ghazak

Yeah, I actually pretty much agree, I was more responding to the point that nobody made a decision for it to be this way, and that is intelligence. I actually think that it was something that was intentially planned for purely margin reasons.

It’s not really intelligence, so much as selection pressure in the direction of high margin. Evolution isn’t “intelligence” either, but still leads to interesting or highly honed solutions to problems.

You may be able to make a sale and then build it and still keep the sale, but if you think that this is too risky with respect to reputation or having a customer depend on what you’re selling be ready, it’s still worth going through the sales cycle until you’ve found something you can sell.

It won’t magically get easy to sell the product when it’s ready, so it’s possible eliminate bad ideas which are hard for you to sell early, even if you let the sale fall through towards the end.

The primary benefit of a linear emission rate, as far as I’m concerned, is that it doesn’t depend on fees completely taking over from the block reward in order to provide adequate security against a 51% attack. It’s currently unknown whether a fee market will be stable over the long run in bitcoin, and this means there isn’t as much of an incentive to limit the block size for purely security purposes (there are other good reasons to limit the block size though), in addition to block sizes being harder to change once the network is running.

Inflation (depending on the type and extent) can be a form of slow motion jubilee

My assumption is that you sell a given stock with 1x liquidation preference, and the price of that stock is used to determine the valuation for the company, pretending the price is the same for the common stock as the stock with 1x liquidation?

It’s a tough situation, because the amount of access that these extensions have to users’ actions can be extreme. Malware is a much greater concern than, say, the AppStore, as access to sensitive information is far less controlled.

Yes. I would like customized timeouts. 7 days is too long.

I think they could probably just open the case and wire a new port anyway.

Some of the described attacks would make me want to get the fuck out of wherever they work.

Seems like some good advice though.

At fees of 4/100ths of a percent. Vanguard has created a simply enormous consumer surplus. Thank you Bogle.

Just goes to show the effect of putting away money every year, and placing it in assets where the returns will compound over a long period.

This is hardcore

Yes, I’m purely talking about losing people if they forced a password reset.

Agreed. I am assuming they will not do it for the same reason yahoo didn’t. They are simply afraid of losing too many active users.

Yahoo’s case was worse though, since it was hacked.

Aren’t electric vehicles more at risk of the reverse, ie. a big decline in gasoline prices?

They’re more costly so users usually hope to make some of it back due to lower operating costs.

It’s not a huge risk though.

Whether it’s disappointing or not is always relative to what expectations were.

Even if they don’t profile you directly, how do you feel about the fact that your non-paying friends would still be profiled?

They did a great job avoiding taking too much funding though!

That kinda revenue with those profit margins are the insane thing. I’m less impressed at revenue per employee generated from oil.

My feeling is that either system can probably work if there is some level of known policy stability, education, and the freedom and incentive to innovate. Most improvements to living standards are thanks to innovation (business, process, technological, etc).

The difference is that the x86 chips were so much faster than what they had for PPC, that they could still emulate it without customers feeling like they were going backwards.

If he means the equity is worth 0, then the point still stands. The bond holders would get it.

The most likely explanation to me is that the authors are connected to people shorting AMD, and they wished to get the maximum impact out of their release. It didn’t seem to hurt the stock any though.

Not necessarily - the software could be upgraded to take the existing chain, and upgrade it to a quantum resistant hash prior to any damage being done.