sword_smith

"anarcho-tyranny"

Your obfuscation carries no argumentative weight, as the uncertainty your obfuscation attempts to introduce might as well be used in the reverse: maybe the guy who made the original threat (that was not prosecuted) had a criminal record involving violent crimes whereas Lars' text obviously should be taken in the political, non-violent, activist context that is his modus operandi.

Sure. If you accept that we give up on equality before the law, one might be prosecutable and the other not.

Some of us prefer not to give up on that though.

Corruption is defined as "the abuse of entrusted power for private (usually financial) gain". Lars' case falls under the category of conscientious objection, as he's ideologically motivated. Pretty disgusting to frame that as corruption.

That same prime minister supports the warrant-less use of medical records in police work and the ban of encryption through chat control. She wants to prevent the Danish population from having privacy, but demands it herself. Sorry, but that's not the Western way.

Lars is good at exposing the hypocrisy of the Danish government. In a former case he, sent the exact same threatening text to a prosecutor as that prosecutor had received a police report from a third party about, and that the prosecutor refused to pursue. Lars got jail time for that. Rules for thee but not for me.

Lars was a corrupt cop? Are you just using "corrupt" to mean "someone I don't like"?

the user "erk__" from this forum managed to get a copy: https://user.fm/files/v2-5bf26ed8f02e4cac68357e4ed895b3fc/Sl...

See-through blockchain's biggest problem might be that their coins are not fungible, as their history affect their current value. A protocol solution to this problem is to make their history opaque.

Bitcoin's conception was immaculate and new blockchain projects can't hope to match that, yet alone beat it. But Bitcoin can be challenged on technical aspect. We identify four properties that Bitcoin is lacking:

- throughput scalability (is being fixed) - programmability (could be fixed) - privacy (could be fixed) - post-quantum security (can't be fixed)

Afraid of superintelligent AIs gone rogue? Let's start wargaming!

You might want to generate this code with the latest trick for evaluating multivariate polynomials: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=33740808

Making a STARK prover fast enough to be feasible requires multiple algorithmical tricks. This article showcases the latest algorithm that was implemented as a part of speeding up Triton VM.

Nice. I helped write the original Python implementation, so thanks for building this. STARK proof generation is definitely a good candidate for GPU acceleration.

Or maybe somewhat similar to biological evolution: competition and cooperation.

With a STARK prover the correct execution of a program can be validated in sub-linear time, faster than it would take to re-run the program.

Worth noting is that this solution does not constrain the memory value of the last execution trace if the execution trace ends with a `>` or a `<`. Since this value cannot be output, you could argue that that's OK.

Building sound and complete STARKs are really an intricate affair! I have no doubt that we'll eventually get there though!

Unfortunately this can add some overhead to the memory table though. I wonder if there's a better solution than the one proposed here. Not that it matters for Brainfuck too much, as it's a toy language, but it would be very relevant for bigger STARK VMs.

> Ignore it -> Adjust existing systems -> Store it -> Use it for mining

That's just, like, your opinion, man.

The current US inflation rate is 8.5 %. In Argentina its 55.1 %. Since the founding of the Federal Reserve in 1913, the dollar has lost 97-98 % of its value. How's that trust working out for you?

I get the idea, I was just wondering if someone had written something about the projected wider societal impact of such a scheme.

But maybe that misses the point: I have a firm belief that crypto currencies in one form or another is the future of money. History is too fraught with hyperinflation for it to not happen. The crypto currency that wins, though, will be the one that's in highest demand, not the one that's serves some abstract societal goals. So maybe the relevant question is: would linear emission be more attractive for its holders than e.g. Bitcoin's emission scheme with halvings of the inflation rate every four years?

Energy storage is the deus ex machina solution that's always thrown around when real engineering concerns about the problem of electricity sources whose output you cannot control are presented. I might as well flip your argument on its head: if it was as easy to store energy as you propose, then electricity prices would never become negative.

Government is an abstraction that might make us blind to the fact that political decisions are made and enforced by actual people. The more economic power that crypto currencies amass, the bigger a threat they become to big government's taxing abilities, yes. Granted. But at the same time it also affords its supporters more lobbying power. I think governments face a prisoners dilemma in this regard: most governments might be better off if they all banned crypto currencies. But even better off if only their neighbors banned them and they allowed them, so they would get an influx of people and businesses making money in this sector, and they could tax these individuals. Think e.g. Crypto Valley in Switzerland, or Bitcoin enthusiasts visiting (or moving to?) El Salvador. And we all know how the Prisoner's Dilemma plays out in the long run: to the detriment of its actors.

And to you last points: ask modern day Venezuelans or North Koreans whether it's a waste to have sound money that can't be inflated by the whim of self-serving autocrats. Or ask a German citizen that was alive 100 years ago if sound money is a waste of resources.

Good point with the subjectivity of PoS. But regarding the linear emissions proposal, do you have any source that addresses the economic consequences of this model?

The ever more prevalent phenomenon of negative electricity prices is a market signal that the energy could not be used more productively. If it could, prices would never be negative.

Negative electricity prices is an increasingly common phenomenon due to an increasing supply from electricity sources whose output can't be controlled, i.e., wind and solar. Proof of work mining sets a floor under electricity prices, as mining can be spun up when prices are low. This means that proof of work acts as a subsidy for wind and solar, and increases the proportion of the total power production that can be delivered from these sources.

Many share the conviction that proof of work mining is a relic of the past, that the future of blockchain lies with its competitor, proof of stake. I attempt to rebuke some of the criticism that proof of work faces and argue why it is here to stay.