Good for you bro ! You deserve it . D <| sep |> Gepetto Krazuki vs . les boulangers inflammables . <| sep |> Poor piglet . another reason smeb should not join TL ! s <| sep |> Its not clickbait when it is covered by the NY T i m estrumpconflictofinterest . html , and you have Constitutional Lawyers currently debating this exact topic . <| sep |> I wish UFC had more Women ' s weight classes , but not to accommodate Cyborg . She ' s so full of juice , her clit could be called a penis at this point . Seriously . <| sep |> Your definition is subject to challenge , because of the way you have constructed it . You are making the assumption that the market has validated the mechanisms behind the existing chain , rather than the functions provided by those mechanisms , and then you make a marketing projection based on this assumption . The problem is that most of the people using Bitcoin are not using it because of details of the mechanism , rather they are using it because of the functions that it provides . This distinction would not matter if the relationship between mechanisms and functions was constant over time , as both definitions would be equivalent for the past , present and future . Unfortunately , this is not the case . The users are not interested in mechanisms such as the size of blocks . They are interested in functions such as the reliable and timely confirmation of transactions . The blocksize has not changed in the past year , but transaction confirmation is no longer timely or even reliable . In other words the relationship between function and mechanism , as perceived by the users has changed . I project that the marketplace will reject your analysis . Of course , I could be wrong . The marketplace could totally reject Bitcoin , leaving it to a narrow collection of geeks who play with mechanisms for their own sake , without regard to their value to a wider group .