I'm just wondering if it will go away completely or not.
No, it won't go away completely: as long as there is one person who still is willing to compute transactions on an old 486 computer, bitcoin will still be around. So even if it's only Satoshi himself in a room somewhere, lit by the light of a single bare bulb..........
More practically, it's the only good option for making payments on things like malware, so it's likely to stay around for a while even if it drops drastically in value in the interim. At current transaction costs, it's only worth using for very large transactions, though (people are doing it: I don't know who those people are, but for some reason it's worth it to them).
I'm curious what you mean by saying the scientists weren't acting in good faith.
They lack good judgment. You can't trust their opinion, because their judgment is clouded by emotion.
Of course, you don't care about that, Mr Riverat1, because all you care about is if they are on your side. For you it's not about science, it's about tribalism.
I don't expect scientists to be paragons of virtue. It would be nice if they had good judgment, but I don't expect that either: I expect them to publish reproducible results. As long as they do that, there is no scientific malfeasance.
Of the seven links you give, five are "404 not found" or "Error 553 Website is offline". That's an amazing record, five of seven links dead. But these were mostly to sites like "examiner.com", which was (it's dead now) a site where people could upload blog posts that, if they got enough readers, would give them pocket change.
Fortunately, like a good scientist, I gave you my methodology, so you could repeat the experiment.
Science is built on reproducibility and evidence. If you are building ideas on trust, then you may still have something valuable, but it's not science.
Wow, are you literally that dense, or do you just have reading comprehension fail? You didn't actually read any of the investigation reports.
For your sake, I will again repeat: they were cleared of scientific malfeasance. They in no way were cleared of acting in bad faith, they weren't even investigated for that.
As for your complete lie that they were found "entirely innocent," what kind of fruit loop are you? No one ever said they were entirely innocent except you. Entirely innocent? Really? No one is entirely innocent and you damn well know it.
Meaning that your bad faith assertion is not a result of evaluating the investigations' results but your own original research?
Have you read the emails? It's pretty clear that they are people with an agenda, and heavily influenced by emotions.
I'm not sure that makes me any more confident about your far-reaching and potentially libelous conclusions.
Um, in no way did I say you should trust my conclusions. I don't wan't you to trust my conclusions, trust is the anti-thesis of science. Feel free to go read the emails and verify them yourself: that is being scientific.
Let's assume the worst predictions of global warming will be true (just to give us a baseline hypothesis). Wouldn't it be reasonable to do a cost-benefit analysis of "adapting now" vs "mitigating in the future?" I mean, just to avoid running around like a chicken with our heads cut off.....
The East Anglia climate email leak shows that a lot of climate scientists weren't acting in good faith.
That's a weird interpretation of the absolving outcomes of multiple commitees' investigatons.
You're wrong. The investigations showed that the science they were doing wasn't outright malfeasance (although the statistics could use some help). The investigations weren't checking to see if the scientists were acting in good faith. You should have known that.
Everyone knows that it was Steve Jobs, as his last dying gift to humanity, forged together in the deep pits of Steve Ballmer. Sad but what I just said has as much truth as the current rumor.
You used an analogy. If you do that, you also need to show how the analogy relates to the situation (otherwise it's incomplete). How exactly do you use that distinction in an actual patent situation?
FWIW the best interpretation I've heard is that while the rights to exploit a patent are private property, the scope of the patent itself is a public right
Is this distinction meaningful in any practical way?
The real problem is the lack of competition. In areas where there is plenty of competition, you can find good internet providers (for example, Sonic). It's only when the competition is kept out that there is a problem.
And why are you implying that it's to avoid getting sued specifically for not hiring men?
I didn't. You assumed that from the example.
What makes you think it's to avoid sexual discrimination lawsuits specifically?
This has been litigated over and over in the US. It's not sexual discrimination necessarily, it could be racial discrimination. I don't want to list every possible type of discrimination in a simple post.
Slashdot Mirror
And there are a lot of them, and they've only just started to enter the fray. So it could actually go up for a long, long time.
I'm just wondering if it will go away completely or not.
No, it won't go away completely: as long as there is one person who still is willing to compute transactions on an old 486 computer, bitcoin will still be around. So even if it's only Satoshi himself in a room somewhere, lit by the light of a single bare bulb..........
More practically, it's the only good option for making payments on things like malware, so it's likely to stay around for a while even if it drops drastically in value in the interim. At current transaction costs, it's only worth using for very large transactions, though (people are doing it: I don't know who those people are, but for some reason it's worth it to them).
I don't know if they have better judgment or worse judgment. I didn't make any statement on the field of climatology relative to other fields.
I'm curious what you mean by saying the scientists weren't acting in good faith.
They lack good judgment. You can't trust their opinion, because their judgment is clouded by emotion.
