The single flaw with Bitcoin is that its function, unlike a Linux running under your own hands, is under the control of other people.

Yes, well, the thing is that until you find a manifested transcendent (ie, God walking the earth) you're stuck with this model.

The current group of other people are going to implement Segregated Witness, no matter what anyone thinks, and how much Bitcoin they have.

Note that this is a much stronger statement than the previous one, and the leap from one to the other is unwarranted. While the in-principle discussion stands, this recourse to practicality sinks on its own weight. What the group of derps you refer does or doesn't do is about as relevant to Bitcoin as what the impoverished hordes of Namibia think about medicine is relevant to medicine.

The socialist delusion is that, by and large, "this is everything". It may be particularly hard to escape from inside, but it is nevertheless untrue. The world women inhabit is not the world, but the gyneceum - a demented summary of the world sufficient for the intellectual needs of children up to about the age of five (seven-ish for the relatively dull ones).

which was an unambiguously bad thing.

If only. For many years now RMS added

[[[ To any NSA and FBI agents reading my email: please consider ]]]
[[[ whether defending the US Constitution against all enemies, ]]]
[[[ foreign or domestic, requires you to follow Snowden's example. ]]]

to all his emails. Why do you think that was, if it were truly that unambiguous ?

Many years from now, there will be other people, probably even worse who will try to destroy Bitcoin.

Actually as per the latest qntra, the latest addition are Hussein Bahamas' own lackeys.

Operating systems by comparison, can run for generations unchanged.

This is a quaint bit of nonsense you only find yourself dabbling in for lack of experience with the topic. You imagine it being as you think it should, for not knowing how it actually is.

In the sad, cold, actual reality of the matter however, we've recently discovered the cancer runs indeed deep. Refer to #b-a discussion of OSen, and of glibc, and of other things.

It's not nearly as rosy as you think it [should] be.

Bitcoin needs to be more like that; something that is flexible to the user, but immutable between users like math and basic protocols are. Consensus with enemies and people who have problems understanding the true nature of man as he relates to other men is unsatisfactory.

Not only is this a lofty goal, but I think - even leaving aside the more or less obvious unsustainability of it - I think it's misstated.

Consider the simpler case of women that can't afford underwear. In this group there will appear voices who put forth the notion that underwear's bad anyway - it gives you candida, or makes the delivery of your unavoidably eventual child more painful, or that child dumb or whatever else.

Should they somehow (how ? through application of the public force ? special panty gendarmerie ?) be prevented from thinking this ? From saying it ? Tax their husbands and force the wives to wear knickers whether they can afford them or not ?

Bull, I say. What women that can't afford wearing panties think about the wearing of panties is not interesting as far as panties are concerned and that's all.

The final solution to this problem must be a form of Bitcoin that is irrevocable

We are currently dealing with a zombified rogue state that attempted to be "a country of laws, not men" and got itself killed by flying too close to that unyielding Sun. Just for this practical reason, you won't ever see me supporting this notion. Moreover and more generally, the cure for cancer is not more cancer and laws are a stupid fucking idea. Corruption is your salvation, not more puritan bullshit. The puritan bullshit is how you got in the mess in the first place.

Physical money relies on others for its perception of value, but not its form.

This is historically inaccurate, and as it happens money is a complex enough system to wear the macular seal of that inaccuracy in its very living body, much like living organisms wear the sigil of their environment. You're perhaps aware that gold coins aren't usually surrounded by a smooth, but a serrated edge. The historical reason for this is the historical practice of "sweating" the currency - which is putting a lot of coins in a leather bag with some abrasive material and shaking it a while. This process produces lighter coins and reusable precious metal dust. Ridges allow a third party to evaluate the extent of the damage (or in other words they throw a monkey wrench in the economical feasability of the particular fraud).

Ideally it is the latter that must be removed from the hands of people you describe so well in these blog posts.

As much as you might despise the hands of others, know that unless you live like a hermit food is always going to come from others' hands. This is a fact, and inescapable. Ironically, the attempts to escape took a brief hiatus during the "democracy" dark ages of thought. Before revolutionary France, however, they were something of a permanence in the preoccupation of sovereign individuals.

Bearing this in mind, that other people are a requirement for money to even exist, does it not make sense to exert more control over the current form of Bitcoin? With a billion dollars in cash to hand, you could personally take control of quite a bit, at a minimum, of perception.

I want more automatons spinning around on this Earth like I want more bureaucrats like I want more fungus. No, it does not make sense, control is poison - and it kills exactly the parts you don't want it to.

People, the long and the short of the matter is, people must save themselves - as in that brief Russian parable alf quotes now and again : 'the salvation of the drowning is work for the hands of the selfsame drowning'.

You can be sure that if the Rothchilds were in charge of Bitcoin, they would never allow anything to threaten, alter without permission or destroy the thing that makes their wealth real.

And with the same cut I'm also sure that if they were, I'd rout and then hang them.

There is no spoon. Bend your mind.

Operating systems by comparison, can run for generations unchanged. Bitcoin needs to be more like that; something that is flexible to the user, but immutable between users like math and basic protocols are. Consensus with enemies and people who have problems understanding the true nature of man as he relates to other men is unsatisfactory.

The final solution to this problem must be a form of Bitcoin that is irrevocable, and that cannot be corrupted; one that is more like a basic protocol. Note how I avoid talking about scale. This may come across as wishful thinking, but the idea of Bitcoin itself was exactly that for decades.

Physical money relies on others for its perception of value, but not its form. Bitcoin relies on others for its perception of value, and its form (which in its case, means parameters). Ideally it is the latter that must be removed from the hands of people you describe so well in these blog posts.

Bearing this in mind, that other people are a requirement for money to even exist, does it not make sense to exert more control over the current form of Bitcoin? With a billion dollars in cash to hand, you could personally take control of quite a bit, at a minimum, of perception. You've already done some good work derailing the CIA/NSA coup by simply threatening to do so, and for all we know, you are already doing this in private. If so, well done.

You can be sure that if the Rothchilds were in charge of Bitcoin, they would never allow anything to threaten, alter without permission or destroy the thing that makes their wealth real. As for being assailed by the wrong people, the assumption can't be that it won't always be assailed by the wrong people; the wrong people are the majority, well meaning or not.