...
I think you make yourself look mildly silly when trying to 'refute' an article of that nature. It was not meant to stand up to scrutiny, just to look credible for long enough to make an impact. No point in arguing the specifics of the law - they are probably correct per se.
Its best to just sit back, point to it and laugh uncontrollably. Preferably into the authors face after a golf classic.
I think you make yourself look mildly silly when trying to 'refute' an article of that nature. It was not meant to stand up to scrutiny, just to look credible for long enough to make an impact. No point in arguing the specifics of the law - they are probably correct per se.
Its best to just sit back, point to it and laugh uncontrollably. Preferably into the authors face after a golf classic.
Yeah, but that's what's cool about Bitcoin: If some guy, apropos of nothing, blogs about being a little teapot, short and stout, he'll be:
Accused of being a statist shill/asked "who is paying you"/chastised for being unhep to the disruptive technology that is Our Bitcoin/told that blogchain technology will make teapots obsolete.
OK miner cowards, if you don't like Bitcoin Classic, how about a good old fashioned crash? I think you'll find overhead resistance to a pump may be rather more than you are expecting.
I think they're all partying, Chinese Kwanzaa... 
