jude-

58 ms·

421.
by jude- 6y ago
Well, the intended use-case is to make it so the act of transferring BTC to a particular address will cause xBTC tokens to be minted in a Clarity contract by the principal that sent the transaction. From there, you can move the xBTC tokens
422.
by jude- 6y ago
> Do you mean that Stacks writes out its own block hashes to the Bitcoin blockchain, or something? Yes; the entire history of attempts of mining Stacks blocks, as well as the entire history cryptographic sortitions that select Stacks blo
423.
by jude- 6y ago
> How is consensus secured for the Stacks blockchain? Is it proof-of-work? This is all described in SIP-001 ( https://github.com/stacksgov/sips/blob/main/sips/sip-001/sip... ). > How many n
424.
by jude- 6y ago
It means that Clarity smart contracts always have all the data they need to validate Bitcoin transactions. Unlike wBTC and friends, there's no need to copy header hashes from Bitcoin into the Stacks chain. By extension, this means th
425.
by jude- 6y ago
Not really. The key difference is the degree of involvement Bitcoin miners have in Stacks mining. In side-chains, Bitcoin miners would need to opt-in to mining the side-chain and validate its blocks. In Stacks, Bitcoin miners only need t
426.
by jude- 6y ago
The system selects one of a set of competing miners to produce the next block via a VRF whose state is recorded to Bitcoin OP_RETURNs. There is at most one Stacks block per Bitcoin block, and the probability of winning is proportional to t
427.
by jude- 6y ago
You'd need a STX-collateralized relay service that would trade your xBTC for real BTC. The collateral would be burnt over time if the service misbehaved, such as by not doing outstanding trades in a timely manner. The collateral itse
428.
by jude- 6y ago
> it's in their interest to maintain that value by preventing things from going wrong It's also in their interest to never sell anyone enough tokens that they could become rival stakers, which makes the system vulnerable to nod
429.
by jude- 6y ago
This isn't the court of law. I don't have to do business with fascists if I don't want to. I encourage everyone here to shun fascists just as hard, and to shun people who willingly do business with them. I like living in a
430.
by jude- 6y ago
"The Jews who did kill Nazis were just as bad as the Nazis!" Who cares if they were regular people? Every single atrocity in history, both big and small, was committed by "regular" people. We hold people accountable fo
431.
by jude- 6y ago
"We have to appease the Nazis or else they'll be even meaner!"
432.
by jude- 6y ago
If all it took to stop Nazis and fascists was to educate them through compassion and understanding, WWII wouldn't have happened. The fact is, like the fascists of WWII, these insurrectionists have bought into a Big Lie. This time, the
433.
by jude- 6y ago
> You don't have to let fascists and Nazis on if you don't want to. Which is exactly what all these companies did. They decided they didn't want them as users or customers. I'm saying that platforms should not, on ge
434.
by jude- 6y ago
A more fundamental question would be, why would you want to create a platform for Nazis, fascists, and conspiracy theorists? You couldn't pay me enough to do this.
435.
by jude- 6y ago
> If you took the beliefs of the people involved in the insurrection to be true, you probably would join an insurrection as well. This is not an excuse. See below. > Trump supporters believe this because they have been lied to repeat
436.
by jude- 6y ago
I refuse to believe that this is all some sort of collective mental illness. That's not only unfair to people who legitimately have psychoses, but also it lets them all off the hook. They knew damned f*cking well what they were doing
437.
by jude- 6y ago
Freedom of speech does not entitle to you an audience or distribution network. It never has.
438.
by jude- 6y ago
That's only for employers discriminating against employees. It doesn't apply to customers -- a business can almost always refuse to do business with you, for almost any reason. Example: you can get thrown out of a restaurant for
439.
by jude- 6y ago
Neither of those linked sets if laws apply to customers. Only to employees.
440.
by jude- 6y ago
Sure thing. Right next to the commonplace "no shirt, no shoes, no service" and "we reserve the right to refuse service to anyone" signs.
441.
by jude- 6y ago
Except, the civil rights advocates in the 1960's would have agreed with me. Denying business to racist institutions, starting with the Montgomery bus system, is how they got started.
442.
by jude- 6y ago
I wouldn't hold your breath.
443.
by jude- 6y ago
Under the current anti-discrimination laws, political affiliation is not a protected class. Religion, race, sexuality, etc., however, are.
444.
by jude- 6y ago
That they would all be so lax is not a sign of ineptitude, so much as it is a belief that they will not face consequences for their actions.
445.
by jude- 6y ago
This would explain why I can listen to music or TV while coding, but not while reading a book.
446.
by jude- 6y ago
Youtube has no more obligation to host these videos than your local coffee shop has an obligation to host an oral reading of Chairman Mao's Little Red Book. This lack of obligation is not censorship -- it's private property right
447.
by jude- 6y ago
Really impressed with Urkel! I've had my eye on it for some time. In an earlier version ( https://github.com/handshake-org/urkel ), the documentation talked about compaction being an expensive and user-initiated o
448.
by jude- 6y ago
I almost wonder if (1) capping the audience size a user can reach, and (2) limiting the rate of a user's audience churn would dissuade users from amplifying misinformation. Not only would it cap the dopamine hit they'd get from s
449.
by jude- 6y ago
Charter schools in many jurisdictions can also expel underperforming or struggling kids, while public schools are obligated to enroll everyone regardless. I would be very skeptical of any charter school benchmarks.
450.
by jude- 6y ago
Any four GOP senators can defect and depose Mitch McConnell, but haven't. The Senate is very much in control of 53 people.

More ›