bitcoin. The only overlap is to make it so miners can search for proof-of-work for both networks simultaneously.
The networks wouldn't need any coordination. Miners would subscribe to both networks in parallel. They would scan SHA such that if they get a hit, they potentially solve both at once. A solution may be for just one of the networks if one network has a lower difficulty.
I think an external miner could call getwork on both programs and combine the work. Maybe call Bitcoin, get work from it, hand it to BitDNS getwork to combine into a combined work.
Instead of fragmentation, networks share and augment each other's total CPU power. This would solve the problem that if there are multiple networks, they are a danger to each other if the available CPU power gangs up on one. Instead, all networks in the world would share combined CPU power, increasing the total strength. It would make it easier for small networks to get started by tapping into a ready base of miners.
The advent and, subsequently, abuse and corruption of alternative cryptocurrencies is a byproduct of capitalism, human greed and the apathy of the forum administrators.