yanmaani

12 ms·

91.
by yanmaani 5y ago
It may very well be better in relative terms. After all, arsenic is clearly better for your health than strychnine. But neither is especially good , now is it?
92.
by yanmaani 5y ago
Even if you control 70% of hashrate, that doesn't mean you can just do anything. You still have to abide by the rules. You can't approve invalid transactions or directly steal people's money, only re-order past transactions.
93.
by yanmaani 5y ago
If you insist: There's a difference between destitute and poor. Someone working as a janitor with a unimpressive but acceptable salary, who has to pinch pennies to make ends meet, can still be a good poster. (Anecdotally, a lot of good
94.
by yanmaani 5y ago
I mean, these days you have the DAO. So on the positive side, it's not 4 of 7 people anymore. But on the negative side, it's theoretically anyone, depending on how badly they messed up the code, concentration of ownership, and oth
95.
by yanmaani 5y ago
Thank you!
96.
by yanmaani 5y ago
What do you expect? The purpose is to get quick, flashy results. Nobody is bothered to check this stuff. Also, "$2.7B" is a highly suspect figure. There's no saying if you could actually cash out anywhere close to that amount
97.
by yanmaani 5y ago
I reckon it's quite difficult. A lot of the old stuff doesn't really have any money in it, which means no professionalized training, meaning no university textbooks. My advice - try to break the law on the computer. Not anything s
98.
by yanmaani 5y ago
Was John of Patmos right? And they worshipped the dragon which gave power unto the beast: and they worshipped the beast, saying, Who is like unto the beast? who is able to make war with him? ... And he causeth all, both small and great,
99.
No, Ethereum Name Service is still a clown show(yanmaani.github.io)
77 points by yanmaani 5y ago|79 comments
100.
by yanmaani 5y ago
What about attending political protests?
101.
by yanmaani 5y ago
https://github.com/stealth/opmsg is at least slightly better; for signatures, there is https://github.com/aperezdc/signify .
102.
by yanmaani 5y ago
I think I might be willing to pay some amount of money for it, but not very much. I think a lot of other people would be willing to pay decently. If you want to be cynical, just do Bing/DDG searches over Tor, and scrape that into the c
103.
by yanmaani 5y ago
It would be even smarter to replace the paywalled sites with an unpaywalled copy.
104.
by yanmaani 5y ago
How about using the Bing API? Isn't that more open? With caching, I think you might be able to reduce the load. Also, why is w3fools in the list? It's an awful site.
105.
by yanmaani 5y ago
Congratulations to the guys! But you have to feel bad for the Germans, for whom GnuPG (no disrespect!) is a serious upgrade.
106.
A modest proposal to fix web search(yanmaani.github.io)
21 points by yanmaani 5y ago|9 comments
107.
by yanmaani 5y ago
If you're fine with changing algorithms, wouldn't PoW also be able to change to something more quantum-resistant?
108.
by yanmaani 5y ago
None of this actually refutes my point. You're just suggesting that the fact that PoS is incapable of producing a consensus is outweighed by it allegedly being more decentralized. Be that as it may, it's not relevant to this threa
109.
by yanmaani 5y ago
> The “fake” chain would lose all honest verifiers (and all transactions from honest wallets?) which seems like it would be pretty detectable with simple statistical analysis. Staked nodes not participating (and active wallets not transa
110.
by yanmaani 5y ago
> It seems like you reject this premise, maintaining that PoW networks are objectively verifiable? But you didn't really refute the parent's point there, which was that there are no "objective standards" in deciding w
111.
by yanmaani 5y ago
> So after the attack, there are two conflicting sets of signatures signed using the evil cabal's private keys; those on the fake chain, and those on the real chain. So anyone in possession of both of these sets of signatures can co
112.
by yanmaani 5y ago
> Article's theory about malicious old blocks doesn't hold up. I don't mean to be rude here, but none of what you have said refutes my point. The attack here is that you control keys that (1) once held 67% of the value, an
113.
by yanmaani 5y ago
PoS is not more quantum-resistant, because of the situation with Shor's algorithm, and that a key compromise would be much more damaging. It might be, in the future, if you replaced the keys, but it isn't now. Words mean thi
114.
by yanmaani 5y ago
I want to take a moment to note what you're doing here. You're making a negative argument, in want of a better word. It goes something like this: 1. X is a problem? 2. But Y is also a problem, in my opinion. 3. X and Y are both th
115.
by yanmaani 5y ago
Except for the part where eclipse attacks can be resolved by simply feeding my node more data (it's not a problem if some of it is lies), while "weak subjectivity" requires recourse to an external authority.
116.
by yanmaani 5y ago
> This is a similar trust assumption to requiring that 51% of the mining power in PoW (Proof of Work) is not malicious. Yeah, but you're glossing over an important detail: It's not 66% of the stake that has to be good, it'
117.
by yanmaani 5y ago
Yes, "validly" being the operative word here. I can still propose blocks invalidly, you see. And then someone who doesn't already have the consensus (e.g. trying to sync) will have no way to tell which is legitimate. This is
118.
by yanmaani 5y ago
Am I a Bitcoin maximalist?
119.
by yanmaani 5y ago
> When you withdraw you are no longer allowed to sign anything. Allowed to by whom? Who's to punish me if I disobey them?
120.
by yanmaani 5y ago
> It was voted for by 8000+ validators. Which parts of this are checked by the client software, and which parts are just checked by interested humans in the block explorer? There's a trade-off here. If you require 8000 guys to all v

More ›