rmtech

I'd also be mad if I sold all my dogecoin for a used car in 2013.

Yeah, good point. If the attacker knows how long each person will wait, then they can exploit that.

The problem with waiting AFAIK is that it's vulnerable to attacks on the underlying peer-to-peer network.

Let's say you wait 1 hour to see whether there was a double spend. If an attacker wanted to, they could spend twice and somehow mess with the network for 1 hour.

For example, an attacker at the internet service provider could intercept packets from the Bitcoin network and just block the other spend transaction from getting to you. You wait 1 hour and consider the payment finalized, and you swap goods for Bitcoin.

Proof-of-work cryptocurrencies are in the process of banning themselves.

All that wasted energy is paid for by the holders, and proof-of-stake is just more financially attractive.

No government intervention is required IMO.

Ethereum is moving to proof-of-stake

Since this was written, Filecoin is up about 10,000% or something stupid.

If you pay attention to the naysayers, you're gonna have fun staying poor.

Social factors.

Today's governments wouldn't have the state capacity and ambition to achieve what those of the 1940s-1980s were capable of. We've regressed; we're incompetent and moat of our effort is directed at virtue signalling rather than progress.

Nuclear power is just one aspect of this.

If you are using Bitcoin for privacy you are an idiot.

Dedicated privacy coins like ZCash have existed for years, and even more modern systems like Aztec are on the rise.

https://zk.money/

Eventually Aztec will allow not just private payments but running arbitrary code on-chain in private.

The mainstream is completely clueless.

You can get a nice hoodie with the new HFSP logo here:

https://www.koined.store/collections/out-and-about/products/...

In related news, the bank will soon be renamed to HFSP Bank, in recognition of the crucial role it plays in reducing the risk of its clients making too much money.

In an optimal attack on the problem I think you would be doing all of these; water, fuel and cargo would all be unloaded simultaneously.

Losing a few percent of weight in cargo is worth it.

But in real life these things aren't optimal ;)

Sounds like the author knows a lot about AI and data but almost nothing about economics.

Prices exist for a reason; if power became more expensive that's because it was scarce. People need to stop using it or pay more so that power companies can build more supply.

There are also options like the Tesla Powerwall that will be helped by this event.

Another issue is that proof-of-work may simply be inferior to other consensus mechanisms because of hardware centralization. I think the cryptocurrency world needs to solve this problem at its own pace though. Ethereum is already rapidly heading to proof-of-stake, precisely because it's seen as better on its own merits without considering energy costs.

I think the mistake here is that the author doesn't understand the potential of cryptocurrency so sees electricity use for crypto as a pure cost. You can see this because of comparisons to centralized services.

On coal power: It's bad to use coal to mine Bitcoin, but it's bad to use coal to provide power for any activity. Coal power should be banned outright.

They should have just paid for an eMMC that was 4× larger than needed.

Even I wouldn't put an SSD under this kind of stress and I'm just a random developer.

How do you short Tether?

We are due a cryptocurrency correction.

The question is, how low will Bitcoin go on Tether collapse? $20k? $10k?

Or will things get even crazier with $100k bitcoin crashing to $60k?

It's still a highly user-hostile Apple. Though you can tell this review was written by a true iSheep from the part where s/he talks about the dictation key. "Apple thinks I should use that functionality more, so I will!"

Telegram has the huge advantage of not needing to reveal your phone number.

If your threat model doesn't really include the government but does include people stalking you then telegram is actually better than Signal.

With Signal you have to buy a new SIM card to get rid of a stalker, which is a huge annoyance.

BTW this post reminds me that I am probably overexposed to Google and should consider partially de-googling my life to some extent.

What's the problem? Which Google products are holding you back?

Email should be easy.

Android?

Docs?

Situations like this are what money-printing was made for.

> can do this too.

Yes, it CAN but whether it actually does depends on the details. If you are a cleaner or an uber driver, you might generate some surplus but you might see the other parties take all or almost all of that surplus.

> They do so, because they are competing with other employers for talent.

Yes, but the RESULT of the two-way competition where both employees and employers are competing is undefined in a simple model of the market.

If you work as a cleaner or an uber driver, you may find that even though you generate some surplus, you don't actually get any of it (or you get almost none of it)

> That's thanks to competition between companies. That's market forces at play. You want it there? Accept it on salary negotiation too.

This is itself a bit naive. In a basic market with voluntary transactions the distribution of the gains from trade is undefined.

If your labor sells for $100/hour and costs you $10/hour to produce (basic food, water and shelter) then it is a perfectly legitimate equilibrium for the company to pay you $10.01/hour and take the other %89.99 as profit.

It's only through politics that we can make sure that the gains from trade are evenly split. The math of markets doesn't define it.

A theme that comes out again and again in the comments here is that in a technical community, complaining that a tool could be better is a reliable signal of a dumb/lazy worker.

At the same time, many tools could actually be a lot better and if we all magically traveled 50 years into the future we would find all these better tools and see that it wasn't only the dumb/lazy people who used them - it would be everyone. For example, how many people write applications in low-level languages like assembler today? Not many - but at one point that was the only option and anyone who complained about it would be labelled as a lazy worker.

The signalling aspect of this certainly distorts the discussion, but bear this in mind:

It is simultaneously true that git is a tool with a poor interface and a bunch of warts AND every aspiring developer should do the work and learn it in detail so they can use that knowledge to signal to people that they're not lazy and/or dumb (and the lazy/dumb people - even knowing this - will not do it, so the signal works).

I'm sorry, but if you don't know everything about everything then you're lazy and useless and you need to get good.

When I was a lad, we used to walk 10 miles every day to school in the snow - AND ENJOY IT!

etc.

Yeah I think this is actually pretty important. I wonder whether associativity of unrelated changes generalizes to other git problems?

> With git, it's something you _directly_ interact with so I would expect you to understand it in great detail.

Yes, you are describing what is broken about git: its abstractions are leaking too much so people who touch it have to know all its internals.

I touch x86 assembler every time I run high-level code, it's just that other kind folks have gone to a lot of effort to make it so that I don't have know how the internals of that low-level stuff work.

Abstractions allow people to be productive without knowing in great detail how absolutely everything in the universe works. A good tool has simple, non-leaky abstractions with a simple interface. Git is not a good tool.