jamoes

Like most other readers here, my initial reaction is "Thanks, I hate it." I especially hate the assertion that they're increasing customization when in reality they've steadily been removing/hiding real customization options (e.g. compact theme, UrlBar.preventClickSelectsAll).

But, on further consideration I see the value. This feature isn't for power users. The goal of this feature is to increase chances that normal everyday users will make Firefox their daily-driver browser. For many people, having a custom colored browser will be a deciding factor to keep them using Firefox. This is why they didn't call it "themes", which is a techy word that would cause many people to gloss-over and ignore it altogether.

And, in reality, Firefox is still the most customizable browser for power-users. This feature doesn't remove userChrome.css, it doesn't stop users from editing thousands of options via about:config. It doesn't prevent hardcore power users from editing omni.ja to restore preventClickSelectsAll functionality.

So frankly, I hope this feature can help increase Firefox's market share by even a little bit. The more people using Firefox - even if they're not power-users - the better for the future of the open web.

> I just checked a half dozen exchanges-- none call it "Bitcoin Cash" in their interfaces

Which exchanges did you check? I just checked some myself, and Coinbase, Kraken, Binance, and Gemini all use the full name "Bitcoin Cash".

Open source projects often fork. To take one such example, years ago X.org forked from XFree86. Both projects considered themselves implementations of the X Window System. Can you imagine if XFree86 supporters insisted that X.org not be allowed to use "X" in their name? If these supporters invented their own name for X.org, say "Zorg", made outlandish claims that "X.org" sounded offensive to them, and that they earnestly believed that "Zorg" was a better name for the project, even though no one in the project itself referred to it by that name. Would you not agree that those using the term "Zorg" in this example are using manipulative language?

Another way to look at this: the difference between small-blockers and big-blockers is a deep philosophical divide, much like what often occurs in politics. Imagine trying to have a civil political discussion with someone that has different political beliefs than you, and that person keeps using loaded terminology, rather than neutral terminology. You can imagine that under these circumstances, it would be increasingly difficult to keep the conversation civil, and you'd be well within your rights to ask your interlocutor to use neutral terminology. If they refused, it would be a reflection on their lack of civility, not yours.

Gold has had a widely agreed upon definition for thousands of years. Bitcoin is a ~decade old open source project with a clearly established philosophical divide between small-blockers and big-blockers. In other open source project variants, small name changes like adding/changing a suffix or prefix are common, why would Bitcoin be the exception?

Given that you accepted that BCH is the continuation of big-blocker's vision of the Bitcoin experiment, your comparison of it to gold-plated tungsten is flawed. BCH has a legitimate reason to exist. Your comparison might be more apt if BCH weren't born out of the block-size debate, but that's simply not the reality.

Ultimately, the market has spoken on this issue. The Bitcoin Cash name has been accepted as valid. It's not a trademark violation and it's not fraud akin to gold-plated tungsten. It's a legitimate continuation of big-blocker's vision of the Bitcoin experiment.

The term "bcash" on the other hand is quite clearly a pejorative and a transparent attempt to manipulation language. I'd expect better on a forum like this, but of course there will be some low-brow argumentation style anywhere you go. I'm frankly surprised you're still defending its use at this point.

> a knock-off-name like "Bitcoin Cash"

"Knock-off" is a curious word choice. Are you under the impression that someone owns the term "Bitcoin"?

My interpretation is they're saying that Chromium's address bar code is complex deeply integrated with many other parts of the code-base (including many parts that interact with Google's search APIs). On the other hand, Firefox's address bar code exposes a simple javascript API. This means that making and maintaining custom modifications to the address bar is easier with Firefox.

All I did was post a picture which provides direct evidence of the Tiananmen Square massacre.

A government killing thousands of people absolutely has a bearing on reality, and nothing about it is "meme-like".

Ulbricht never presented a defense for the murder-for-hire charge because the charge was dropped and never went to trial. Ulbricht has been sentenced to double-life in prison for all non-violent charges.

These are the same tired arguments that have been brought many times before in the previous few years. What's the point of an article like this that contributes nothing to the discourse?

> It’s the job of the SEC and other regulators to protect ordinary investors from misleading and fraudulent schemes. It’s time we gave them the legislative authority to do their job.

Ah, I see, it looks like he's trying to drum up support for regulations that would help the banking-industrial complex that he's a part of.