jude-

28 ms·

211.
by jude- 5y ago
The unspoken truth here is that defi tokens all worthless until you cash out, and that leaves a paper trail. Hope you paid your taxes on those trades!
212.
by jude- 5y ago
Chains no one uses are cheap to use. Story at 11.
213.
by jude- 5y ago
And yet the market values Bitcoin Cash at less than 1% of Bitcoin's value. It's almost as if the block size "debate" was a nothingburger -- the silent majority against a tiny screeching minority.
214.
by jude- 5y ago
> Miners don't decide what software other people run
215.
by jude- 5y ago
Developers control the means of software distribution, which does give them some staying power even if they make bad decisions. The tipping point to removing software developers from control is when it becomes preferable to set up new dist
216.
by jude- 5y ago
Miners don't decide what software other people run, that's why. If a miner tries to mint themselves more Bitcoin than they are due, then their block will be rejected by the network.
217.
by jude- 5y ago
An Ethereum user makes up a bunch of terminology about DAOs and tries to assign the "DAO" label to things that are not really DAOs, all in a bid to "prove" an unsubstantiated belief that Bitcoin is "culturally centr
218.
by jude- 5y ago
Good thing, then, that Bitcoin is anything but anonymous.
219.
by jude- 5y ago
Ransomware wouldn't be a problem if the software industry took quality assurance seriously (or was regulated to do so), like every other engineering industry. There's little difference to me between an insecure program that allow
220.
by jude- 5y ago
Pigeon meet chessboard.
221.
by jude- 5y ago
No one is arguing that blockchains don't require a priori out-of-band agreement between the human operators on what the rules of the network are in order to work. Please don't be daft, and try and stay on topic. All distribu
222.
by jude- 5y ago
> Then I run my own hard fork which awards 10X block rewards to all blocks produced by me. Since your blocks violate my and everyone else's nodes' block validation rules, which among other things stipulate a fixed minting sched
223.
by jude- 5y ago
> So now you've escalated the attack to be a 33% staker, which I don't think you'd mentioned before. I mentioned it in my original comment, reproduced below: "The unstated gotcha here is that the chain operates throug
224.
by jude- 5y ago
> Not sure if this is what you meant but there's no actual "yield boundary," it's a continuous function. The table just gives examples of the function outputs. Yes, I see that now. Thanks again for the clarification
225.
by jude- 5y ago
They're recycling them. Saved you a click.
226.
by jude- 5y ago
> The total ETH created does depend on the amount staked. Here's a table[1] and formula[2]. Thank you! I was unaware of this. I stand corrected. However, my original point stands under the added constraint that we don't have
227.
by jude- 5y ago
I see that Vitalik conveniently left out the part where PoS breaks down if you hack a staker's node and destroy their coins (either by knocking it offline or by forcing it equivocate -- both are slashable offenses). That is far, far
228.
by jude- 5y ago
That PoW contributes to pollution is because society allows it to , not because the protocol intrinsically requires it. You can call it "stupid" all you want, but Mother Nature doesn't give two sh*ts about anyone's mor
229.
by jude- 5y ago
> Everybody gets the exact same rate of return regardless of how much they have staked. I don't think that's true. The amount of ETH created per block is determined independently of the amount of ETH staked. So if you stake 1
230.
by jude- 5y ago
I'm talking about the impact of tying coin ownership to coin production on the chain's resiliency, not the morality of earning interest.
231.
by jude- 5y ago
> Rewards are given for actions that help the network reach consensus. You'll get rewards for batching transactions into a new block or checking the work of other validators because that's what keeps the chain running securely.
232.
by jude- 5y ago
Really? I thought the first principle of green energy was to stop polluting. There's no need to reduce consumption unless green energy tech can't meet the demand (and given advances in battery tech, I have no reason to believe it
233.
by jude- 5y ago
I didn't mean to suggest that PoW is sufficient to drive 100% green energy adoption. Your point about it driving any/all energy consumption is well taken. You'd need to have regulations that prohibit using non-green energy, b
234.
by jude- 5y ago
If all energy produced is green, then it doesn't matter anymore how much PoW consumes.
235.
by jude- 5y ago
The nice thing about having more solar capacity available is that you can direct it towards other uses if it's more profitable to do so (or if regulations are changed to require it). Neither is possible, though, if we don't build
236.
by jude- 5y ago
This really is the right idea. Making it profitable for PoW to consume excess solar energy has the downstream effect of spinning up more demand for solar energy in general. You can hate Bitcoin and PoW all you want, but the genie is alread
237.
by jude- 5y ago
Disclaimer: I work on this. You should check out Clarity (clarity-lang.org). It's an on-chain interpreted language, so what you see is what will run. It's statically typed and decidable, such that you can reason about all the halt
238.
by jude- 5y ago
Again IANAL, but I think there's more to it than "the code is law." If we accept that hacking is illegal, then we must also accept that the law recognizes a difference between what the code does and what the code intended
239.
by jude- 5y ago
That can't be right. That would mean that all forms of hacking are legal, since after all, the remote server permitted you to run your shell code.
240.
by jude- 5y ago
IANAL, but I'd imagine that for US folks, violating the intent of the code -- namely, doing something while lacking the authorization to do so -- is illegal, even if the code lets you do it. Otherwise, basically all forms of crimina

More ›