bachback

20 ms·

151.
by bachback 12y ago
he would likely enjoy Lawvere's conceptual mathematics.
152.
by bachback 12y ago
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Informal_fallacy "The problem with an informal fallacy often stems from a flaw in reasoning that renders the conclusion unpersuasive. In contrast to a formal fallacy of deduction, the
153.
by bachback 12y ago
agreed. perhaps crowdfunded open security is the only way to go.
154.
by bachback 12y ago
I'd suggest the alternative http://mega.co.nz
155.
by bachback 12y ago
"sudo apt-get remove dropbox", never to return. it seems obvious that most US tech companies have not at all realized that they are a global business, and the implications of the Snowden summer.
156.
by bachback 13y ago
I believe a solution would look more like what Hal Finney called transparent servers [1]. This would be a way to solve the issue of scaling (and getting rid of mining oligarchs), but also dealing with the necessary privacy issues of contrac
157.
by bachback 13y ago
I would suggest to run a simulation where nodes are globally distributed and have various latencies with high variance, and then study this problem of non-uniform distribution of information. with GHOST nodes would cluster in physical locat
158.
by bachback 13y ago
how does one node know what other nodes are doing if latency between the messages could be anything between 50ms and 5000ms? if one node has a good position in the network it would know more than other nodes and outpace the network. which i
159.
by bachback 13y ago
anyone who thinks GHOST is a good idea, has not understood Bitcoin at all. the whole point of the blocks is that nodes can work on the global state in a chain. so the idea that nodes should work on greedy subtrees is about the worst possibl
160.
by bachback 13y ago
isn't if funny how PG bridges the gap between true hackerdom and pure commercialism/capitalism? I too want to be a ruling VC /ruling hacker when I grow up https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BDA0t49AaZ4
161.
by bachback 13y ago
it worked pretty well. one way to think about it: did Nakamoto want to be known? then reason from there. then consider the negation. the deeper point in all of this: why do we trust people in the first place?
162.
by bachback 13y ago
the citations of the paper is incomplete also, in that it does not mention finney's RPOW from 2004: http://www.finney.org/~hal/rpow/ quoting from there: "Security researcher Nick Szabo has coined the ter
163.
by bachback 13y ago
very unlikely. all the code is written uniformly. all the posts carry one style. it looks as if at the time there was only one person in the world who was crazy enough to think this could actually work.
164.
by bachback 13y ago
the b-money paper is very well worth reading even today. appendix A hints at what we call today proof of stake. the property club in b-money is more of a political organization than the participants in the Bitcoin network: "community i
165.
by bachback 13y ago
great. here is the new exchange they are talking about: http://www.iextrading.com/ next step: build an investor exchange opensource based on bitcoin. take over the world. if you're into this kind of thing let me know.
166.
by bachback 13y ago
yeah, roughly. but also you have the effect that if you know precisely why some red bills pop up you can start a new fork for the green bills. so a 51% attack is by no means terminal. if an attack is terminal all coins on all chains are wor
167.
by bachback 13y ago
spend 5 seconds reading that post. moving on.
168.
by bachback 13y ago
Leibniz wrote in 1666: "We have spoken of the art of complication of the sciences, i.e., of inventive logic... But when the tables of categories of our art of complication have been formed, something greater will emerge. For let the fi
169.
by bachback 13y ago
I wonder whether this something to do with Wells Fargo's stance, which is positive: http://www.reuters.com/article/2014/01/14/us-wellsfargo-bitc...
170.
by bachback 13y ago
DAC => https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/Distributed_Autonomous_Community_...
171.
by bachback 13y ago
missed the bitcoin train.
172.
by bachback 13y ago
alternative implementations would mean you need consensus between different groups of developers holding the keys to the software. unlikely to be a good idea.
173.
by bachback 13y ago
the big underlying question: why does financial data cost so much? why does it cost 20.000$/year to subscribe to the NYSE feed? because banks and exchange build their own network and profited from standing in between. this will change.
174.
by bachback 13y ago
the number of people contributing is extremely small compared to the people who know about it/make money of it/are enthusiastic about it/could contribute. There is not a deep bench of developers. Many open issues which don&#x
175.
by bachback 13y ago
strangely enough there are a million people who know about this project and 1-2 actually participate. it's a wiki and opensource project, so everyone in the world is free to contribute. same with bitcoin. roughly 5 active developers at
176.
by bachback 13y ago
well, at the moment there is not much reason to use the system. if you register a ".bit" then you have to get your users to install complicated software and in the end what you are getting is very similar to ".com". Ther
177.
by bachback 13y ago
in the original thread, which I linked above, this possibility was discussed. however it would have meant tying bitcoin to a project which has a lot of uncertainty and is not the core use case. miners/stakeholders have to agree with (m
178.
by bachback 13y ago
silicon valley found out about it. several tweets of major figures last week.
179.
by bachback 13y ago
it does in some sense. look up merged mining. however putting namecoin into bitcoin would have implied major changes for bitcoin (much larger blockchain for instance). because namecoin is barely used such an integration would have made not
180.
by bachback 13y ago
no, money supply is fixed. changing money supply like doge did is possible, but risks destroying the network.

More ›