You sounds like a central planner/protector for all the people. This is experimental software and open source isn't it, no one is responsible for people's financial loss, thus everyone here knows how to protect themselves by only investing risk money. But they hate being centrally controlled, it seems you value money over freedom
If third parties make decisions to take away your funds, then Bitcoin isn't money. I find it amusing that you call avoiding that, "centrally controlled".
hm - you can improve, debug and grow only with constructive critics, so I wonder (but could understand as well) that you lose patience here ...
You are a sience guy, so you know your theory fail once you cannot convince your critisizers .
There is little point in arguing with a climate change denier or creationist whos positions are axioms and not based on the science. At some point all there is left to say is that this is what Bitcoin is, it's what it's been since the start-- the poster has already aggressively and insultingly disregarded the advice of virtually everyone with established expertise-- and promotes a vision, things like it being okay to make changes that confiscate people's funds, that in my opinion is practically and ethically incompatible with Bitcoin. I feel no shame in telling such a person that Bitcoin may not be what they seek.
If Bitcoin is to satisfy anyone it cannot satisfy _everyone_; some demands are mutually exclusive.
old clients wont check whats after 0x00(op_0).. they automatically treat the transaction as valid.
This is the property of the address, not the signature; if it were a property of the signature you could already simply steal any coin.
