GenericsMotors

19 ms·

1. 181.▲
   by GenericsMotors 9y ago

   So it is an extremely wasteful system.
2. 182.▲
   by GenericsMotors 9y ago

   Worthless as they may be, they are already collectors items. Who's going to care about a failed chain's unspent coins in 50 years time? Also, you can use ZWD notes as kindling. :)
3. 183.▲
   by GenericsMotors 9y ago

   And this is not was I was replying to. Gp was comparing this to a chargeback. But now that you bring up governance, bitcoin is essentially being steered by a handful of mining pools, not by loosely knit community of private individuals :)
4. 184.▲
   by GenericsMotors 9y ago

   Then seems to me it's on its deathbed, not in its infancy. A handful of Chinese mining pools will decide which fork retains any value...so much for decentralization.
5. 185.▲
   by GenericsMotors 9y ago

   Chargebacks usually have some form of review/dispute process as well. What's bit-coin's process for disputing the disappearance of my wallet's contents because of this fork?
6. 186.▲
   by GenericsMotors 9y ago

   Yes, and you can dispute it, by contacting your them/your bank. Who do I call if bitscoins just evaporate from my wallet thanks to this fork?
7. 187.▲
   by GenericsMotors 9y ago

   > you absolutely can have its value disappear from you. This is not a fair representation of what the article says. It doesn't only say that coins you've received may lose value, it says that there's no guarantee the netwo
8. 188.▲
   by GenericsMotors 9y ago

   How does this behave in the event of a power failure?
9. 189.▲
   by GenericsMotors 9y ago

   LINQ gives a huge productivity boost...I wonder what a LINQ implementation in Go would look like. interface{} and run-time type assertions everywhere, probably.
10. 190.▲
    by GenericsMotors 9y ago

    I imagine he means that participants might want kill one another when the pool of cash becomes large enough.
11. 191.▲
    by GenericsMotors 9y ago

    > because then a generic requirement will propagate through the whole framework. And? Why is this a bad thing? Are you trying to maintain compatibility with .NET 1.0 for some reason? > And some polymorphism/patterns simply won&#
12. 192.▲
    by GenericsMotors 9y ago

    I understand what you're getting at, but why not simply make both IProtocolSender and ProtocolSender generic. Here's a functioning example I based on yours that just compiled and ran in LinqPad without any issues: public i
13. 193.▲
    by GenericsMotors 9y ago

    Not to mention that in the original example IValidator is invariant...it can be far more flexible by making it covariant (IValidator<out T>) so that GetAllValidators can also be used on more derived types. And then you can do for exam