TheOsiris

9 ms·

61.
by TheOsiris 11y ago
that has nothing to do with the argument. but re your point that simply is not true either. core was simply never challenged before. all protocol developers simply contributed to core. the rift only happened due to the block size debate.
62.
by TheOsiris 11y ago
I think that's pretty evident both historically, and currently. name a single consensus change that was added to bitcoin, in it's 7-year history, that was not a PR to core.
63.
by TheOsiris 11y ago
no one is saying they're omnipotent, or impossible to replace. however, you have to admit that replacing them/core or convincing all of these people/companies to adopt anything other than what is coming in core v-next is an
64.
by TheOsiris 11y ago
> I'm saying anyone can write their own client but the burden is on them to drum up support and achieve consensus if it's going to be useful. Consensus aside, this is a lot harder said than done. one of the reasons btcd is not
65.
by TheOsiris 11y ago
you don't seem to understand how bitcoin works. all the nodes on the network must follow the same rules. neither classic nor XT have different consensus rules. They have change proposals, but those can't be activated until the m
66.
by TheOsiris 11y ago
that's simply not how bitcoin works. the blocksize rule is part of the consensus protocol. you can mine a 2MB block, but no one on the network will accept it and you won't get your reward. The protocol itself has to be upgraded,
67.
by TheOsiris 11y ago
> It's a free market it most certainly is not. regardless whether you agree or not with the current blocksize debate, it is undeniable that the supply of blockspace is under the centralized control of the bitcoin-core developers.
68.
by TheOsiris 11y ago
I think this is just a stepping stone for Eric until he head's the Trump Admin's Trust and Safety Council. After all, if you're a good person you have nothing to fear
69.
by TheOsiris 11y ago
I think the reaction will be exactly the same except that many of the people in the debate will immediately switch positions :). Many of the people who take privacy and the 4th amendment very seriously have no qualms being very nuanced and
70.
by TheOsiris 11y ago
I think the major difference is that Iran is openly and directly funding/helping Hizbollah. Whereas Saudi Arabia is more of funder of extremist beliefs but no direct funding of terrorist orgs
71.
by TheOsiris 11y ago
isn't the lack of tooling primarily due to the fact that it is very early? I would expect all of that to improve in the future
72.
by TheOsiris 11y ago
"we lose money on every sale, but we plan on making it up in volume" (TM)
73.
by TheOsiris 11y ago
couldn't they do that now anyway with all being under the same entity. I don't think this helps with taxes (at least not in this regard). Either way, WOW!
74.
by TheOsiris 11y ago
does PitchBook show whether the founders cashed out some stock or not? I doubt they raised series B without cashing out some money
75.
by TheOsiris 11y ago
I think OP's concern is that he'll lose out on even getting an interview. Basically, employers will get his resume, like what they see, google him then decide to pass
76.
by TheOsiris 12y ago
isn't this still sort of pseudo-centralized? my guess is that most people will trust the same handful of nodes.
77.
by TheOsiris 12y ago
don't make it mandatory. we're lucky some people don't vote
78.
by TheOsiris 12y ago
I think with the domestic surveillance revelations that became abundantly clear.
79.
by TheOsiris 12y ago
as you said, he leaked 100k documents to Glenn Greenwald. My point is that it was his responsibility to vet them himself and not rely on Glenn and whoever Glenn chooses.
80.
by TheOsiris 12y ago
that's why I never understood why he agreed to turn over all the docs to greenwald. he should've been in control of what's revealed and used the rest as insurance. no one benefitted by revealing that the U.S. spied on merkle.
81.
by TheOsiris 12y ago
precisely, and this is why I'm starting to think that snowden has - at least - caused as much harm as good by his revelations. if he had stopped at revealing the domestic surveillance he would be an undisputed hero/patriot. but wi
82.
by TheOsiris 12y ago
in fact, it got worse. now it won't auto connect to my networks. I have to manually connect, every single time
83.
by TheOsiris 12y ago
I'll believe it when they let me resize the cmd window
84.
by TheOsiris 12y ago
> “It is a lot easier to find your errors in four lines of code than in four hundred.” Looking at his code on http://www.kparc.com/edit.k I'd like to disagree with that statement
85.
by TheOsiris 12y ago
I think he does a better job than uglifyjs can
86.
by TheOsiris 12y ago
I couldn't agree more. But I think many VCs use this line as an easy, soft no. There are always those who truly mean what they say when they say "we love blockchain technology but we don't believe in bitcoin," but thos
87.
by TheOsiris 12y ago
> I was laid off. > > What was the reason?... > > > Officially: no reason... This basically reads like he was trying to dance around saying he was fired, but he was saying he got fired. You don't get laid off by your
88.
by TheOsiris 12y ago
I don't know, even still it's not really sitting well with me how the CEO handled it
89.
by TheOsiris 12y ago
sure, but did the CEO have to do it? And if the CEO was to respond, shouldn't "not true, you were fired" be enough? No need to call him incompetent and lazy (even if he is). That's the part that rubbed me the wrong wa
90.
by TheOsiris 12y ago
this is not how I read it at all. This seems very vindictive to me. The employee's comment was not as bad as the response from the CEO. He was just guessing as to why he was laid off. For the CEO to jump in and respond himself show

More ›