heptathorp
heptathorp on Hacker News
> This report of someone spending 800k already might well even be part of the scam, the same way any con artist on the street will have stooges pretending to throw in cash in order to convince others that it's legit.
That's exactly what it is. This sale was to their "partner" company Polyient Games, and they're putting 10 more up for auction next week. This sale was to anchor the price.
Note for those surprised by the price tag and talking about whales: this is not like your typical in-game purchase like a special sword, unique mount, or even skins in CS:GO. These tokens implement core gameplay functionality that other players will have to pay to use -- think dungeons in Legend of Zelda, but if another player could own a dungeon and you had to pay them to go inside. So really, these people are buying a stake in the game with the expectation of profiting if the game is a success.
I expect the SEC will be all over this once they catch up. It took them long enough to take action against XRP though which is pretty open-and-shut, so this might take a while.
Assuming this is an honest question and not a lame attempt at a gotcha: as more people switch to a vegan diet we will gradually stop breeding them in the first place, so there are no animals for something to "happen to."
Good points, thanks.
Followup question: how does a node coming online know not to trust China's (longer, censoring) chain? It wasn't online to have the transaction in its mempool, so it doesn't know to check for it in the longest chain.
I think it would need to check all candidate blocks with lower heights to see if their chains contain any transactions that aren't in a longer chain.
What happens if I mine off of a very old block and include my own transaction in it, and present it to you... how do you distinguish between what I just did vs the longer chain having censored the transaction this whole time?
>You know the transaction exists, and at some point (i.e. after a certain number of blocks), if the transaction isn't included in the chain, you can conclude with reasonable certainty that the transaction is being intentionally orphaned. This allows you to reject the chain that doesn't include the transaction as invalid, and choose the longest chain that does include it.
So you are going to reorg after many blocks (enough to be sure a transaction is being censored). This sounds extremely undesirable as it kills finality. Today you can very reasonably be sure that after say, 6 blocks, a transaction is irreversible. That's not the case with this new rule.
You are mostly correct. Except only your Bitcoin client sees the checksum/address, the raw transaction has just the pubkey hash encoded in the address. So there is no checksum for other nodes to check. If you accidentally crafted a transaction with the wrong hash in the scriptPubKey, the network would happily accept it.
This requires colluding with a miner, since nodes will reject a transaction that spends the same output as a transaction they've already seen. For a small payment like a coffee, it should be enough to check that the transaction has a reasonable fee and wait 1 second to see that it has propagated through the network.
Problem is even though Facebook was restricted to a very small set of people, each of them could interact with most/all of the people they wanted to (other college students). Same was not true for Google+, people didn't have enough invites to give to all of their friends.
You make it sound like ether can only be used to pay for gas. It can also be transferred to another account in a transaction, it's the native currency for making payments. It will also be required for staking.
The market making algorithm for Bitcoin is: the highest bid and the lowest ask.
His point is some of the cheapest energy in the world is renewable (like hydroelectric energy in China), which is what Bitcoin is using. Bitcoin mining can take place virtually anywhere in the world so it can be done where energy is already abundant.
It's based on what people are willing to buy or sell it at. Like anything else...
You have earned 1 social credit point.
Everything about this is very (2008)
1. Skeuomorphic torn-paper edge at the bottom
2. Loud background image on the body
3. Text is unreadably small on mobile
4. php
Please, I come on HN to escape all of this.
If it was the same person who made all of the robberies (not Mr. Bah, but the person who stole his identity) then the facial recognition worked flawlessly.
Unfortunately "Stolen ID Blamed for False Arrest" doesn't make for a good story.
weight and
size and
the fact most people don't know how to put one on properly or use one and
there's usually not enough time to prepare in an emergency and
it would be utter chaos inside the plane if everyone tried to put on their parachute and escape the plane.
> I had created a Google Developer Account simply so I could pass on the login details to my app developers who uploaded and updated the app via my account each time.
Sounds like one of those developers was previously banned for violating ToS and Google suspects the author is the same person with a new account trying to evade the ban. Instead of sharing login details, the correct thing to do is add a user and give them permission to upload. Not let them pretend to be you.
The situation sucks but Google's action seems reasonable? Like they can't just let people create new accounts to evade bans.
A DFS would be you check your living room, you check under the cushions of the sofa, you tear open the cushions and comb through the insides... all before glancing at your bedroom when you didn't quickly see the keys in the living room.
> For instance say you have two groups of woodworkers, one group has an average IQ of 90 and another group has an average IQ of 100.
> It's a smart bet that the 100 group has more (total) fingers.
Not without knowing the size of each group.
More fingers per capita, sure.
Don't forget that this time of year is now ruined for this manager. But not enough to stop them from shopping on Amazon during Black Friday and contributing to those human costs.
"I boycott Prime Day, but I do shop on Amazon during Black Friday. I feel bad about it, but at the same time, I don’t think me not shopping will get Amazon to change its practices."
It'd be funny if the puzzle was to count graves. Then you would answer 20. Either there are 20 and you're right, or there are only 18 so the caretaker digs 2 more for you and your friend, so you become right.
Why does it only benefit rich people?
> Also, it's unusable for legit business transfers since you absolutely have no idea how much money the other ennd receives.
Can you expand on this? What do you mean you don't know how much the other end receives?
Every Ethereum block contains a timestamp which smart contracts can read, so it's trivial to write code that only allows withdrawals in 1 month intervals.
There's no way to revoke a transaction but you could implement a hold so ETH could only be withdrawn from the contract x days after the charge is incurred, within such time the owner could cancel the withdrawal.
As far as notifications are concerned, there are events in Ethereum that you can subscribe to. So for example you could subscribe to a charge event, and go in and dispute it.
That makes sense. It wasn't clear from the paper since they talk about how Ether is "transferred or traded" and comparing it to algo trading.
> A logical explanation for the high volatility of Ether, relative to Bitcoin and common stock, is that Ether is transferred or traded in a way in which Bitcoin and stock are not.
More specifically, Ethereum has contract accounts which can cause Ether to be transferred between accounts in an unpredictable manner. (While Bitcoin and common stock are also traded by algorithms, the distinction is that anyone - even someone writing a hello world program - can instantiate a contract account on Ethereum. Meanwhile, algorithmically trading Bitcoin or stock requires more technical sophistication.)Can anyone clarify what the movement of Ether between contract addresses has to do with the price of Ether? Intuitively, the price of ETH would move when it is traded against other currencies, not when it is transferred between accounts on Ethereum. Yes, it's easy to write a contract that moves Ether. It's also trivial to create a Bitcoin transaction.
Their sacrifice is opportunity cost. Which is what TFA describes as the necessary ingredient for a consensus protocol.
> Practical impossibility can be reframed in terms of "opportunity cost": there are limited physical resources and those should have been largely allocated to X than to Y so we can see that X sucked in all resources from any alternatives.
There are a limited number of coins that can be staked at any time.
With a layer 2 protocol like lightning network, we can have individual transactions be fast and cheap, and only the net settlement of a payment channel on the blockchain slow and expensive. Which is okay because it would happen infrequently.