Perhaps Rambo did violate Apple's terms, I don't know. However, this is still a major problem. Apple has currently locked me out of my account due to their new authentication process in at attempt to force me to buy an apple device for authentication purposes.
At that point, you can still authenticate with a Hackintosh anyway. But hey, would you look at that, the person is still _technically_ violating the rules!
But you'll quite happily develop software for 'exorbitantly overpriced shit hardware,' and even violate terms of the software provided by using a VM running macOS to make sure you get a piece. The unheeded irony of that position is so transparent as to be Windex clear. That'd be fine on its own, but of course, the truth of the matter is also no impediment to you disingenuously blaming the party enforcing terms you agreed to in your pursuit of the aforementioned piece which, again, all centers around 'exorbitantly overpriced shit hardware' that you disdain.
If you'd like to address iOS and macOS users, the ramp to doing so is quite clear and navigable. If you'd like to avoid 'exorbitantly overpriced shit hardware' while ignoring say, secondhand MacBook Airs, well, also good news: Android is a perfectly addressable market. If that's an untenable position for your particular sensibilities, you are totally free to compete.
If that seems like bullying, capitalism is going to be tough to navigate. You're already ignoring the rules to get your own piece of it, so chastising those who are more successful at the exact same game you're playing simply obliterates your whole philosophy in general and makes you an unreliable narrator, and I hope you see that.
I'm just pointing out the fact that the user is complaining about some "limitation" about an "evil company" when they're not being much better themselves. Haha.....
Actually, many developers with similar lines of thinking rigidly adhere to their ideologies about Apple, whether it be related to process, supply chain, licensing, whatever, and refuse to develop for Apple platforms outright. That is quite respectable.
"I just can't turn down the market so I'm simply forced to develop for platforms I loathe (all the way to my checking account)," on the other hand... yeah, that's a touch more obvious.
Not sure why I'm being down-voted for the parent comment, but this is an obvious way to get around a lot of software limitations.
I didn't state this was a valid/legal/good path or trying to defend anyone whom does use a hackintosh. The truth is that there are people who can't afford Apple products to develop and they will abuse this loop hole until they can.
This comment wasn't rude or aggressive, but I was merely proposing an alternative solution. The down-votes are more aggressive than the comment could have even been misconstrued.
LBRY was commenced a while back -- back when having your own coin was a cool thing to do. LBRY also uses non-standard transactions to purchase and build their URL tree. (LBRY allows you to acquire a named channel to host your content, similar to Youtube.)
In addition, Bitcoin at the time was plagued with performance concerns and high fees. If your vision is to serve and support content to millions per day, you want freedom to address the performance needs of the system.
I do think you could build a similar system on bitcoin; your wallet server could build the necessary indexes. You would need to do some interesting P2SH work to construct the channel hierarchy.
We use the blockchain to store metadata about content that's published to the network. We could not do that on Bitcoin (well, we could do it with OP_RETURN but that's considered bad practice).
In addition, having our own chain means we can tune it to meet our specific use case. What Bitcoin wants and what we want are not the same, so solving both problems the same way is probably not right.
I have updated the wording of the original article to further clarify the nature of coin inheritance as it pertains to market cap.
The remainder of the article remains largely unaffected by the original poor choice of words regarding market cap inheritance.
As for the quality of the article, I beg to differ. Alot of time went into its research and presentation. Additionally, it was reviewed by a number of active crypto-researchers (as well as yourselves) and revised according to feedback.
Thank you for taking the time to read and leave comments, which have led to improvements to the ideas expressed in the article.
Thanks arbitcoin! Refreshing to see feedback taken to improve content even though I was a bit harsh. That's a great personal attribute that leads to growth and mastery, I wish most people were like that.
