Which I totally don't understand. Mind you, this discussion is the first I'm hearing of BitcoinXT, and I don't use any cryptocurrencies. I'm a developer that finds cryptography and currencies interesting. From what I've read it's just a new client that allows larger blocks for more transactions per second using the exact same coins. Is that not the case?
What is the problem here? I am totally baffled why anyone holding coins would care. The only people affected are developers writing clients and servers. But as long as the protocol is still public, there's no reason they can't modify their clients and keep on participating. Miners should be able to install whatever software they like without affecting their operations.
Oh wait. Are the custom hardware solutions (FPGAs) locked into the current block size and cannot be upgraded? That would definitely explain the pushback given how much money that hardware cost. In that sense, the new block size may as well be a new currency. Is this the source of the dustup?
The Bitcoin block chain will be taken over by BitcoinXT once its clients detect the 75% hashing power mark and one larger block gets added to the chain. Any existing Bitcoin clients will be unable to read the larger block and no longer participate in the network because you can't add blocks mid-chain.
However, the ethereal coins themselves are unchanged. Anyone still running the old client can at any time install a BitcoinXT client and continue using their wallet. You won't have to exchange one coin for another. That to me makes the term "altcoin" completely inapplicable.
Note: I'm merely an observer as I find the intersection of coding, cryptography, and currency intriguing.
Doesn't necessarily mean Windows. Most developers I know (ballpark figure from ass: 90%), including myself, code on Linux or OS/X. The only thing that would make me code on Windows is taking a C# project.
By using Linux, I can run our full application stack on my dev box without deploying it to a server. Sure, I could use a VM on Windows to do the same thing, and one developer in my company does, but that creates occasional headaches.
If the developer desktop market were at all big enough to be important to Microsoft, they would maintain their own binaries for the most common tools such as PHP, Subversion, Git, etc. It is a huge pain in the ass to get these to work on Windows. Microsoft could ease that pain with a trivial amount of investment and developer resources, but they don't because it wouldn't make sense to their bottom line.
3 months ago, 1 BTC = 240 USD. Today, 1 BTC = 420 USD.
[Y]ou don't address that maybe it is the dollar that is unstable while BTC remains stable.
Indeed. However, USD has gained value and remained strong over the past two years (witness the withering prices of oil and gold), which shows BTC has increased even more in the past three months than its price in USD indicates. You can compare the gold prices of each to get another perspective: BTC vs. USD.
I'd like to think that my likes and dislikes can be taken into consideration when training for a job.
I haven't seen anyone suggest shoving people into fields they have no interest in and would absolutely argue against it. The problem is when someone does have interest and capability in a field but is turned off by the people in it.
An imbalance in gender/race/etc. merely indicates the possibility of a problem and may warrant further investigation, but it doesn't guarantee it. Likewise, lack of a problem in one field doesn't mean there are no problems in any other field.
I'm all for ending the war on drugs, but doing so won't make cops' jobs easier.
How can it not?
I like how the "online survey" purports to sample "general consumers" (unless that was a casualty of editing). I'm sure being online, the survey doesn't carry any bias toward tech-savvy and -dependent consumers.
He cannot and (probably) will not get elected, nor does he have a big enough voice to influence the campaign.
Perhaps, but having him be able to speak his message in the national debate would start the ball rolling. We may not be ready to fix the rotten core of our system this cycle, but it's important to expose the real problem so when the next president manages to fix nothing substantive, people will know why and have possible solutions in mind.
It may take some time, but it has to start somewhere.
So you're saying wanting to keep the money you earn is "exactly" the same as trying to get groups of Americans to hate each other so you can lead one group against another?
No, I said nothing of the sort.
What I do consider divisive is calling the working class "moochers" and "takers," claiming people are trying to steal your money when they're actually trying to build a just society where everyone is compensated fairly for their hard work and children don't starve because their parents can't work enough minimum wage jobs, insisting workers compete on the global job market while capital can flow easily between markets to take advantage of that competition.
BTW, you keep saying "the money you earn" as if people earn money on their own in a vacuum. Imagine passing a law that says all white men get to have two pieces of pie while everyone else gets only one, complaining when some black guy or a woman has the audacity to point out that everyone should get one piece of pie, and shouting that they are trying to steal your hard-earned pie.
If at first you don't succeed, you are running about average.