re: John Donahoe speaks on Bitcoin

quote:

---

No you don't, I do not own the information.

---

It's not a matter of who owns the information. It's a matter of common courtesy.

quote:

---

If you do happen to post my number in your signature, I will follow your lead.

---

You can go ahead and put your phone number in your siq quote without waiting for me to do so. I don't mind.

quote:

---

It's not a matter of who owns the information. It's a matter of common courtesy.

---

Trolling and courtesy do not go together.

quote:

---

You can go ahead and put your phone number in your siq quote without waiting for me to do so. I don't mind.

---

I have no interest in doing that.

So given your great deal of original thought, why not address those problems here rather than leave some shitty link.


For example, "implementation of features without fragmentation" as a start.

quote:

---

I'm doing research on the development of the blockchain to deal with issues such as innovation and implementation of features without fragmentation, combating centralization risks that come along with things such as increased block sizes, and analyzing potential problems in implementation of some proposed fundamental changes in the protocol.

---

And this coming from a guy who argued for almost two days that inflation results from a decrease in money supply relative to the amount of goods available and deflation results from an increase in money supply relative to the amount of goods available before he finally admitted he had it backwards???

quote:

---

I only brought it up as a retaliation.

---

How would YOU posting YOUR phone number as your sig quote be retaliation? And retaliation to whom?

quote:

---

I was probably around 17 at the time and confused the terms, is this really that big of a deal?

---

It is a good indication of your lack of understanding of macro economics. I seriously doubt you've filled in the blanks since then.....

quote:

---

You can go ahead and put your phone number in your siq quote without waiting for me to do so. I don't mind.

---

quote:

---

I was talking about posting your number.

---

Maybe before you reform the world's economies based on bitcoin and bring down governments with it, you should work on your reading comprehension skills.....

quote:

---

I thought the logic behind the protocol was sound and as such, no such flaws existed. AKA free from danger.

---

The bitcoin protocol is still in development. And it was never meant to be free from danger.

Adam Back developed a proof of work system in which information could be verified without actually knowing what that information was with HashCash. Satoshi came up with a way to eliminate a central point of failure by crowdsourcing the security in return for a block reward. That was his great innovation, but from the very beginning it was understood that the network and information were only secure if a miner didn't have access to > 50% of the total hashing power of the network.

The core logic behind the protocol was trustlessness, but that breaks down if someone had control of the hashing power of the network. At this point, I don't think it is feasible to access that much power, and even if it were, it would be incredibly counter productive.

quote:

---

The bitcoin protocol is still in development. And it was never meant to be free from danger.

---

You are either lying now, or have lied in the past about this...

quote:

---

Adam Back developed a proof of work system in which information could be verified without actually knowing what that information was with HashCash. Satoshi came up with a way to eliminate a central point of failure by crowdsourcing the security in return for a block reward. That was his great innovation, but from the very beginning it was understood that the network and information were only secure if a miner didn't have access to > 50% of the total hashing power of the network.

---

Well now you are talking about a different topic. So which issue would you like to address?

quote:

---

The core logic behind the protocol was trustlessness, but that breaks down if someone had control of the hashing power of the network. At this point, I don't think it is feasible to access that much power, and even if it were, it would be incredibly counter productive.

---

Again, two separate issues.


Either your protocol is legit or its not. Its OK to say its not, but be honest. Bitcoin was touted as untouchable by you and Wiki...