riprowan

36 ms·

301.
by riprowan 11y ago
Anyone else just simply say "wo way" to flashing a custom firmware? That's a lot of trust, no? I know Google snoops on me, but Google was already snooping on me.
302.
by riprowan 11y ago
Stick one of these in it. 256GB = $80. http://www.amazon.com/PNY-Elite-Performance-256GB-Speed/dp/B... )
303.
by riprowan 11y ago
I've always held that power (features) trumps speed unless we're talking about OLTP. Machines will get faster quickly. Providing a strong platform is more important than being the fastest, today. YMMV.
304.
by riprowan 11y ago
point 1 is obviously true To point 2 - the original white paper doesn't even mention "block size limit" because originally Bitcoin did not have a block size limit. "Honest miners" are assumed by the author to alway
305.
by riprowan 11y ago
So we're supposed to believe that same side that supposedly disrupted the community through sockpuppetry is also at the mercy of DDoS attacks? Seems like anyone capable of orchestrating DDoS, can also organize sockpuppets.
306.
by riprowan 11y ago
Satoshi Nakamoto did promote increasing the block size, in 2010. As you can see from the discussion, many of the same players were already freezing their positions in this debate six years ago. https://bitcointalk.org/index
307.
by riprowan 11y ago
"very likely" The science is settled. How interesting that a group of people capable of wielding DDoS doesn't know how to counter-sockpuppet. Could it be that they are simply vastly outnumbered?
308.
by riprowan 11y ago
Nonsense? If development isn't already centralized, then by definition, it cannot be "taken over" by anyone.
309.
by riprowan 11y ago
> You can't promote it just as you can't promote Litecoin or any other different protocol and ledger. That's malarkey. Not a day goes by that Lightning Network isn't heavily promoted. Lightning, for the uninitiated,
310.
by riprowan 11y ago
Yes, that is correct.
311.
by riprowan 11y ago
> The people pushing the need to fork would bombard the Reddit forum for many months, very likely with sockpuppets. Or, maybe, a lot of people read the white paper, and took significant issue with command-and-control style Bitcoin develo
312.
by riprowan 11y ago
A simple and clear understanding of which group is trying to distort Bitcoin from its mission can be had by simply reading this informative white paper: https://bitcoin.org/bitcoin.pdf I would encourage everyone following t
313.
by riprowan 11y ago
> They want to take over the bitcoin network with a fork, which will follow different rules A simple and clear understanding of which group is trying to distort Bitcoin from its mission can be had by simply reading this informative white
314.
by riprowan 11y ago
> I mean bitcoin is great and all but it can't be everything to everyone and that's okay. Any system that requires users to hold various different forms of money for various transaction sizes is doomed to fail to a single mone
315.
by riprowan 11y ago
Excellent observations across the board. I'd take slight exception to this: > Seriously, the very concept of a blockchain split undermines the description of Bitcoin as a decentralized protocol, because it requires out-of-band resol
316.
by riprowan 11y ago
We are clearly approaching the point where unassisted human intelligence is becoming insufficient to continue to master even specific domain expertise.
317.
by riprowan 11y ago
I'm fascinated by how old, stale web properties are continuously gobbled up in strings of M&As. It's like there's a natural evolution: 1. Build a great online venue that people love 2. Start trying to monetize the venue 3
318.
by riprowan 11y ago
> the more secure something gets, the less useful it is. At the extreme end, a perfectly secure system is also perfectly useless. That's a pretty profound statement. On the one hand it totally rings true, but on the other, I wonder