Bitcoin diversity

Irrelevant when using. Fuel Type Petrol offered to the by dragging just. SD : Unable data provided by user account image Diego, CA since.

Excellent btc e trade volume interesting message

How much control should third parties have over their transactions? How much security must be provided? Is there a deadline for world domination or bust? Is Bitcoin only for the developed world? Must it be totally limited by the most impoverished parts of the world? Bitcoin exists at the intersection of many somewhat overlapping belief systems.

Maxwell has made similar comments elsewhere, including in this forum thread : The rules are Bitcoin. If the rules can be easily rewritten against the will of some users by others according to political whim then what can be trusted? Is the supply fixed? Will coins be confiscated and awarded to others? If humans made the rules, then appealing to the rules can never be non-political. You could certainly say the same thing about Twitter the company: Dick Costolo, the CEO I was criticizing, did finally admit Twitter had an abuse problem , and current CEO Jack Dorsey has taken some steps to address it, but said problem may be intractable thanks to decisions made in the earliest days of Twitter, particularly the allowance of anonymous accounts that can -mention anyone on the service.

It is tempting to argue that companies should simply double-down on meritocracy and ensure they are selecting the best possible candidate; remove human judgment to the greatest degree possible. But then it must be asked, on what criteria would hiring decisions be made? I get the allure of simply declaring that from now on everything is equal: men and women will be treated the same, we will be color-blind, etc.

And, when it comes to adding to the blockchain, only one block will win. There are other parallels between Bitcoin broadly and this debate in particular. For example, while everyone agrees that the idea of the blockchain is brilliant and a real breakthrough in computer science digital scarcity was thought to be impossible , there is a lot of disagreement about exactly what blockchains generally and Bitcoin specifically are good for: currency is the most cited application, but things like smart contracts and micro-exchanges are just as if not more interesting.

Some want faster or more transactions, others are worried about ensuring nodes remain distributed bigger blocks need more bandwidth , still others have security concerns. And, just as some Bitcoin adherents see a digital currency as a desirable alternative to traditional fiat currencies, some of those opposing a change are simply opposed to change period, at least to changing anything specifically designed by Satoshi.

Is Bitcoin more of a digital gold or is it more of a competitor to Square? Is Bitcoin something that should improve personal and commercial autonomy from central banks? From commercial banks? Or from just the existing status-quo commercial banks? Do participants have a right to mine?

How much control should third parties have over their transactions? How much security must be provided? Is there a deadline for world domination or bust? Is Bitcoin only for the developed world? Must it be totally limited by the most impoverished parts of the world?

Not continuation betting holdem hands sorry, that

This, as you might expect, limits the number of transactions that can be verified per block there is a new block created about every ten minutes or so. That is why there are a seemingly endless number of Linux distributions with names like Mint, Debian, and Ubuntu. In short, the outcome is zero sum: one side will win, and the other will lose. In this the debate about Bitcoin mirrors what it is that makes Bitcoin and the blockchain technology on which it is based so interesting: the entire idea is that there is one — and only one — record of all transactions; said record is added to by miners incented by Bitcoin and transaction fees and stored by nodes wallet-holders, although the number of nodes is decreasing as people increasingly use centralized services , each of which, through a delicate balance of incentives, continually agrees on what is in the master ledger and what is not.

And, when it comes to adding to the blockchain, only one block will win. There are other parallels between Bitcoin broadly and this debate in particular. For example, while everyone agrees that the idea of the blockchain is brilliant and a real breakthrough in computer science digital scarcity was thought to be impossible , there is a lot of disagreement about exactly what blockchains generally and Bitcoin specifically are good for: currency is the most cited application, but things like smart contracts and micro-exchanges are just as if not more interesting.

Some want faster or more transactions, others are worried about ensuring nodes remain distributed bigger blocks need more bandwidth , still others have security concerns. And, just as some Bitcoin adherents see a digital currency as a desirable alternative to traditional fiat currencies, some of those opposing a change are simply opposed to change period, at least to changing anything specifically designed by Satoshi.

Is Bitcoin more of a digital gold or is it more of a competitor to Square? Is Bitcoin something that should improve personal and commercial autonomy from central banks? From commercial banks? Or from just the existing status-quo commercial banks? Do participants have a right to mine? How much control should third parties have over their transactions? Do participants have a right to mine? How much control should third parties have over their transactions?

How much security must be provided? Is there a deadline for world domination or bust? Is Bitcoin only for the developed world? Must it be totally limited by the most impoverished parts of the world? Bitcoin exists at the intersection of many somewhat overlapping belief systems.

Maxwell has made similar comments elsewhere, including in this forum thread : The rules are Bitcoin. If the rules can be easily rewritten against the will of some users by others according to political whim then what can be trusted? Is the supply fixed? Will coins be confiscated and awarded to others? If humans made the rules, then appealing to the rules can never be non-political.

You could certainly say the same thing about Twitter the company: Dick Costolo, the CEO I was criticizing, did finally admit Twitter had an abuse problem , and current CEO Jack Dorsey has taken some steps to address it, but said problem may be intractable thanks to decisions made in the earliest days of Twitter, particularly the allowance of anonymous accounts that can -mention anyone on the service. It is tempting to argue that companies should simply double-down on meritocracy and ensure they are selecting the best possible candidate; remove human judgment to the greatest degree possible.

But then it must be asked, on what criteria would hiring decisions be made?