cryptocoder

3 ms·

1. 1.▲
   by cryptocoder 7y ago

   Looks like you’re right on this. Probably wishful thinking on my part that at least one manufacturer would be doing the right thing wrt autonomous vehicles.
2. 2.▲
   by cryptocoder 7y ago

   I agree. But that’s not what I meant to say: only for life-critical software (think autonomous vehicles, airplanes, medical robots and devices).
3. 3.▲
   by cryptocoder 7y ago

   This is great. It would be good if all life-critical software was open-sourced like this. Maybe something that should in fact be required? But, ”in turn, we receive support in taking our AI software to the next level of development” I bet t
4. 4.▲
   by cryptocoder 7y ago

   Adding ‘secure’ to the name of some chip (“‘secure’ element”) does not automatically make it secure through magical or other means.
5. 5.▲
   by cryptocoder 7y ago

   In contrast to proof of work, proof of stake will support itself since it doesn't come with the high power demands.
6. 6.▲
   by cryptocoder 7y ago

   There are plenty of proof of stake consensus protocols out there already (Avalanche, iChing, Ouroboros, ...). These do not require the huge power demands of proof of work to provide network security. As a result, they also don't need