oafitupa

If you use Google products, you are gonna have a bad time.

Find alternatives and become free. You don't need to replace everything at the same time, you can do it one product at a time.

And when everything fails, just pull a straw man! Right?

It's not an "alternative", it's a store of value by its own merit, and has been so for thousands of years, while paper money is pretty recent and is by no means a good store of value or even a good medium of exchange, with the surge of digital money.

You didn't just compare macroeconomics to actual sciences, did you?

And we all know that "mainstream economists" are a good source for unbiased opinions.

Time for plan Bitcoin.

Sonds like the biggest reddit drama ever. Do you have a link?

There is not "also Proof of Stake", because it's a flawed concept. What's at stake? Nothing. You can sell your coins before starting an attack, so you wouldn't be attacking yourself like you would with Bitcoin and proper mining. Might as well just use the USD or bottle caps as currency.

First of all, the number of transactions Bitcoin can make per unit of time is not set in stone, it depends on certain variables that will be adjusted over time. And it is a distributed system anyway, what did you expect? You can't have both the resilience of a distributed system, and the efficiency of a centralized one.

And second, you are comparing apples to oranges. Try comparing VISA (built on top closed networks and decades of bureaucracy) to services like Coinbase/Bitpay (built on top of Bitcoin) and we'll see who's more efficient.

Unfortunately, it's not viable. Proof of work needs to be "wasteful" (if you can consider validating transactions and keeping the network safe wasteful). I don't understand why so many people get angry at Bitcoin's use electricity and not at say, VISA's, or any other entity that isn't curing cancer.

Don't forget to mention that their consensus algorithm simply doesn't work. That's why they made it 100% centralized "temporarily" (without even asking, so apparently it was 100% centralized even before that). They themselves said exactly that in a blog post. Also, the creator of Ripple dumped all his coins before joining Stellar.

How do you know it's not what I want? Why do you think they should make such a decision for me?

I addressed that in other comment: I don't want to have to rely on that. For starters, there is no real data about that, just anecdotes. How do I know they will reimburse non-US customers too? Many companies have that policy: They protect US customers because they can sue them, but people from other countries can only complain on the internet.

Like it or not this is a problem many of us have, and are avoiding AWS for that sole reason. You can keep blaming the victim, or you can accept not being able to set up a limit is a usability problem.

It's like saying "this website is stupid, it's storing passwords in plaintext", and you answering "hurr, it's the user's responsibility to create and manage cryptographically secure passwords".

How is being able to set up a $ limit "holding my hand"? You guys are defending something that is indefensible.

I don't want to "play" with VPS servers, I want to work knowing that I won't go bankrupt just because I'm using at the same time a service that won't let me set up a limit, and a pull payment system (ie. credit cards, as opposed to push systems like Bitcoin).

All the warnings in the world can't replace a configurable $ limit. We don't want to have to rely on them "forgiving" us if we make a mistake.

What's your point? What you said changes nothing for people like tieTYT and me.

Did I

How dare people share content with other like-minded people!

"...because I hate it for no reason"

So you never heard of multi-signature? You can have that even on Coinbase.

It's not scary, and by looking at your comment history it's pretty obvious you have an agenda against Bitcoin, and you are trying to promote your PoS (a flawed concept) altcoins, probably just because you can't stand that someone else invested in Bitcoin before you. Apparently 1,000% gains per year is not enough for some people.

One day blockchain.info stopped working for me (I think they mistakenly banned lots of IPs). And yes, I simply withdrew my money out of it. I just loaded my private key in a mobile wallet and swept the coins.

Apparently Coinbase now offers a multi-signature feature, so people could do the same.

Of course for some of us it's unacceptable. And we can simply not use it. Personally, I have never even used exchanges like MtGox, only Localbitcoins.

And while you are bashing PHP, actual professionals use it all the time and don't fall for those noob mistakes. Learn some Symfony2.

Am I? See my other reply. And now I think you are the one trick pony, who thinks switching languages from the same paradigm is a challenge.

As someone who has mastered Symfony2, learning Ruby on Rails was a walk in the park. There weren't any new concepts to learn, just syntax.

In my experience those concepts are not language-specific. More like platform (eg: web) or paradigm (OOP) specific.

Why bother learning another language that is almost the same, like PHP and Ruby? In both you need to keep up with lots of dependencies and practices that keep popping up, and it's a waste of time doing it for both in parallel. I'd say it's better to focus on one language, and if it becomes obsolete I don't see why you couldn't just dedicate a week to master the other one. And anyway I don't see how one of those languages could become obsolete without the other one also becoming obsolete, unless their development stopped for some reason.

Those are not mistakes, they [the leaders] benefit directly from that.

"One could argue that a block chain fork could invalidate an arbitrary number of blocks at any time, and therefore the Bitcoin protocol does not by itself have this property of being able to tell which transactions really happened."

No, one could not argue that. The economic majority will decide which fork is valid. That's the opposite of centralization.

"To limit the number of blocks that could be invalidated in this way, the bitcoin reference implementation contains checkpoint hashes. These are indeed decided centrally.

If you accept the core assumption in bitcoin that an attacker will never control a majority of the hashing power, then there probably isn't a problem and the checkpoint s aren't needed."

You fail to realize you are not forced to download anything you don't want to. And the checkpoints are hundreds of blocks deep. They don't decide anything the network hasn't already decided (6 blocks deep transactions are considered practically irreversible). The checkpoints ARE needed as an anti-DOS measure (they protect the storage of full nodes from being flooded by forks that could suddenly start to appear at low block numbers). I don't know why people are so eager to spit opinions on things they don't know anything about.