Once NASDAQ and RBS (et. al) get done marrying the "The Blockchain (but not Bitcoin!!!!!!!!!!!)", calls for action that will jeopardize fungibility of Bitcoin will fade, as flight of the miners from the blockchain would endanger the assets secured thereon.
It must be nice to never be accountable to any project nor having to manage people or build things. Instead just be a really smart critic and attack the hard work of other people to gain popularity and consulting gigs. There is a difference between being constructive and being an asshole. Greg and Peter both seem to have some difficulty there.
That's the kind of crap government will not be able to do with bitcoin.
Just like Bitcoin competition forces Western Union to lower fees... Bitcoin forces government to limit its reach.
See 1920s alcohol prohibition.
Everyone still drank, it just became black market and the term "scofflaw" was invented. If govt tracks our phones, internet, spending, location... anti-govt scofflaw sentiment grows. Bitcoin gives people a channel to rebel.
In some ways, government crackdown and financial oppression could actually be GOOD for bitcoin.
MAXIMUM AUTISM LEVELS ACHIEVED. The page was about how government will fuck up bitcoin. Any full retard can understand this. Get your butcoin rants right before posting please. Autism levels returning to normal.
You can blacklist a person's financial accounts taking away the access an individual has to their funds. With bitcoin currently, that can't be done so you'll still have access to it, even if all of your other assets are frozen.
At least that's my understanding of it.
[on the tshirt]VC the new superhero of the modern world
Glorifying them is not quite right. The problem is that things created are naturally public goods, and there are no sufficient business models on that.
Investors want to to put a handle on it making somewhere to make a money. But usually this is not something we like from a user perspective, like ads, spying or overcompliance.
Basically his entire thing is about being successful as in making money, 1)that's just part of the goal..(for me anyways) 2) money and people comes because it is not over-compliant. Because people do not like the existing system. Bitcoin could innovate because it did not bother with the regulations. UBER is doing this right now, right against the law, they even got the police over.
Btw: tbh, i dont see the future of bitcoin as very good.. It needs to bust a move. How to decide? What about a vote? Similar for funding, could do issuance and then vote where it goes.. Basically a contract-controlled blockchain where aspects can be changed.
These might have a "constitution" that is hard to change. It sets:(just a first go at it)
Minimum and maximum issuance-for-funding
Minimum and maximum number of recipients.
Note that.. you're sort-of funding things for yourself-and-the-public... I.e it is for yourself. The problem is when it is for yourself or group around you too particularly, and it stops being a public good. Hence the maximum number, so if there are more players, they're forced to share an account in how they send it back to themselves.
In principle the votable addresses could be contracts though. It is best if the votes are not usable from contracts, so that at least co-operating would need to be trustful.
Perhaps you could say that VC funding might be a centralizing effect,(i mean, it is often funding-morefunding-centralized-stock-exchange , or even google) and try have an alternative to it in the system.
Who gets voting power? Avoiding centralized power is important, of course. And I think a diverse set of inputs is best.
Balances.(relatively easy, though not sure how to exactly..)
Initial funding and developer "aristocracy". That does sound bad, and initially does not give diversity, but ifcoin distributes well enough it does.
Suppose OnePerID.. if ever figured out.
Really though, contract-controlled blockchains still have to consider all the potential ways power might be centralized, or consensus broken. With the votes it is primarily the former. (but in a small fork and PoS, the attacker might be able to move more coin to himself.)
I think the people writing for ZapChain has some learning difficulties. Either that or they are targeting people with an attention span of 2 seconds. Their articles really are a pain to read when each sentence is its own paragraph and every two sentences is interrupted with either a picture, a headline or both. At least this article is conservative with the number of fonts used. But seriously, why the huge text size?