dylkil

17 ms·

151.
Radicle – Integrating with Ethereum(radicle.xyz)
1 points by dylkil 6y ago|0 comments
152.
by dylkil 6y ago
Then they will be on a fork of a fork of a fork (ETC -> ETH -> ETH_POW -> ETH_POW minus Difficulty bomb) who will take this chain seriously
153.
by dylkil 6y ago
Dont get married to an idea or thought - explore, experiment, be flexible when working towards what you want to achieve.
154.
Kings of Leon Will Be the First Band to Release an Album as an NFT(rollingstone.com)
11 points by dylkil 6y ago|0 comments
155.
by dylkil 6y ago
they included the republic of ireland as a part of the uk and put northern ireland (which is in the uk) as its own state
156.
by dylkil 6y ago
no
157.
by dylkil 6y ago
yes, you can fork the network to use a new hashing algorithm
158.
by dylkil 6y ago
"Contrary to online speculation, there was no finding that Tether ever issued tethers [USDT] without backing, or to manipulate crypto prices," said Weinstein, a former federal prosecutor.[1] [1] https://www.theblockcrypt
159.
by dylkil 6y ago
Breaking News: Highly volatile asset experiences volatility
160.
by dylkil 6y ago
Yes, but you sacrifice security for scalability. One of the ethereum layer 2's seem to be the most promising but are yet to gain major traction. Loopring seems to be in a pretty good place right now though. You could also use some othe
161.
by dylkil 6y ago
yes, its been 4 years now and cardano doesnt even have smart contracting capabilities yet
162.
by dylkil 6y ago
why is hacker news so anti crypto
163.
by dylkil 6y ago
isnt the pain of running long distance a distraction too though?
164.
A Theory of Ethereum State Size Management(hackmd.io)
3 points by dylkil 6y ago|0 comments
165.
by dylkil 6y ago
Hes legitimizing crypto in general. PoS will be proven to be more efficient in almost every way, people will gravitate towards that. Bitcoin has the network effects of being the first mover right now. Ethereum is surpassing it on many metri
166.
by dylkil 6y ago
i think they mean it hot reloads
167.
by dylkil 6y ago
Peter Todd said it was because he thought he was hacked [1]. Then two days later he posts a blog about wanting to submit a pull request for bigger blocks[2]. Interesting timing. [1] https://twitter.com/peterktodd/status&
168.
by dylkil 6y ago
The failure to raise the block size limit is the very reason bitcoin has failed as a currency. The main people against against raising the block size limit were blockstream and bitcoin core devs. A competing client to Bitcoin core which sup
169.
by dylkil 6y ago
>Lots of "they" in there and very little substantive evidence of who "they" actually are and what actions were connected to other "theys" involved. This [1] is a good recap of what happened [1] https:/&
170.
by dylkil 6y ago
do you have metamask installed?
171.
by dylkil 6y ago
When bitcoin launched there were no non-mining nodes, every node was a mining node. "Node" in the whitepaper refers to what we know today as mining nodes. You are suggesting that the task of relaying blocks falls solely on non-min
172.
by dylkil 6y ago
Remove the non-mining nodes from the network and the node count goes down, but the network security stays the same. Non mining nodes do nothing for the security of the bitcoin network. Having more non mining nodes to store and relay blocks
173.
by dylkil 6y ago
Increase the block size limit was really just a 1 line change, a single variable within bitcoin core controlled it. Instead of changing this variable from a 1 to a 2 they chose the convoluted mess that was segwit. What was so wrong with inc
174.
by dylkil 6y ago
if a non mining node decides a block is invalid it will fork onto its own chain. If no mining nodes start mining on this forked chain then the original node is left on a chain where no transactions can be processed. Non-mining nodes have no
175.
by dylkil 6y ago
Yes id agree with you there, many dont though.
176.
by dylkil 6y ago
Why not increase the block size limit then?
177.
by dylkil 6y ago
>The claim that BTC chose a non-scalable solution for ease of running a node isn't true. Except that it is true. There were few reasons for not increasing the block size limit, one of those was the cost of running a node. If the cos
178.
by dylkil 6y ago
Its more like PvE system
179.
by dylkil 6y ago
>But during the same period, total issued Tethers increased by almost $5.4 billion — going from $4.6B to $10B >The implication was shocking: there weren’t nearly enough dollars in all the domestic banks in the Bahamas to >back the
180.
by dylkil 6y ago
So stacks is a separate network with its own consensus layer where a random miner from the bitcoin main chain is selected to write the next block, have i got that right? What happens when they write something the rest of the stacks network

More ›