aeternus

38 ms·

361.
by aeternus 9y ago
The model of cryptocurrency is more accurately: trust a majority (50%+) of participants to act in their own financial self-interest.
362.
by aeternus 9y ago
The problem is, if you flash with JTAG you're basically just trusting your host computer not to be compromised. And isn't not having to trust your host computer the entire point of a hardware wallet?
363.
by aeternus 9y ago
Right, even with Amazon you could argue that Ebay was there first as the online marketplace for 'everything'.
364.
by aeternus 9y ago
Lots of ways: - Software you use for key generation uses a known random-seed. - Compromised software that converts your seed into an address/priv key. - Compromised transaction generation software. - Offline wallet physically stolen -
365.
by aeternus 9y ago
To call that a solution is generous.. it is unlikely the average person could follow the Glacier Protocol.
366.
by aeternus 9y ago
It'd be great if you could instead grant approval for specific search/query strings.
367.
by aeternus 9y ago
mlloyd has a point, the P value is right on the edge of significance and the study has only 31 people. Take into account the bias that the negative result (no-correlation) would not pass the bar for publication and you likely have noise.
368.
by aeternus 9y ago
Wasn't the original vision that Bitcoin could be used for everyday transactions like purchasing a cup of coffee? Can Bitcoin Cash really support that rate of transactions? How large would the blocks have to be?
369.
by aeternus 9y ago
Lightning network seems to be the leading solution. I've used it on the test net and it is fairly impressive.
370.
by aeternus 9y ago
Many of your points contradict each other. * Transaction fees go to the miners so high transaction fees mean more miners. There have been a few blocks now where the total transaction fees are larger than the built-in block reward. * High t
371.
by aeternus 9y ago
Depends on the use-case. Definitely not useful for small transactions but $6-20 is still relatively cheap compared to other options for sending funds in cases where both parties do not have USD (or similar) bank accounts. As far as store-o
372.
by aeternus 9y ago
>But even on a POW chain you still have to trust software from a third party to some degree in order bootstrap your node. You really don't have to trust the software with POW. The POW is encoded in the blockchain itself and can be
373.
by aeternus 9y ago
I think the difference is scale. There are some exceptions but most Kickstarter pledges are less than $200. ICO exposure can be much higher.
374.
by aeternus 9y ago
The problem with suppressing speech in general is 'who decides?' Yes corporations currently have a lot of power and it is difficult for the average person to filter. However the alternative is effectively censorship. It's ea
375.
by aeternus 9y ago
Venmo is great for small payments, and makes way more sense than bitcoin for that use case. Bitcoin's use-case is not microtransactions or payments among friends. It is providing secure and trustworthy payments when no trusted third p
376.
by aeternus 9y ago
>decide, later on, which chains hold value How? Who decides? This is really where every PoS algorithm seems to break down. The whole idea of blockchain is to build a decentralized consensus, and PoS just handwaves it away.
377.
by aeternus 9y ago
The problem then becomes how do you determine the 'real' Ethereum. For Bitcoin, it is generally understood as the blockchain with the most proof of work. With proof of stake, what's the disincentive to participate in all for
378.
by aeternus 9y ago
It seems likely that it is exactly that expense which make bitcoin and other PoW blockchains successful. The proof-of-stake algorithms can disincentivize cheating within the blockchain, but I haven't seen any that have the type of exte