jude-

61 ms·

541.
by jude- 11y ago
I also find this a peculiar thing to say. Systemd replaces a few thousand lines of shell scripts and several dozen small well-tested binaries (i.e. coreutils and friends) with a suite of tightly-coupled daemons and tools written in a few h
542.
by jude- 11y ago
> But there is no collision. In the example I'm making, the people chose to humor me, they chose to introduce a collision because they always have context information. Collisions are allowed precisely when other parties humor you.
543.
by jude- 11y ago
> First of all, you can insist all you want, it won't make it so, people will call you what they want. Second, I can insist on being called "Warren Buffet", and people may even humor me, but that won't let me sign che
544.
by jude- 11y ago
> In the first scenario, I have a pseudonymous interaction with someone/something and I simply want to ensure that every time I interact with that person/thing it's the same one. > All of those things can be done withou
545.
by jude- 11y ago
> The important part is that the person interacting with someone has a distinguishable name for that person. I think your example actually proves my point. In the limit, how does one tell apart all of the people with the name Tarou Suzu
546.
by jude- 11y ago
> Once you lose a master key, blockchain or no blockchain, your identity splits. The person who stole your key can impersonate you perfectly. I agree that there is a race between you broadcasting your revocation and the attacker using yo
547.
by jude- 11y ago
> My point is precisely that this property isn't critical for identity. I don't know what you mean. I think you'll agree that it would be undesirable for me to insist being called by the same name as one of my coworkers,
548.
by jude- 11y ago
Order matters. Suppose my key is compromised, stolen, or lost. If my revocation preceeds a subsequent signature from my key, then the subsequent signature can be considered invalid as well. Unlike a DHT, the blockchain provides everyon
549.
by jude- 11y ago
What I think GP means is that "Satoshi Nakamoto" fails the "secure" point of Zooko's triangle: there are two or more entities to which "Satoshi Nakamoto" maps. Human names are decentralized and human-mea
550.
by jude- 11y ago
That's what's being argued here--it's valuable to both users and services like GitHub for everyone to have globally-unique names that everyone can recognize.
551.
by jude- 11y ago
However, FUSE implementations are actively maintained for all the BSDs and OS X as well.
552.
by jude- 11y ago
> Basically, you're using the blockchain as a decentralized passwd file. But again, I don't see why this is desirable in light of existing and much more powerful alternatives to passwd files (U2F for example)? Not quite. To u
553.
by jude- 11y ago
I think we're talking past each other. > I don't have any reason to care when a trusted or untrusted notary endorsed someone's identity. Sure you do--you're doing it right now :) This is how usernames on websites wor
554.
by jude- 11y ago
The intuition is that the cryptocurrency miners act as a large decentralized first-come first-serve notary for the transactions they append to the blockchain. If a peer submits a valid transaction and it gets included in the blockchain, it
555.
by jude- 11y ago
(Disclaimer: I work part-time for Onename). The key difference is that Passcard requires a quorum of mutually-distrustful blockchain peers that attest to the validity of your public keys. We believe this is a much stronger guarantee than a
556.
by jude- 12y ago
I think what you're looking for is API standardization? If so, dbus does nothing more to help you than POSIX IPC, since each dbus-speaking application can define arbitrary methods with arbitrary signatures and arbitrary side-effects.
557.
by jude- 12y ago
The seL4 microkernel was written by hand, in C by fallible humans [1]. However, the authors were careful to do so in such a way that it was feasible to subsequently prove its equivalence to a Haskell program that was proven consisten
558.
by jude- 12y ago
> hater horde comes out to tear down the hard work of developers without offering any viable alternatives. No comment on the "haters," but your argument precludes the possibility that some users are happy with their current ins
559.
by jude- 12y ago
Maybe it only speaks the NFSv4 protocol, but the implementation is different?
560.
by jude- 12y ago
Yes--choose the language and development process that makes it easiest to reason about the desired properties of the program. Example: seL4 is written in C (as in, written by hand by fallible humans --not compiled down from a higher-level
561.
by jude- 12y ago
Hello Dr. Mazieres, thank you for making the Stellar whitepaper available! While inter-domain route agreements show precedent for building a robust network out of pairwise relationships, might this particular class of agreement also work be
562.
by jude- 12y ago
Did you read the whitepaper? It's much more technical. Link: https://www.stellar.org/papers/stellar-consensus-protocol.pd...
563.
by jude- 12y ago
If a program is formally proven to be correct, it doesn't matter what language it's written in.
564.
by jude- 12y ago
Yes and no. Yes in theory, using bandwidth-per-source-IP caps like you suggest could be used to solve this. No in practice, because the prevalence of NATs puts many users behind the same IP address, meaning that unfair users can still hog
565.
by jude- 12y ago
The goodput decreases for everyone then, since each flow requires a 3-RTT handshake and 1-2-RTT tear-down. This is particularly bad if you're starting up a lot of small flows, where the control-plane information becomes a non-negligib
566.
by jude- 12y ago
> Why not just have the wire sniffer decode the frames before presenting them. Certainly possible, but why make our lives harder by implementing HTTP/2 such that it requires a decoder to read in the first place? If the number of by
567.
by jude- 12y ago
Moreover, it's bad from a QoS standpoint. Opening many TCP streams in parallel is not fair to other users sharing the routers between you and the server. You'd get more than your fair share of bandwidth.
568.
by jude- 12y ago
> 8.4.4. “Not being ASCII is a deal-breaker” > Yes, we like being able to see protocols in the clear since it makes debugging and tracing easier. But text based protocols are also more error prone and open up for much more parsing and
569.
by jude- 12y ago
revoke() is potentially harmful, since an application not written to check the error code after each interaction with each file descriptor will break when one of its file descriptors is revoke()'ed out from under it. Why not instead us
570.
by jude- 12y ago
I'm a little concerned about the use of deduplication and encryption in the same system. If done improperly, deduplication followed by encryption potentially leaks information--a passive adversary can make some good guesses at what&#x

More ›