brokensegue

52 ms·

691.
by brokensegue 9y ago
yeah just send bitcoin to 1111111111111111111114oLvT2
692.
by brokensegue 9y ago
> No central point of failure It's looking like the dev team behind bitcoin is the central point of failure given recent political fights. > No middle man If the lightning network becomes a thing then bitcoin will have lots of mi
693.
by brokensegue 9y ago
both involve irrational exuberance?
694.
by brokensegue 9y ago
uh sure your point stands. pretty weak point? in obscure circumstances it might be worth performing the unappetizing act of paying bitcoin transaction fees to buy something.
695.
by brokensegue 9y ago
there are barely products for sale with bitcoin much less bitcoin exclusive products. only things i can think of are ransoms and drugs. i'm sure there are others but this isn't super common.
696.
by brokensegue 9y ago
I would've thought having to pay a $31 txn fee on a $100 purchase would've been enough to dissuade you.
697.
by brokensegue 9y ago
well people deciding between an ambulance or an uber aren't really qualified to make that decision so it wouldn't surprise me if a bunch of people who needs an ALS unit decide to take an uber.
698.
by brokensegue 9y ago
because they can just use a database...
699.
by brokensegue 9y ago
Well "cant" v. "wont" is sometimes hard to distinguish. There's little practical differences here though.
700.
by brokensegue 9y ago
it's not a third party when it's the same person that made the browser. it's the same second party whose software you opted to use. there's no net neutrality issue here.
701.
by brokensegue 9y ago
> but most consumers don't know who/what/when/where/how to change to another browser. I don't think that's true.
702.
by brokensegue 9y ago
yes that is my point
703.
by brokensegue 9y ago
They should be applauding though. We can always fork Firefox if it's not acting in our best interest. We cannot fork Comcast.
704.
by brokensegue 9y ago
ok then I suggest you go back and write a clearly usable definition before trying to apply that definition to "net neutrality." or else make up a new term it's hard enough to get the public to understand this concept without
705.
by brokensegue 9y ago
>But glad that you agree that Firefox preemptively delaying those sites is not OK. that kind of snarky comment is not helpful
706.
by brokensegue 9y ago
i mean if you want to redefine network neutrality you are welcome to do so. I'm not sure what the definition you are using is or where it comes from. i think your definition muddies the waters. if firefox shipped with a built-in defaul
707.
by brokensegue 9y ago
the browsers requests are your requests
708.
by brokensegue 9y ago
network neutrality refers to network providers being neutral to the data they transmit. applications running over the network can do as they please. by this argument ad-blockers violate net-neutrality.