I agree. While RBF may offer some convenience, the ultimate cost of being able to double spend this easily (and especially with the scenario outlined in the article regarding non-chronological processing) not only compromises the security that Bitcoin was founded on, but introduces a host of new problems (i.e. network division/fragmentation).

If you're in the US, sometimes even the state you're in can make a difference. All in all, the problems most people run into are regional.

Using it like a savings account. Lawnmower puts my spare change to BTC, and I check up on my returns every once in a while.

Wow, that's insane. What a strange place this world is.

While I can see the point behind the statement, taking it literally obviously wouldn't make any sense. That would be like penalizing anyone who has bought processed meat for the inhumane treatment of animals - yes, it happens - no, you're not responsible for it (at least not in a macroscopic sense).

For the CryptoNote protocol, are those hardcoded nodes DNS nodes or actual p2p nodes?

Seems fishy to me, want to show what you changed in the source to make it "not detected"?

Haha, you seem to be right. Plenty of views. No replies.

This, right here. The money supply is insulated from the supply of goods, those are generally determined by disposable income as per inferior goods and what not. Overall, money supply economics are far more complex than a few theories can describe, simply because there's so many factors to take into account. It's constantly changing, unpredictable, and a clusterfck at best.

There exists a need for regulation and centralization; the Libertarian's wet dream of decentralized EVERYTHING would fail because it would require people to act not on impulse, but for the greater good.

That borders on socialism, no? And look how successful that's been in history.

That looks absolutely incredible. Keep up the good work.

Guys... clearly you should start aiming for making VGX, a Vegetacoin-only exchange.

Why is this suspicious? I'm curious, as it just seems to be a promotion of sorts.

I was talking to a friend of mine who is an economics major, and we had some conflicting ideas about this.

Let's say there is a crypto that has a fixed size of 20 million coins, and that it linearly increases in network hash rate.
This would mean that the difficulty increases at a similar rate. With that being said, to stabilize the coin's emission, would it make more sense to:

* Lower the reward when the hash rate is low
   * Decreases rate of emission, stabilizing price of coin (as there is less being generated, pushing back date until all coins are mined)
      * Short term stabilization, because as soon as the hash rate increases, the reward will go up (causing rate of emission to increase, devaluing currency)

OR

* Raise the reward when the hash rate is low
   * Thereby incentivizing new miners to come and mine and stabilize hash rate
      * More miners = more difficulty = more value of coin
      * Does not stabilize price, because if reward decreases with higher hash rates, miners will have less of an incentive
         * Long run: can possibly hurt price because, like most coins, is not profitable unless difficulty is low

I obviously argued for the first, because if a coin with that structure is added to a multi pool, or profit-switching pool, it will maintain being profitable (via jacking up rewards in relation to difficulty).

What are your thoughts?

Doesn't look half-bad. I'm more of a flat-icon-style kinda guy though, go figure.

Ooh! That's a zinger right there. I'll be pretty open to paying via PayPal if that's an option, though. God knows when I was a seller using it, the buyers always got their way. Even if it's a scam, at worst I'll get my money back, which is all I really care about. If I do get a working product that's just a bonus.

As obvious satire, this actually makes me think about how often people try to create elaborate scams through crypto.
http://media2.giphy.com/media/mWMML2LQBsj8k/200_s.gif