noxer

77 ms·

871.
by noxer 6y ago
I dont know a solution to solve this all either. But I'm worried we make it worse with bad solutions. Certainly you dont want to give these powerful people the tools to become more powerfully by implementing an authoritarian system aga
872.
by noxer 6y ago
>He mentioned that mining is more efficient when the GPUs are cooler... Its simply not true. GPUs dont work fast or slower based on temp as long as the temp is in the rated range. It could potentially save energy by spinning the fans slo
873.
by noxer 6y ago
Let em guess, the work was paid with gridcoins.
874.
by noxer 6y ago
So its just another "better" bitcoin. But bitcoin is already useless. And we already have FBA coins instead of PoW/PoS which are way more efficient. It remove the external "useful" work completely.
875.
by noxer 6y ago
I accept this as unavoidable reality. The only way to fight this problem is education. I'm not worried much about the fact that everyone "believes" some stuff that is actually not true. This is and was the case for all time h
876.
by noxer 6y ago
Maybe I should have said a "unique use case" and also one that out-competes other similar systems. Buying stuff with the coin may be an use case but this coin is in no way better than the thousands others for doing just that. Its
877.
by noxer 6y ago
Well if its meant to be used as p2p cash but can not be used in this manner since many years that ticks all the boxes for me to call it failed. but you are entitled to your own opinion on this. BCH solves nothing, the larger block size may
878.
by noxer 6y ago
It was mean sarcastic. In case you haven't figured out how awful the fact-checkers are. An no, if you ban "disinformation" you ban free speech. There is no way to figure out if a flat earther publishes something for disinform
879.
by noxer 6y ago
Yes, the "fact-checkers" we already have should give us a hint at what "lie-checkers" would do.
880.
by noxer 6y ago
Even if there would be a simple way to define "lying" in this context and a simple 100% effective way to proof it. It would only shift the problem not solve it. You can already "lie" under oath if you formulate something
881.
by noxer 6y ago
Bitcoin was mean to be p2p cash. It has no legitimate use case anymore as it obviously failed to be p2p cash. Ethereum tried to be many things mostly a decentral computer. Turned out to be a super expensive decentral computer and that it is
882.
by noxer 6y ago
No, its not with all, maybe with most but regardless this doesn't add any anything. I want to know specifically for this coin. >to get enough to stake regularly to earn their rewards Reward paid in, let me guess, more coins. self fu
883.
by noxer 6y ago
That doesn't answer the question.
884.
by noxer 6y ago
Instead of PoS there are FBA (federated byzantine agreement) chains who are older than PoS thus better tested and arguably without any of the flaws PoS has. PoS is really a step backward and not the real successor to PoW.
885.
by noxer 6y ago
Whats the use for the coin? Its an incentive obviously but its only so because it has a price tag. Who should buy the coin from me if I "mined" one and what would he do with it?
886.
by noxer 6y ago
Slightly off topic but I sometimes use https://json.pizza (a site I know from HN) to format JSON. It however does not have different ways to format just the standard indentation.
887.
by noxer 6y ago
Someone clearly doesn't understand thermodynamics at all if he seriously thinks putting that thing outside and let the warm air be sucked in, is more efficient that running it inside. for obviously reasons (isolation loses/heat ra
888.
by noxer 6y ago
Would be true if there is healthy competition. And if a significant percentage of potential buyers would know about it and thus avoid NVIDIA. However in reality most customers wont know and they still get the GPU its just expensive which th
889.
by noxer 6y ago
Unfortunately Nano's fee-less is a "lie". Long before Nano was created the XRPL team created the first blockchain (DLT) without PoW or PoS and without incentives (fees) for node operators. This lead to a new problem, spam tra
890.
by noxer 6y ago
To "measure" value we need to know the purchase power. People have no feeling for the purchase power of a highly volatile asset. hence most people convert the value to their local currency. We do this with gold/stocks/cr
891.
by noxer 6y ago
Block rewards are designed finite but also designed to end outside most peoples lives. So in short no one needs a solution. Block reward of 0 theoretically would be reached in 2140. Of course earlier halving will already have a similar effe
892.
by noxer 6y ago
misleading title They send back money before they had to some returned it back but 500M didn't came back that's not a 500M mistake at all. stop support that click-bait nonsense
893.
by noxer 6y ago
The attack on the Capitol was denounced by "all sides". I'm sure you can find awful things on all sides but this aint one.
894.
by noxer 6y ago
Its kinda "mob ruling by capitulation of the people in power". The people in power often would clearly detect that there is no bad intent, but they bow to the mobs shitstorm if it gets loud enough, because they know that otherwise
895.
by noxer 6y ago
No, there are just different definitions for a word and context, everyone know exactly what is meant in this case. It doesn't matter if it is limited to a specific platform or consensual. China also censors what people can read only on
896.
by noxer 6y ago
It was obviously a joke. After "....convinced nothing will convince you anymore" you should not expect a rational argument.
897.
by noxer 6y ago
Lol no, The "nothing will convince you anymore" was meant exactly like that. Therefore no attempt was made to convince you at all. The "premise" was a obviously a joke that went right over you.
898.
by noxer 6y ago
It doesn't matter if it "actually censorship". Why people always argue about definitions and stuff while the real effect it has is obvious and its completely irrelevant if it ticks all the boxes for the definition of "ce
899.
by noxer 6y ago
Betting against each-other is not manipulation is what the market need to not run form bubble to bubble. Manipulation is when you bet and then do other actions that makes sure you win the bet.
900.
by noxer 6y ago
You are totally misinformed. To bet against people who took too much risk is exactly what the market should do. Not immoral and its not manipulation at all. The problem isn't the betting of either side the problem is that one side de-f

More ›