anopows's comments

Which service do you use for renting a server?

>But can you patch the ridiculous "find next" shortcut key to ctrl + f/enter from ctrl + f/ctrl + g?

Yes this is one of the things that I am really annoyed with gedit. All searches (to my knowledge) in browsers and IDE's work by pressing enter to get to the new search entry.

The only exception which comes to my mind is vim which has 'n' to go to the next search entry(also completely different to gedit). But in comparison vim, excepts the user to learn a lot of new commands, gedit on the other hand should imo follow the simplicity of other GNOME apps.

To search a keyboard shortcut in the manual and then memorize it for such a simple editor is just tedious and irritating.

So you say mining of Bitcoin only follows the market value?

Isn't it at least to a large degree the other way round? That market value is following based on what is the most mined chain? If there's a split and 80% of mining power switches to one branch. Then the 20% branch loses a lot of utility for at least some time. It now has five times slower transactions until difficulty gets adjusted(or you change the proof of work of bitcoin, which itself can be precarious). And now to a minor degree the minority chain has also less safety (less hashing power).

Meanwhile why should anyone buy or send Bitcoins at the point of a split? There's a real chance that one branch will die and then you can lose the coins. The best strategy is probably to wait. So the market at least is in some way inhibited during a split.

On the other hand I'd argue miners of the minority chain have a lot of pressure to change branches. Market is not yet a good indicator only hashing power and they'll lose money if they don't continue to mine on the more profitable chain. Their safest bet is to change chains. Also they know that other miners of the minority chain think probably similarly. That's why imo in Bitcoin history every fork/split was resolved very quickly and a branch "won".

How do you define user support?

All the definitions I heard are able to be manipulated easily:

-The/r/bitcoin consensus? Is mainly in existence because of censorship

-User wallets online? Can be easily created with AWS instances

-Bitcoin core? Who decides these bunch of people are in charge to represent all users and not a bunch of other developers?

One obvious alternative is to let Bitcoin follow economic incentives: Bitcoin miners gain Bitcoin, so they have a vested interest that their income is and stays valuable. Thus why not let the miners decide. This is also the only place where you can't influence/manipulate Bitcoin easily.

Kasparov seems to be of a different opinion[0], telling that machine + computer combination is still more powerful

[0] https://youtu.be/fiyBJeNBIIA?t=1h27m36s

As far as I know WhatsApp has implemented TextSecure

Lines are not allowed to match. Eg line 4 and 7 are the same (which is not allowed)

I think fees on the exchanges, different currencies(fee for trading to the corresponding currency) and time(it can take weeks until you can start to trade on a site) are the major obstacles.

I'm no expert in these fields.

But I guess it wouldn't work because if you sell a lot of bitcoins you couldn't sell all at the same price.

Eg. you want to sell 10k Bitcoins. The price is 750$ and the first 50 Bitcoins you can sell for 750$. Now after that there are not enough limit orders anymore available for that price category. So you would sell a lot of bitcoins for much less than the price was originally when you started selling.

And vice versa if you buy them. So I would doubt that you make a profit (because you can't sell/buy at price x and then afterwards the market price reacts. The market price reacts already while buying/selling in large quantities).

As I see it it's the same principle as if you own a large part of a stock, there you could argue the same.

> But the fact that early adopters are psychotically rich for doing nothing is... one of the many signs of a flawed system.

No they risked their money with a speculation that had almost 0% chance of getting any return in the future. They took a huge risk, without this, bitcoin would not exist. And that's why they are rewarded: Taking a risk that almost no one would have taken to create something big.

> Basically if everyone started selling the market would destabilize because supply/demand curve would change & I'm pretty sure the value of what they're selling would plummet before they can unload most of their stack.

Bitcoin had already 2 big crashes (one time from $30 to $1-2 and one time from 200+$ to under 100$) and still recovered afterwards because there's people like me who see the potential in bitcoin.

And please tell me what your "real value" exactly is, because in my opinion their is only a perceived value for everything in the world.

For me the user interface was always snappier and felt just all around better. Now with webkit they have a faster render engine and feel like a lighter and faster version of Chrome (plus you can install all addons from Chrome with this extension: https://addons.opera.com/de/extensions/details/download-chro... )

In their blog they mentioned that their will be a Linux version, but I don't think it's a priority for them

I will link to mikeash comment: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=6692694

Money is not equal wealth. You can spend money in a circle of two people a thousand times, that doesn't make the two richer. Or you can add 0's at the end of all bills, that doesn't make anyone more rich either.

I think it's more reasonable if we focus on wealth and not on money in this discussion.

I think what he refers to is the broken window fallacy: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parable_of_the_broken_window

It is not about, if the US space program was better/worse than the Indian one. But that we don't know the alternative outcome of a lot of smart people working, not on the space program, but on many different fields that could lead to a greater outcome than this one project (the work would be less visible to the public than one shiny big project but in the end there is (in my opinion) more gain for the people, because the market responds generally better to the needs of people than a bureaucracy)