Of course, you don't care about that, Mr Riverat1, because all you care about is if they are on your side. For you it's not about science, it's about tribalism.
I don't expect scientists to be paragons of virtue. It would be nice if they had good judgment, but I don't expect that either: I expect them to publish reproducible results. As long as they do that, there is no scientific malfeasance.
Of the seven links you give, five are "404 not found" or "Error 553 Website is offline". That's an amazing record, five of seven links dead. But these were mostly to sites like "examiner.com", which was (it's dead now) a site where people could upload blog posts that, if they got enough readers, would give them pocket change.
Fortunately, like a good scientist, I gave you my methodology, so you could repeat the experiment.
Science is built on reproducibility and evidence. If you are building ideas on trust, then you may still have something valuable, but it's not science.
Wow, that's the best commendation of modern C++ I've read so far, nice.
Are you seriously suggesting that I should read thousands of e-mails and other documents and analyze them?
Either read them, or read the highlights, or remain ignorant, like you are now. Apparently you choose the ignorance option, which is unfortunate.
Wow, are you literally that dense, or do you just have reading comprehension fail? You didn't actually read any of the investigation reports.
For your sake, I will again repeat: they were cleared of scientific malfeasance. They in no way were cleared of acting in bad faith, they weren't even investigated for that.
As for your complete lie that they were found "entirely innocent," what kind of fruit loop are you? No one ever said they were entirely innocent except you. Entirely innocent? Really? No one is entirely innocent and you damn well know it.
The TV set you paid £400 for on credit, the guy who paid cash got it for £370.
Yeah that's a lie and you're a liar you rogue, credit card charges aren't that much.
Meaning that your bad faith assertion is not a result of evaluating the investigations' results but your own original research?
Have you read the emails? It's pretty clear that they are people with an agenda, and heavily influenced by emotions.
I'm not sure that makes me any more confident about your far-reaching and potentially libelous conclusions.
Um, in no way did I say you should trust my conclusions. I don't wan't you to trust my conclusions, trust is the anti-thesis of science. Feel free to go read the emails and verify them yourself: that is being scientific.
You COULD adapt NOW and lessen the impact,
Let's assume the worst predictions of global warming will be true (just to give us a baseline hypothesis). Wouldn't it be reasonable to do a cost-benefit analysis of "adapting now" vs "mitigating in the future?" I mean, just to avoid running around like a chicken with our heads cut off.....
The East Anglia climate email leak shows that a lot of climate scientists weren't acting in good faith.
That's a weird interpretation of the absolving outcomes of multiple commitees' investigatons.
You're wrong. The investigations showed that the science they were doing wasn't outright malfeasance (although the statistics could use some help). The investigations weren't checking to see if the scientists were acting in good faith. You should have known that.
A while back, I made a list of various predictions saying that climate change was irreversible, or soon would be irreversible. The East Anglia climate email leak shows that a lot of climate scientists weren't acting in good faith. We can still accept the science they do, but there is no reason to trust their judgment (and again, the emails provided reason to believe their judgment is poor).
Everyone knows that it was Steve Jobs, as his last dying gift to humanity, forged together in the deep pits of Steve Ballmer. Sad but what I just said has as much truth as the current rumor.
You used an analogy. If you do that, you also need to show how the analogy relates to the situation (otherwise it's incomplete). How exactly do you use that distinction in an actual patent situation?
I am an HR PROFESSIONAL.
That more or less shows you're ignorant of anything but company lore. Next time you should pretend to be an employment lawyer instead.
FWIW the best interpretation I've heard is that while the rights to exploit a patent are private property, the scope of the patent itself is a public right
Is this distinction meaningful in any practical way?
The real problem is the lack of competition. In areas where there is plenty of competition, you can find good internet providers (for example, Sonic). It's only when the competition is kept out that there is a problem.
The current average fee is $57 USD per transaction. That doesn't even guarentee you will be in the next block
This doesn't mean it's unusable, it means that now so many people are using it, a bunch of them are willing to pay $57 to actually use it.
And why are you implying that it's to avoid getting sued specifically for not hiring men?
I didn't. You assumed that from the example.
What makes you think it's to avoid sexual discrimination lawsuits specifically?
This has been litigated over and over in the US. It's not sexual discrimination necessarily, it could be racial discrimination. I don't want to list every possible type of discrimination in a simple post.
If what you are doing is a waste, then you're doing it wrong.
So true. If someone doesn't learn anything on college, whose fault is that?
It's not true. I mean I have no proof,
Well you were better off not posting, then.
This post goes into greater detail on the topic.
That's nothing. Blockchain cures breast cancer! Bitcoin breasts! What can't it do? Blockchain buddhism! Smart contracts for God! I wish I were making that stuff up.