knocte

36 ms·

361.
by knocte 9y ago
OMG, C++??? I thought Mozilla folks would give Rust a spin.
362.
by knocte 9y ago
lol, go back to your cave
363.
by knocte 9y ago
Haha, no please, no business logic in the DB in this decade.
364.
by knocte 9y ago
I disagree, I use it for booking flights and hotels everytime I travel (e.g. Expedia, Destinia; 9flats, CryptoCribs). Smooth experience, much better than paying with {credit|debit} cards. I also get paid in bitcoin thanks to bitwage. It&#x2
365.
by knocte 9y ago
> I trust my bank living up to the task of keeping it safe... Your trust will have a cost. That's what I meant. You will pay with risk or value.
366.
by knocte 9y ago
People like you, in the long term, will learn that the risk associated using an identity-based custodian based services (be it for fiat or for crypto) is never worth it. Why? In the crypto case, because counterparty risk is higher in this s
367.
by knocte 9y ago
And this is why most funds that hold bitcoin will fail, at some point. Bitcoin is a paradigm shift. Its more important value proposition is the lack of counterparty risk (which other people refer to as "self financial sovereignity&quot
368.
by knocte 9y ago
Ah, sure, and that custodian company will most likely hold the bitcoins in a multisig account. Now you have to pay a company for this service and also have counter-party risk. Great. Maybe the risk and cost is not worth it and setting up a
369.
by knocte 9y ago
> you (really) want a custodian Are you really referring to a single (non-plural) custodian...?
370.
by knocte 9y ago
None AFAIK? Maybe you're thinking of parity, which is ethereum not bitcoin.
371.
by knocte 9y ago
This is why multi-sig exists. Put the funds in a 6-of-10 account, done. You would need a 60% attack (60% of the executives to collude/conspire, or 60% being hacked/kidnapped) to be robbed.
372.
by knocte 9y ago
> if you lose the private key to your house Haha. Sorry that I laugh, but using blockchain for land ownership is not about backing bitcoins with square meters, but about the tamper-proof, immutable, public and resilient aspects of the da
373.
by knocte 9y ago
Interesting.
374.
by knocte 9y ago
You can enforce international laws about human rights, but not about economy.
375.
by knocte 9y ago
Even if what you describe sounds terrible and immoral, thing is, it's not illegal, and it's a consequence of how our capitalistic/bureaucratic system works. Let's fix the root cause instead.
376.
by knocte 9y ago
> I don't think it's helping their income much Being opensource is not normally an aspect that helps the income, actually the other way around. Opensource is the argument that wins for the customers that appreciate lack of vend
377.
by knocte 9y ago
C# is the new Java... facepalm
378.
by knocte 9y ago
How efficient is to have an HTTP2 server serving sever-push events to thousands of clients? Better than websockets I assume.
379.
by knocte 9y ago
I think switch blocks are only worth it when you have 2 or more `else if`, otherwise a normal `if` is more readable IMHO.
380.
by knocte 9y ago
Dupe: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=15506334
381.
by knocte 9y ago
> ...they can raise fees to participate in a network? The only times they have done that, AFAIU, is when they wanted to pump altcoins (such as Ethereum when there was a lot of uncertainty over bitcoin scaling and community seeing segwit
382.
by knocte 9y ago
To stay competitive? If we employees start demanding to be paid fairly, we will get there at some point.
383.
by knocte 9y ago
> The fees will only get larger as there is more transaction Which means, every opportunity to try to censor someone will make them not be able to get the fees from that act of censorship. Are you really bringing up a conspirancy in whic
384.
by knocte 9y ago
> But in practice, the supernodes can freeze your money. What? What part of "there's no counterparty-risk in layer2" didn't you understand? The only thing they could do is become uncooperative, and the worst thing tha
385.
by knocte 9y ago
The big difference between Layer2 and the banking system is that Layer2 is still a trust-less protocol in the same way Layer1 is. There's no counterparty-risk in Layer2. Yes, most supernodes in Layer2 will probably be big payment-insit
386.
by knocte 9y ago
Well, I don't expect layer2 to become mainstream at the same time as cryptocurrency becomes mainstream. On top of that, payment channels would actually allow your employer to pay you even by the hour, no need to have your paycheck mont
387.
by knocte 9y ago
I don't understand your point, please elaborate.
388.
by knocte 9y ago
The author is just assuming an expiry time of the payment channels of one month, which is not realistic in an hypothetical scenario in which layer2 protocols started to become prevalent in the cryptocurrency space: the more people trust thi
389.
by knocte 9y ago
> Layer 2 is not money Ehrm, what? So Layer1 is not money for you either? Explain... PS: I'm not agreeing with that "this is reinventing fiat money" comment.
390.
by knocte 9y ago
From the description in the README file: "GoCaml is subset of OCaml in Go based on MinCaml using LLVM. GoCaml adds many features to original MinCaml. MinCaml is a minimal subset of OCaml for educational purpose. It is statically-typed

More ›