typednothing

It's like demanding that people encrypt their communications with ROT13. That request is fundamentally broken. A system that does not work, and can impossibly work, cannot be part of morality. Hence, it cannot be immoral to dodge such request. It is simple. The specs are f*cked. So, there is no point in implementing them, because you can see upfront that the program will not work anyway.

Could a rule like "Everybody must go up to the 12th floor, jump out of the window, and die." be part of morality? No, because that would be self-defeating. In the same way, demanding that people pay a tax but not fixing at all how much that tax should be, is a broken rule, and cannot be part of morality. Nothing will stop the ruling class from incessantly increasing the tax rate, if you accept the rule. Therefore, the rule must be rejected.

If two parties negotiate a deal, and one of both parties gets to write the contract, then, the other party will pretty much be screwed. That is why the contract must be written by a third party, such as a marketplace.

At some point they'll junk the in-house program and buy something off the shelf.

> There is programming that is hard, it's just that that is not the type of programming most people do, and it's becoming more and more rare.

One major difficulty in programming is maintaining consistency and stamping out ambiguity. When you throw together dozens of libraries to create a new one, the problems of inconsistency/ambiguity are as hard to solve -- or possibly even harder -- than in your own code.

Can someone get the imbecile media to shut up about the misnomer "artificial intelligence"? Either an outcome is computable, or else it is not. If it is computable, it is not "artificially intelligent". If it is not computable, it is also not "artificially intelligent". We do not need that kind of retarded terminology.

> they can go after currency converters

Only in their own jurisdiction. The US already goes after those, but it won't help as long as other countries don't.

> They can make holding it illegal.

Unenforceable. Making the knowledge of a secret key illegal would simply be weird. Bitcoins have no physical incarnation. So, you cannot "hold" them in your hand.

> They can make mining it illegal.

Unenforceable. It is very easy to hide that a machine is mining. Furthermore, such machines can be located in any country of the world.

> They can make trading it illegal.

They already try to do that. It doesn't help.

> They can manipulate the market to crash the value of bitcoin with (to them) pocket change.

They would first have to buy up a lot of bitcoin in order to dump them and crash the market. While buying up the coins, they are pushing its value up. When selling them, they just go back to the point they came from. Hence, the strategy would be totally ineffective.

What's more, if governments attack the internet, people will discover that the reverse is much, much easier. Using the internet to orchestrate attacks against the government, is simply trivial to organize.

Users would still need to be able to transfer control over such energy to other users in order to pay them. For bitcoin, you can just use the internet. What is your practical proposal for making the "energy transfer" possible?

> We can hire 'ten for one' in a country A.

Rather: 'two for one'.

A web user interface is just a user interface to the actual program, which I always construct as a commandline (cli) program. It should also be easy (or at least doable) to build a mobile and/or desktop user interface for the same backend cli program. All of that should naturally be able to run as docker microservices. In other words, web "frameworks" are just a pile of retarded crap that is totally incapable of doing any of the aforementioned.

With IPhone's market share of just 9% in China, WeChat should drop support for the IPhone.