Talk:Alt-chain release RFC: Difference between revisions
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
No edit summary |
No edit summary |
||
| Line 11: | Line 11: | ||
:: | :: | ||
:: We disagree on this point. I opened a [https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=133974.0 thread to discuss this] [[User:Ripper234|Ripper234]] ([[User talk:Ripper234|talk]]) 19:25, 30 December 2012 (GMT). | :: We disagree on this point. I opened a [https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=133974.0 thread to discuss this] [[User:Ripper234|Ripper234]] ([[User talk:Ripper234|talk]]) 19:25, 30 December 2012 (GMT). | ||
::: Your thread has been hijacked by trolls, so I'll respond here: | |||
::: The "choice" is already left up to the creators of the systems and market. Hiding the information I added, in fact, harms the ability to make such an *informed* decision. If you don't like how it's worded, feel free to adjust it within reason, but merely deleting content like this is vandalism. --[[User:Luke-jr|Luke-jr]] ([[User talk:Luke-jr|talk]]) 07:08, 31 December 2012 (GMT) | |||
Revision as of 07:08, 31 December 2012
Reverting 'why compete' again
The 'why compete' section is anti-competitive. It assumes "there should be only one".
Alt chains are interesting economical and technical experiments. Some are scams, some are just meangingless ... but some might offer some technical or economical innovation Namecoin and possibly PPCoin. Hell, even Litecoin has some properties that could be more secure than Bitcoin - its 2.5 minutes between confirmations might be inherently safer than Bitcoin.
Luke, please do not revert again without discussing.
Ripper234 (talk) 01:35, 20 December 2012 (GMT)
- You are the one reverting/vandalizing here. --Luke-jr (talk) 04:07, 24 December 2012 (GMT)
- We disagree on this point. I opened a thread to discuss this Ripper234 (talk) 19:25, 30 December 2012 (GMT).
- Your thread has been hijacked by trolls, so I'll respond here:
- The "choice" is already left up to the creators of the systems and market. Hiding the information I added, in fact, harms the ability to make such an *informed* decision. If you don't like how it's worded, feel free to adjust it within reason, but merely deleting content like this is vandalism. --Luke-jr (talk) 07:08, 31 December 2012 (GMT)