capsulecorp

Nope Vitalik believes code is law, just like any simple google search will show you. You just seem to be avoiding that all all costs. Strange really, wonder what your true motives are, good luck buddy!

I don't think you read that very well. His response is to Samson Mow (CSO of Blockstream) claiming that Vitalik was "Pivoting to 'Principles are law' from 'Code is law?'". This is because anyone who is even remotely familiar with Ethereum/Vitalik knows how many times Vitalik has said he believes "Code is Law".

Vitalik goes on to defend against Mow's claim that he is "pivoting" by saying that it is indeed a principle. It's extremely clear with basic reading comprehension that Vitalik is claiming that as a principle of his.

Not sure how you extracted the meaning you did. If I'm being honest, you seem to not really be researching the subject in good faith, as a simple google search will turn up many times he's either stated he believes that in text or even video.

You are welcome to believe what you'd like to though, I unfortunately don't have the time to do your research for you, nor do I care to change your mind. So cheers and good luck!

>The idea that a blockchain with thousands of nodes requires redemption from some historical act seems to ignore the very nature of how it functions at a protocol level.

And the idea that it doesn't seems to ignore reality as a whole. Ethereum already had thousands of nodes running when the DAO scandal was perpetrated, that didn't change a thing.

As for your second statement, it stinks of a bag holder grasping at straws. There is zero credibility in the project after the DAO scandal. But you are welcome to convince yourself otherwise.

Yes I do, here's the one I found at the top of a google search, I'm sure you can find plenty more.

https://twitter.com/vitalikbuterin/status/118851166038788915...

>He can’t do it today.

I'd argue he CAN indeed do it again today. Perhaps not in the exact way as the DAO fiasco, but lets be clear, the fundamental transgression was selling one story "the code is law" and then not abiding by that law when it affected him and his friends aversely.

So can he still commit such an egregious breach of trust in this timeline, despite having done it before? Absolutely, though that and the DAO instance may indeed look different from one another.

It's bizarre to me that one would NOT gauge the credibility of Ethereum today based on what the developers actually did vs what they said they would do. What exactly have they done to redeem themselves from their previous scandal?

Alternatively, thank the Monero developers.

No worries, don't know what your talking about, but the loss is yours buddy, sorry to pop your crypto kiddie bubble.

I'm not.

He isn't.

Its a completely reasonable response. I'd say your point of view is the mindless one.

I would highly suggest researching options trading, as you appear to be completely confused and/or misinformed about even the most fundamental aspects of options.

If you have a question about options, you can contact the Options Industry Council at 1-888-OPTIONS (1-888-678-4667) or visit its Getting Started web page. On the OIC website, you can also read a number of publications, including the "Characteristics and Risks of Standardized Options" booklet.

>Options trading is literally gambling

To the average ignorant trader, sure. Otherwise this statement doesn't hold water. You should really do some research before making such silly uninformed claims.

Its more of an issue than you make it out to be.

But we should 'cancel' people for having bad views in the past? Got it.

As another commenter mentioned to you: "Changing the name or updating implementation details is not the same thing as completely abandoning the technology.". I agree with them, your comparison doesn't make much sense in this context.

I believe you are mistaken, the purpose of Bitcoin was very clear from the whitepaper title. It was to create "a Peer-to-Peer Electronic Cash System". Bitcoin Cash is the real, continued implementation of bitcoin, as it was designed in its whitepaper. BTC is simply an attempt (rather good one at that) by bad actors, to purposely hamper the protocol and then sell offchain solutions to solve those issues they introduced.

Technically speaking, that still wouldn't be Bitcoin.

Right. Now lets ask ourselves why one would need to spend hundreds to play a particular game. The answer you will come across most commonly is platform exclusivity deals. I am happy to pay for a game, but not buy the hardware for a system I don't want, just because they leveraged their business clout to prohibit games from releasing on other platforms. In this case, I could care less about the bottom line of the console company or the game company who agreed to what I view as a corrupt collaboration.

Really? Because Satoshi's whitepaper is literally titled “Bitcoin: a Peer-to-Peer Electronic Cash System", not "Bitcoin a 'store of value'". It seems to me the real answer is Bitcoin was sequestered by Blockstream and purposely sabotaged in order to promote their offchain solutions. BCH had to hard fork away to maintain the original intention of the project. Thus BCH can be transferred quickly and for mere fractions of the fees in BTC. So bitcoin is a currency, but that currency is now BCH. Whereas BTC exists to serve Blockstream and its for-profit offchain solution, which conveniently solve the limits they fought to impose.

> not surprisingly, language evolves!

It sure does, did I say otherwise or was that just the easiest straw-man you could attack? I contend the word in its current form is evolved to not include piracy. Not surprisingly, evolution of language can go many ways, not just the way which supports your argument. Cheers!

"Stealing ideas" is also incorrect. A long running misconception doesn't make it not a misconception.

Piracy isn't stealing, it may be illegal, but it does not fit the definition of stealing. Saying piracy is theft, is an antiquated line of thinking that anyone with common knowledge of digital products knows to be false.

I think many people don't buy their "complete 180", as that only came after their massively failed campaign. I have no doubt that if these guys were successful in their initial endeavor there would have never been a 180 as you call it. So really, there's not much to praise about a group who tried their hardest to do the wrong thing, and settled for the alternative when they failed measurably. Glad this happened to them, well deserved.

I don't know that one NEEDS to watch any TV. Then again you don't NEED to be on the internet or hacker news. People also do things they want, not just what they need.

Shutdown happened mid March, it's been over 2 months.

You bet, but I'd really love to see data that supports that.

You conveniently fail to mention that those properties are in already high demand areas with huge shortages in affordable housing. It makes a difference, like it or not. Pretending that because its not the entire issue, it isn't part of it at all, is ignorant at best.

Start by banning China (and any other country that doesn't allow US citizens to own land) from owning property in the US. Something tells me when you get rid of all the foreign profit lords, that property will be much more affordable in many areas.

A RAT is a remote access tool.