1,870 sats stacked
stacking since: #11923
My answer is in theory infinite txs.
In reality it's less than that, but some day we will be able to perform more txs on lightning than all other payment processors combined.
How'd I do?
Why are you such a failure...at being boring?
I feel like I should get 10k deposited to my account now. I didn't take out loans and avoided school that I couldn't afford.
The numbering was meant to match to the number I was replying to on your post. Probably more confusing that way.
The only thing I will add is that I think that you are underestimating the effect that number 3/7 (number confusion) has. I don't think that the argument that there has never been 'those who do not' yet is a strong one. You preach that Monero is a good tool for private payments, and you try to promote adoption. Currently I would argue that the people who use Monero are in-the-know and commit time to keeping up with the current state. The wider the adoption comes, the less people with be willing to do that. The less people willing to do that in the future, the harder a non-contentious hard fork will become. There will likely come a time where a hard fork is needed to implement something and there will be less consensus on the decision. This will likely lead to a split. ' Decisions that are obvious and have a clear line to follow on the 'ethos' are not a good example to throw out there as to why hard-forking is not a problem. There may come a time where the hard-fork hard-decision times comes and it makes your argument stronger and not weaker, but only time will tell.
Fixed formatting in above comment, thank god for timed edits.
-1) You may not be a "fanboi" but it is clear that you have an agenda. -2) Nobody owes you a reply, whether they started the conversation or not they are free to leave it. -7) If it can be hard forked (and has been hard forked) then there is a 'they'. The 'they' definition is fuzzier, but it is something like: Those who support and promote and use the hard fork, vs those who do not. -9) People have different uses for blocking. You assume the use-case that he is using the block feature for. Is it not similar to personal privacy? It is possible he doesn't want his time involuntarily taken by those on his block list, and it is also possible that he blocks people with dissenting responses. You can make your assumption, but you can't know that your assumption is correct.
'Non-contentious' is a scale. If one person has concerns about it, it could be considered contentious. This person may not make their case known for a number of valid reasons. The hard fork was then 'generally non-contentious' and had broad social consensus otherwise. However this person's status quo was changed against their will.
If the number of users of Monero increased, the number of people who would not want a given hard-fork would likely increase, and the number of people who had the protocol 'rugpulled' would increase.
This is far far less likely to happen with Bitcoin.
I think much of it is incentive based. It seems that on a platform like stacker news there will be less noise because of the cost. However because it is tied to cost directly, advertisers can directly see the cost of promoting their message on the platform.
A cost that I can only imagine is way less than other places.
I'm anti peer pressure. I will not be pressured into taking a shot I don't know enough about. I'd rather make my own decision. I will not bow down to the all-knowing climate scientist experts that seemingly 'know' what will happen. I will learn as much as possible for and against their arguments.
Similarly, I will not become an outrage machine in the opposite direction of the established outrage machine.
The answer to countering the crazy zealots, is not to become a crazy zealot in the opposite direction.
Instead we promote truth and learning. Those caricatures you outlined are simply noise, not signal.
When communities are small it is possible, but as they grow they all seem to become too noisy.