and a clinical inability to respond to simple questions or respond with a straight forward simple answer.
What the hell are you on about? Looking back three pages, you have addressed exactly
zero questions to me, let alone ones unanswered. Unless you're confusing yourself with some sock.
The hell I am on about is you JB. You argue,
Yes, I argue
you deflect,
Maybe occasionally. Not with intent. OTOH, we have immediately above an accusation that you make that I am not answering your questions. When demonstrated that you have not even rendered any questions to me to go unanswered, you
deflect the conversation - presumably in order to gloss over your demonstrably false statement.
you seem disingenuous in your statements from time to time
I
seem disingenuous? From
time to time? Weak. I assure you, my arguments are sincere.
so one has to carefully parse what you write and post
Of course one has to carefully parse what I write and post. These topics are nuanced. The points are sometimes subtle. The differences and dependencies thereupon require careful evaluation. (It doesn't help that people keep ascribing things to me which I have not said.) Are we too lazy to engage in meaningful dialogue?
For example..there are pages back where you argue over the definition of decentralisation
I'm still waiting for someone to step up with the accepted definition of 'decentralization'. So far nobody in this cast of dozens has been able to do so. It's kind of hard to
argue about the definition of decentralization when nobody is bold enough to step up to the plate with what they believe is
an actual definition.
As a corollary, I think your characterization that I am arguing over the definition is false.
that any cypherpunk worth his/her/its salt knows down to their bones.
So then why can't anyone provide such? From the outside, it appears that the accepted dogma is that 'decentralization' is exactly equivalent to 'today brand X has lotsa lotsa non-mining fully-validating clients' - no more and no less. But it must not be that simple?
That it is a safer, more secure system than the centralised entities that make up the legacy financial system and to a certain extent, the bitcoin ecosystem.
I hope that's not supposed to be a definition - because it ain't. It may be a
characteristic of a decentralized financial system, but it sure ain't a definition of 'decentralization'.
there are times when I appreciate your postings..they make you actually think about things which in my mind is a good thing.
Indeed, you are one of the few hereabouts that seem open to thinking.
Its the style you go about it that I have a problem with.
I'm not sure style has anything to do with discussion of reality, but whatevs.
Actually, in most areas of life I can interact in a friendly manner with people with whom I disagree. Indeed, a great part of my professional life was developing standards for technology amongst representatives of competitors with $billions on the line. The difference in such a professional venue is that people who reach such committees can and do treat each other with respect regardless of how strongly they disagree with the presented ideas.
You'll note that there is a coterie here in this thread with whom I carry out cordial arguments, and others which I (somewhat regrettably) treat with verbal contempt. The latter class has self-selected themselves into that group by initial aggression.
Be that as it may, I believe that small blocks and third layer solutions is a better way than a bloated big block chain.
Fair enough. I disagree. That's all.
Poll
