SilasX

54 ms·

901.
by SilasX 4y ago
>But they are obviously not independent. Yes, independent with respect to the variable you're testing. In the ZKP, the independence is between the challenges given to the prover. In the computational proof, independence is between t
902.
by SilasX 4y ago
Yes it is — the fact that the later computations got the same result is evidence that the earlier ones weren’t flukes. My comment above didn’t even mention randomization. That’s not necessary. All that’s necessary is that the tests be indep
903.
by SilasX 4y ago
The same issues come up with interactive zero-knowledge proofs[A], where someone proves that they possess certain private information without leaking said information. The proofs have the form: 1) Give the prover a challenge that they only
904.
by SilasX 4y ago
We need Morpheus to step in and say, “what if I told you … JavaScript was the source of insecurity?”
905.
by SilasX 4y ago
Isn't the entire Bitcoin mining incentive structure equivalent to a huge bug bounty on SHA-2 (256, specifically)? Edit: Never mind, grand-uncle comment beat me to it: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=34003485
906.
by SilasX 4y ago
Weird. I still don’t see where that’s prohibited (so it can’t be facilitating a violation). The closest is when it talks about forging IP headers or using anonymous emails. Or accessing the site only via published interfaces.
907.
by SilasX 4y ago
Wait — so all those CEOs who wanted more time with their families right after a massive scandal blew up that they were known to have a hand in …?
908.
by SilasX 4y ago
Good catch, I was overstating SBF's claim there. Still, knowing his penchant for lying, even that much ("potential" interest) is probably a self-deluded exaggeration.
909.
by SilasX 4y ago
Per my other comment, he was telling the same story (regarding item 6) weeks before, in a letter to colleagues: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=33984977
910.
by SilasX 4y ago
According to a NYT article, he was insisting that billions in funding came in 8 minutes after filing for Chapter 11, but of course, couldn't give any details, or any reason why someone would give such funding: >>In a letter to
911.
by SilasX 4y ago
You mean LedgerX as the derivatives clearinghouse? That one was (somehow) insulated from the bankruptcy and commingling of funds.
912.
by SilasX 4y ago
Maybe not! There was that case in 2003 where Bono of U2 said “fucking brilliant” when accepting an award, and the FCC ruled that it was not a violation, because it was not in the context of intercourse. But then later reversed itself. http
913.
by SilasX 4y ago
And you didn’t feel the need to mention that in your reply to the parent comment, that introduced this assumption that I was building off of?
914.
by SilasX 4y ago
But it’s not like that acts as a filter against anything in your interest, since it would still come out on cross, right? I tried to illustrate with my comment here: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=33973220
915.
by SilasX 4y ago
Doesn't explain why they'd never get with the time and accept electronic submissions, which are probably easier on their end too.
916.
by SilasX 4y ago
Ehhh that's still misleading. It makes it sound like when the officer testifies about your statements, it goes through a magical filter in which only the inculpatory(is that the word?) stuff can come in, but not the exculpatory. Like.
917.
by SilasX 4y ago
Yeah, and he was also in a state where the same strategy kept working again and again, so he may have been convinced it's a fundamental aspect of reality. Any time SBF ran into trouble, he could just raise another round of financing, o
918.
by SilasX 4y ago
Funny you suggest this as a nightmare scenario, since the US government did that with gold, while debasing the currency by 40%: https://www.history.com/this-day-in-history/fdr-takes-united...
919.
by SilasX 4y ago
I’m not sure it’s fair to say Perot was laughed at. He commanded a tremendous following, and got 19% of the vote in the 1992 election, without a major party endorsement, and after hamstringing himself by leaving the race and re-entering. h
920.
by SilasX 4y ago
If it were from a spirit of curiosity, none of those points would have been made, because you would have soon realized you're not responding to anything in my comment. The more-curious version of your comment would be, "That'
921.
by SilasX 4y ago
>The author is arguing against skeptics who are "infinitely hostile" to crypto because it consists of "100% scams". I don't think many skeptics believe crypto is 100% scams This looks like the sanewashing[1] anti
922.
by SilasX 4y ago
Except that overall the car had the same safety, and normally HN is totally on board the argument that it's not an atrocity to neglect ossified standards if doing so finds an alternate way to accomplish the ostensible goal (here, saf
923.
by SilasX 4y ago
>No, because it carries a false implication. IOW, exactly the criticism everyone is making about the article's framing of Ellison's history. We're back to square one.
924.
by SilasX 4y ago
I don't think that addresses my question about why this particular tradeoff was unusually objectionable, it looks to be just the general point that safety is good. But even your examples of "doing it right" are implicitly doi
925.
by SilasX 4y ago
They have prediction markets for exactly this: https://manifold.markets/mr22222222/sbf-convicted-of-a-felon... (On Manifold, you can only donate winnings to charity rather than withdraw, which allows them to legally op
926.
by SilasX 4y ago
Confession: I still don't get it. Manufacturers (and governments, for infrastructure) make a tradeoff between safety and cost all the time . You cannot make a car perfectly safe. Eventually you hit diminishing returns. This is an unav
927.
by SilasX 4y ago
>> title endorses a narrative >It endorses a timeline: she was promising, then she went into crypto and no longer is. That's accurate. You seem to be almost deliberately missing the point that the facts can be correct but pres
928.
by SilasX 4y ago
Hold on -- I didn't blame the media for this fraud. Did you just accept my point that a wording can suggest a narrative even without explicitly endorsing it? You're almost there! Now look back at the title: "Ellison was bo
929.
by SilasX 4y ago
>Sure, it's a passive voice. But that's far from exonerating. The accumulation of all those “not exonerating but friendly” pieces is what makes it a positive framing. Something can be technically true but selected and framed
930.
by SilasX 4y ago
You just repeated the framing yourself! “She was then ruined by crypto” — as if she’s some innocent victim. You’re just mystified at how it portrays her sympathetically, even as you buy the narrative hook, line, and sinker!

More ›