throwaway415415

Hence why it can work with algorand.

PoS by itself doesn't incentivize you to include transactions. That's called the "nothing at stake" problem.

That is not true. If network partitions happen in bitcoin you are utterly ducked. The system will fork and good luck to recover from that with all the double spendings.

There is no 51% attack in PoS system. Rather there is a more than 1/3rd attacker problem.

What folks?

Not true

Wow wow wow

Yes people can duck with a network by cutting cables. This works with all internet protocols.

Usually interface{} is abused by java programmers. I agree that it's not great, but if you don't come from java or c++ chances you won't follow these patterns at least.

Sure. Seems like they have the same experience than me then.

Whats the difference with vault?

Usually, for distributed systems in adversarial settings we talk about safety and liveness. Bitcoin doesn't have safety, and both bitcoin and algorand seems to fail the liveness test as well.

In your terms, both bitcoin and algorand have weak availability.

You are not answering the question.

So I was correct. Thanks. Indeed outlook is the first desktop client in your list.

Unfortunately I am not parroting. If you are used to read code, and you read c++, you will see that templates are abused. No generics force devs to make their code clearer and thus more secure.

It is evident that Go is a better language than most thanks to the creators having deep experience in that domain.

Because they are easily abused (look at c++) and makes code unreadable. Working around generics usually make the code clearer and thus more secure

Its the hot thing for a reason. Adapt or be left out.

It is already dying

Algorand

If no fees, what are the incentives to accept transactions in a block?

When you look at the big cryptographers behind vault and algorand you understand why.

No it doesn't. Coda can work with Algorand's byzantine agreement protocol.

Unless you're willing to provide information about the tech and how it is better than algorand or coda, I see your comment as just promotion scam.

Yup. It's a shame that HN isn't willing to talk about the interesting new research instead of debating around the same philosophical discussions.

There is no energy waste with Algorand's pos. It doesn't use bitcoin's pow. So yeah the environement doesn't matter here.

One could argue that it prevents hashing power attacks, where an attacker can duck with the network with no money at stake. Check the 51% attack websites, it shows how easy it is to duck with altcoins who use pow.

Can we focus on an interesting discussion instead of the usual

False. Algorand has safety, unless you get confirmation from 2/3 of the "money", you don't go forward. The best you can get here is a denial of service.

This is true. I would be interested in knowing the difference in approaches between vault and coda.

Is that really a good question to ask someone who is pushing the state of the art in this domain?