- From: Steven Rowat <steven_rowat@sunshine.net>
- Date: Tue, 26 Jan 2016 21:46:52 -0800
- To: public-webpayments@w3.org
On 1/26/16 8:48 PM, Fabio Barone wrote: > I apologize. > I fell victim of an unchecked, unresearched and unquestioned article. ...[snip]... > Maybe I'll never grow up from my utopian dreams of a "better" world > (whatever that is). Welcome to reality. ...[snip]... >... Never mind. LOL. Great post. "In the same way if I really see what thought does, thought comes to an end. Whatever thought does it breeds misery, sorrow, conflict, and when thought realizes that, it will come to an end by itself, the vicious circle is broken; thought, which means time, has come to an end." --- Jiddu Krishnamurti 30 July 1967 [http://www.katinkahesselink.net/kr/though_q.htm] Steven > > > > > 2016-01-26 22:14 GMT-05:00 Pindar Wong <pindar.wong@gmail.com > <mailto:pindar.wong@gmail.com>>: > > +1 > > There's no collapse but the technical dimensions of scaling > bitcoin are more involved that just changing of a constant. > > See > > scalingbitcoin.org <http://scalingbitcoin.org> > > for some of the technical presentations if you're interested. > > p. > > > On Wed, Jan 27, 2016 at 10:33 AM, Tao Effect > <contact@taoeffect.com <mailto:contact@taoeffect.com>> wrote: > >> What do people here think about the potentially incumbent >> collapse of bitcoin as a crypto-currency itself and the >> block-size issue? > > I think this BS and you should stop spreading it. > > https://fixingtao.com/2016/01/point-by-point-response-to-mike-hearns-final-bitcoin-post/ > > Cheers, > Greg > >> On Jan 26, 2016, at 12:59 PM, Fabio Barone >> <holon.earth@gmail.com <mailto:holon.earth@gmail.com>> wrote: >> >> As suggested, I am starting a new thread for this topic. >> I apologize if I am coming over as verbose and/or cluttering >> your inboxes. >> >> **** >> >> What do people here think about the potentially incumbent >> collapse of bitcoin as a crypto-currency itself and the >> block-size issue? >> >> The question is related to the blockchain itself, not bitcoin. >> Block size is ultimately a "political" decision of the >> community, and there appears to be a scism because of that. >> Not wanting to discuss that in itself (it's probably being >> discussed elsewhere), >> >> but what do you guys think this means for blockchain >> technology itself? >> >> Will we see a proliferation of different blockchains, making >> ILP even more interesting and important? >> >> Could this be a blow to blockchain technology itself >> (unlikely IMHO), because limitations of this technology are >> becoming apparent? >> >> What developments do you foresee happening in this field, >> also maybe not underestimating a potential collapse of the >> global economy this year? >> >> On a side note, I like Ethereum's basic tenets but I am >> worried about a lock-in of some sorts... >> > > >
Received on Wednesday, 27 January 2016 05:47:24 UTC