jude-

34 ms·

271.
by jude- 6y ago
It's faster and cheaper to build out new capacity and then later retire old capacity than it is to do an in-situ replacement. Build the battery-backed solar and wind farms now, and then watch the coal and gas plants go bankrupt.
272.
by jude- 6y ago
> Why are you handwaving away my concerns? Calm down. > Speaking of which, can you quantify what things pollute more? You're all over the comments trying to pin the blame for CO2 emissions on the the existence of PoW cryptocurren
273.
by jude- 6y ago
> Hard to do this when you can have other countries with much looser regulations allow Bitcoin miners run rampant. You tariff their imports and apply economic sanctions. > What probably should happen is to make converting from any cry
274.
by jude- 6y ago
I can't see why not. A government could require exchanges to prevent (or even just delay or tax ) the sale of Bitcoins that originate from miners that cannot be shown to have used renewable energy to produce the block. The governme
275.
by jude- 6y ago
Bitcoin is proof that a thing can be a commodity without having a corporeal manifestation.
276.
by jude- 6y ago
Yes, building more solar panels and and batteries gives the industry more experience at doing so, which (for a time) will allow it to refine the tech through multiple iterations, making future capacity cheaper and better-quality. EDIT: this
277.
by jude- 6y ago
Miners decide which transactions are "pollution" and which are not. Not you, and not the parent. Seriously, who are you to tell anyone what data is "pollution" and what data isn't? Like, do you go around to peop
278.
by jude- 6y ago
They all paid the tx fees. Therefore, not pollution.
279.
by jude- 6y ago
Hi, notice that I'm not proactively bringing up any specific cryptocurrencies, let alone the same cryptocurrency over and over in the same thread. This is because I'm not a bagholder. I have no interest in talking to bagholders
280.
by jude- 6y ago
I'm glad we agree, then, that Algorand is just as vulnerable as all the rest of the PoS systems.
281.
by jude- 6y ago
Okay, so instead of knocking your nodes offline, the attacker only has to commandeer them for just long enough to commit a slashable offense. That's usually easier anyway. This is fundamentally a double-edged sword -- the harsher your
282.
by jude- 6y ago
Why would they need to buy 51% stake? Just buy x% and then knock the remaining staking nodes offline so that less than 2x% stake remains participating. That's often much cheaper.
283.
by jude- 6y ago
If you're producing blocks, you're getting paid (otherwise what's the point). If the probability you get picked to produce a block is proportional to how many coins you own, then you're getting paid proportional to how m
284.
by jude- 6y ago
> It seems like your contention is that PoS coins are priced based on discounted cash flow, correct? I think that's a reasonable model, but it's hardly unique to PoS coins, and it doesn't really seem problematic. It's
285.
by jude- 6y ago
> block generation is inflationary > store of value. I stopped reading at this point.
286.
by jude- 6y ago
Open membership means that the chain stays alive as long as anyone in the world wants it to. This isn't true for PoS chains -- you must to acquire tokens to keep the chain alive. > As an example, any sufficiently powerful entity ca
287.
by jude- 6y ago
It's far easier to break a PoS chain -- you simply knock the coin-holding nodes offline. Knock enough offline, and you can no longer reach quorum. If offline nodes' coins get slashed in order to reach quorum and restart block prod
288.
by jude- 6y ago
Try reading the paper: https://people.csail.mit.edu/nickolai/papers/gilad-algorand-... You have to own coins to produce blocks.
289.
by jude- 6y ago
If the means of coin production require owning coins, you have these problems that PoW does not have. Definitely true for Algorand.
290.
by jude- 6y ago
PoW is open-membership, because the means of coin production are not tied to owning coins already. All you need to contribute is computing power, and you can start earning coins at a profit. PoS is closed-membership with a veneer of open-me
291.
by jude- 6y ago
This is why I don't see the USA banning Bitcoin anytime soon. Using it makes it all too easy to catch nefarious activity.
292.
by jude- 6y ago
I call bullshit. If you had done so, you would have shared links to them to prove your point.
293.
by jude- 6y ago
> The only working plugin is the SELinux one. If you can't use that, you have to rebuild an entire new security architecture I stopped reading at this point. If you're not going to read the documentation, then you can kindly g
294.
by jude- 6y ago
The question was related to the relative difficulty of replacing the whole graphics stack vs. patching in support for an X extension that has existed for longer than Wayland. One of these things is far, far less work than the other.
295.
by jude- 6y ago
Wrong. XACE is independent of SELinux and LSMs. It's just a protocol for writing plugins to X servers that filter which events X clients can see. That there exist SELinux plugins does not mean that XACE itself depends on it. Like, try
296.
by jude- 6y ago
Last commit was 2 weeks ago.
297.
by jude- 6y ago
People complaining about how underpowered shells are should have a look at Ion [1]. It's mostly the same as bash, but with first-class support for arrays, maps, byte slices, variable scoping, and (primitive) type-checking. Oh, and it&#
298.
by jude- 6y ago
X already solves this particular input hole with the XACE extension. No need to replace the whole graphics stack when the X server is already capable of addressing this issue.
299.
by jude- 6y ago
And, have you written a Wayland extension and a X11 extension and learned the difference? No? Then why should we listen to you?
300.
by jude- 6y ago
A blockchain. He's calling for a blockchain. He even has an IETF draft spec for it: https://tools.ietf.org/id/draft-pouwelse-trustchain-01.html

More ›