jude-

30 ms·

241.
by jude- 5y ago
> However it tries to do type inference and be a "programming language". "tries to do"? It either does or it doesn't. If you're not sure which, then it doesn't. Let's not use weasel words and mi
242.
by jude- 5y ago
> The point is that the most-work chain is allowed to be ignored if the politics are done right. If the best argument against PoW is that people can ignore it, then I don't know what to say to you. Like, don't let me stop you
243.
by jude- 5y ago
> But, I don't have very much patience for weasel-wording, pussyfooting, or hand-waving. This was meant in a general sense; it wasn't an accusation. I apologize if it was interpreted otherwise. I was hoping to see more about w
244.
by jude- 5y ago
> The point is most clients run whatever the politicians tell them to. What makes it even harder for engineers to see what’s actually going on with Bitcoin is that we suck at politicking and don’t even see it when it’s happening: the s
245.
by jude- 5y ago
This would be going a lot more smoothly if you could articulate which distributed systems properties, exactly, you intend datalisp to provide. So far, you're contradicted yourself at least once here: > I believe the problem in the
246.
by jude- 5y ago
Then I guess his opinions on BTC are pretty loosely held.
247.
by jude- 5y ago
Well, I guess he also understands me not giving a sh*t about his opinions if he's not going to put his money where his mouth is. I hope he's not managing someone else's BTC wealth.
248.
by jude- 5y ago
> you can just tweak the clients of a fork to require negligible work or the next block and convince everyone that the most-work chain is a hostile takeover If I have the power to tweak any/all peers of any p2p system arbitrarily,
249.
by jude- 5y ago
So is global agreement on state a criterion for datalisp's correct operation, or not? If not, then why compare it to Avalanche at all?
250.
by jude- 5y ago
Not if you make coal-fired plants illegal to operate. Easy to enforce, since you can see the CO2 emissions and just go seize and demolish the plant if it turns on. Can also seize the coal mines. This will have to happen regardless of whet
251.
by jude- 5y ago
If you read the Avalanche paper, you'll see early on that all of its claims to being BFT stem from an assumption about the distribution of message arrival rates in the system. That is a very generous assumption that can easily be wrong
252.
by jude- 5y ago
Mining rigs already require tremendous amounts of power, and there are already laws on the books that allow the government to know what you're doing with that power (i.e. for safety and environmental reasons). You can easily determine
253.
by jude- 5y ago
If all it's using is surplus green energy (something regulators can enforce), then efficiency isn't a concern. That energy was wasted either way. Re: PoW, the thing it does provide that no other tech can't is Sybil-resistant
254.
by jude- 5y ago
Try googling "Byzantine Fault Tolerance" and read the original papers by Leslie Lamport. 2/3 is required to ensure liveness.
255.
by jude- 5y ago
Please don't be daft. You know what I meant.
256.
by jude- 5y ago
Nonsense. PoW exists in the real world and had negative externalities. Of course it's subject to regulation.
257.
by jude- 5y ago
A friendly reminder that PoW runs just fine on 100% renewables. It's the job of regulators to make sure all PoW runs this way. Just like it's the job of regulators to mandate renewable energy for literally all other industries.
258.
by jude- 5y ago
"Just enough consensus" in BFT settings is necessarily 2/3 vote from all votes on agreement. That's a tall order.
259.
by jude- 5y ago
The "stochastic probability stuff" falls apart once ISPs discover they can profitably influence the consensus outcome by messing with packet arrival times between nodes.
260.
by jude- 5y ago
If he really believes BTC has failed, he'd be shorting it.
261.
by jude- 5y ago
He is no longer exposed to BTC, and thus no longer assumes any risk from the advice he gives on it. Like, if he wanted me to pay attention, he'd be shorting BTC right now.
262.
by jude- 5y ago
What's the financial-investor-equivalent of a drug user? Someone who can't help but eat their assets?
263.
by jude- 5y ago
Wait, isn't this the guy with the whole shpeel about having skin in the game? And, didn't he also sell most of his BTC in February? If so, then I guess he would want us to just ignore him.
264.
by jude- 5y ago
Sure, and this is all true even if cryptocurrencies didn't exist. I'm old enough to remember the days before Bitcoin, where there was similar pearl-clutching about cloud computing. I'm calling for people to separate the probl
265.
by jude- 5y ago
Perhaps this is just a difference in interpersonal communication styles, but if I were so chided in either case, I would have at least taken it to heart. Like, I don't ask questions whose answers can be Googled; I personally find it mo
266.
by jude- 6y ago
> you want there to be an alternative to the government run and controlled fiat. I, uh, never said that. I don't see Bitcoin as a currency at all. > That said, gold technically exists already to meet this in my humble opinion as
267.
by jude- 6y ago
I think you should go re-read the HN commenting guidelines: https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
268.
by jude- 6y ago
> Bitcoin simply exists in a form where the primary purpose is to waste energy, That's just your moral judgement. The people who use and make a living off of Bitcoin certainly don't see it as a waste. > In order for the net
269.
by jude- 6y ago
You'd be a lot more convincing if you weren't in the throes of a hissyfit over something that's 0.5% of the US's total CO2 output in 2019. It's not great, but it's far from the worst problem. Like, bad buildi
270.
by jude- 6y ago
Here, let me Google that for you. First, let's assume for a moment that this February 2021 CNBC source [1] is correct in that Bitcoin mining produces 36.94 megatons of CO2 per year. The original source the CNBC article cited can be fo

More ›