Squithrilve
Also, I'm not sure if I get the "public ledger" part as WKD I just your own HTTPS server. It doesn't have anything in common with keyservers.
Although some protocols are missing for example DoX: https://xmpp.org/extensions/xep-0418.html
It seems in a lot of cases Google just want to go on an easy route of creating fake "standards" (AMP) instead of long way of working with broader community for common good.
Maybe that's just me but the Google I remember back when Android was announced and the company it has become now it's like two totally different entities.
I'm not sure about that. If the main matrix server disappeared today that'd be problematic. Yes, you'd have history locally but the same can be said for any native client that stores history locally.
As far as I know there is no way to migrate matrix history now. Is there? (genuinely curious)
It's interesting that even Edward Snowden made this mistake of sending only encrypted email.
For more elaboration about this subject K-9 resources are quite good:
https://k9mail.github.io/2017/01/30/OpenPGP-Considerations-P...
This is not unique to Postgres. I've seen this behavior on many development mailing lists (e.g. Mutt-dev).
SSL certificates also doesn't work in HTTP/2 (because of multiplexing multiple requests).
Benefits include storing private key in a hardware tokens, most OSes support them out of the box. You can just plug your token into USB port, visit site that requests a client certificate, enter PIN and be done (e.g. Yubico PIV applet).
HTML also has/had <keygen> element that would generate private key in a browser, send the public key to be signed to a webpage essentially creating private/public key credentials but that is being removed from browsers.
For inter-service communication I'd definitely consider using SSL client certificates pinning private keys e.g. to TPM but regular users can't be bothered with it.
If you're interested check out Token Binding that makes tokens (cookies, etc.) bound to TLS connections essentially providing security of client certificates for tokens.
Actually Linux is licenced only under GPLv2:
> The only one of any note that I'd like to point out directly is the clarification in the COPYING file, making it clear that it's only _that_ particular version of the GPL that is valid for the kernel.
> ...
> Why? There's been some discussions of a GPL v3 which would limit licensing to certain "well-behaved" parties, and I'm not sure I'd agree with such restrictions - and the GPL itself allows for "any version" so I wanted to make this part unambigious as far as my personal code is concerned.
Source: http://lkml.iu.edu/hypermail/linux/kernel/0009.1/0096.html
> Previously to sleeping, volunteers like Worsley agreed on preset eye movements they would perform once they achieved lucidity in their dreams, which La Berge could record in the lab.
Source: http://dreamherbs.com/eminent-dreamers/stephen-laberge/
> Every dollar you spend on the most efficient mining setup will only give you one dollar worth of bitcoin plus a small profit.
That sounds just like any other investment, or am I missing something?
They are only proposed solutions, not implemented in any existing systems so it's not fair to compare them. Proof of stake for example has numerous drawbacks: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proof-of-stake#Criticism
And Bitcoin does not provide service that is valuable to all parties?
> Bitcoin mining is done by people who want to get rich by not doing anything.
Calculating SHA256 is hardly anything because we wouldn't be arguing about that, right?
> What if Bitcoin were to fail for some reason?
You're not concerned about SSL failing for some reason? Heartbleed?
> What if Bitcoin were to fail for some reason?
That's highly speculative. Besides Ethereum has several failures already and it's still doing fine because there are serveral mechanisms that can be used to resolve such problem (e.g. hardforks).
It seems like people would want to bend thermodynamics and require that benefit is produced without spending energy...
By the way mining is already used to heat houses in Siberia: https://qz.com/1117836/bitcoin-mining-heats-homes-for-free-i...
And protecting money is not important?
> - RFC: we're wasting a few bits as a tradeoff for less complicated hardware and less processing power. Not sure if applicable anymore, but reserved fields and consistent parsing saved us some power/materials historically.
Well so the RFC reserved bits are waste but also a benefit? Maybe the same is true w.r.t Bitcoin mining?
> - SSL provides security and privacy in your communication at a cost reasonable for the outcome.
The cost is reasonable in SSL case but unreasonable in Bitcoin case based on what criteria exactly? Remember that SSL relies on PKI that has a lot weaker security guarantees (see Symantec, DigiNotar and your favourite Chinese CA in your OS's trust store).
This needs a proper source. As far as I understand currently only Proof of Work is sound enough to use in real-world scenarios. Also see: http://www.truthcoin.info/blog/pow-cheapest/#is-a-work-indep...
I don't get it. Why won't you complain about monitor pixels, that don't display content using/wasting power or various unused/reserved bits transmitted every second (https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-abhi-covert-00) that also waste power. Proof of work uses energy to meet some strict guarantees.
This reminds me of complaining that SSL is computationally expensive and therefore plain HTTP is better. 10 years ago of course.