Is it even fair to ask a rhetorician for concise facts that should be indisputable?
I'm into improving Bitcoin, but I think we need agreement on what is wrong with it and why it should be improved, there are lots of BIS in the pipe, I just what to know what's wrong with Bitcoin that the SC proposal is supposed to fix
"improve"? Ive been doing product development for over 20 years, and if there is one lesson I've learned the hard way it is if it isn't broken don't fix it. not that thats my position with SC's
brg444 could squash my position in 2 words and make my case very tedious to prove, the thought of reading through more A.D.D. rhetoric is not comforting, and I'll probably crawl back into my shell, or he can carry on all A.D.D. like and I wont have to present my position again.
It may be meant to be a new feature, rather than a fix.
Seeing how it works out on an altcoin that has some value (or two) before experimenting on Bitcoin with it, would be beneficial
It changes some incentives... and how that plays out may be more interesting than we imagine, for it is uncharted territory.