>Given the public ledger of Bitcoin, I would hardly say it has "censorship resistance".
Conflates two orthogonal issues: Identifiable payment vectors and publishing preservation / ability to be censored.
2,467 karma · joined May 29, 2014
Conflates two orthogonal issues: Identifiable payment vectors and publishing preservation / ability to be censored.
E.g. Prior to L402, services needed to conglomerate into siloed ecosystems because there's the need for statefull authentication (Backend: Is this user who is requesting inferences allowed to run this query? How much credit account balance do they have remaining? You third party app have to integrate with me if you want to my users to be able to make calls to your module)
Post L402: A stateless service can compose a list of service calls (which all operate independently -- without the lack of competition, costs of integration, and politics of service<>module app ecosystem -- Read OpenAI etc) to potentially 100s of services to produce the broad number of API results needed fulfill the users request. Detailed explanation and examples are provided by the company who published the FOSS L402 spec here: https://youtu.be/6u1G8QIDuNU?t=206
Your argument's basis is detached from reality: https://orientalnewsng.com/global-gas-flare-heightened-by-15...
Thankfully, there are market participants who are capturing this previously-wasted energy and putting it to use: https://hashrateindex.com/blog/flared-gas-bitcoin-mining-101...
>BLE [snip] imperfections are introduced by the shared I/Q frontend of the chipset (Figure 1). They result in two measurable metrics in BLE and WiFi transmissions: Carrier Frequency Offset (CFO) and I/Q imperfections, specifically: I/Q offset and I/Q imbalance.
links to the paper:
https://cseweb.ucsd.edu/~nibhaska/papers/sp22_paper.pdf
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/360655420_Evaluatin...
If someone has the ability to buy yes exposure at 1 cent, subsequently kill me, and then collect 100 cents that's pretty high pay out odds. The potential hitman has 99 cents of margin to use to kill me and still be profitable.
If the hitman buys at 99 cents, he looses the majority of the bet if he doesn't kill me. The person who took the other side has significant margins to protect me (from their prospective they bought no at 1 cent).
at 50 cents we both loose or gain the same amount of money.
I think I'd be more concerned for my safety in case A,B than in case C.
The other dimension of derivatives is how much "Open Interest" (OI) -- or the quantity of contracts/exposure -- that exists for a contract. I think I'd be concerned for my safety if there was any appreciable "yes" OI for the contract that wasn't me. So my strategy would be to buy up all "yes" contracts -- e.g. the people who want exposure to me dying or believe I will die -- so no one has an incentive to kill me.
Who said anything about impartiality (/cordially a strawman)?
Changing behaviors is a feature not a bug. Your health insurance writer (who's bought "No optimalsolver will not get sick") loses money if you do in fact get sick. Your fire insurance writer has an incentive to provide you free fire inspections because it reduces their payouts. A farmer plants a lucrative but fragile crop because a meteorologist can better price weather risks than they can.
Swapping exposure across space and time is a productive act.
A derivative (a contract which is representative of some good, right, entitlement) based on the outcome of an event occurring or not.
Event derivatives are all around us. You buying fire insurance grants you the right to sell, to an insurance writer, a smoldering pile of wood (worth $2) at a price of say 30% of the unburned value of your home (similar to an OTM put option). An accidental-death insurance contract being worth a negligible amount until the subjects death.
What people often get wrong about EDs is
1. Whether or not they accurately predict events: they don't; they reflect the price, or odds, at which a market is willing to swap exposure. e.g. One pays a insurance costs because it's more profitable to swap risk than deal with exposure.
2. Confusion around incentives: Yes, each party swapping exposure will change their behavior -- which is a feature, not a bug. A company buying fire insurance can now enter into commerce otherwise prohibitive unlocked by swapping fire risk with an insurance writing company who has incentives to prevent a fire risk -- and do so at scale, coordinating multiple parties.
3. Lack of information about unfettered demand for the products. People claim there's no demand for EDs but neglect to take into account regulations: prevent people from purchasing them freely, political manipulation of prices when buyers are unhappy with the market price for risk, regulatory capture creating anticompetative producer protections, observe that because because of bans the inferior counts some EDs have been forced into are insufficient.
The global policy failure of covid has been around risk pricing, risk-exposure swapping, and effective, at-scale incentive coordination.
An exercise: An assassination market opens for the price of your head. In which case(s) should you be most concerned for your life:
[A] Exposure available at .99 on the 1
[B] Exposure available at .01 on the 1
[C] Exposure available at .5 on the 1
@HarryDCrane on Twitter is an applied researcher in this area, read him if you're interested in more -- I know I have.
What makes you think this person isn't black?
Maybe the first step we can take to ensuring all people are treated with dignity and respect is to not assume Group X is that group other there, an other. Maybe we can instead assume Group X is everywhere.
https://github.com/tenox7/ttyplot
ping 8.8.8.8 | sed -u 's/^.*time=//g; s/ ms//g' | ttyplot
Also stressors are does dependent, e.g. despite earth's atmosphere being 78% by volume Nitrogen: the marginal effect on your health of marginally more nitrogen isn't stable/linear. I wouldn't recommend you increase it so much, so to some degree we need to discount opinions that "we exist in a EM/RF soup ergo an iota more isn't hazardous).
Let's also not confuse the ensemble and individual components. As RF electronics, protocols improveve, so does the minimum necessary energy. That is "the minimum necessary energy for 5G radios" <= "the minimum necessary energy 4G" isn't the comparison we should be making. What we should be assessing is going from effectsOf(2G,3G,4G) < Safelevels to effectsOf(2G,3G,4G,*5G*) < Safelevels. e.g. adding another layer of EM energy
I have no idea if the health assertions in this article are true or not but rather than unjustifiably upgrade an opinion of "I don't see how that could be the case" to "that *can't* be the case" I'll stick with the skeptics response of "I don't know".
Ethereum has been "about to release PoS" for almost 6 years now and all of the initial critiques (By issuing X units of value, you incentivize ~<X units of energy to be expended) Summarized here: https://www.truthcoin.info/blog/pow-cheapest/
If the curious reader is interested in reading more about the scope of fraud that the ethereum protocol has fueled read the post here: https://web.archive.org/web/20201214170136if_/https://www.re...
Why link to the archive.org copy and not the original? Ethereum people got mod access to the subreddit and deleted everything pointing out the fraud.
Producers may source their input goods (equipment, energy) from any source they wish ("we only sell goods made with clean energy or From Our Area"). A kWh sourced from a hydroelectric plant has the same ecological cost be it consumed by a bitcoin block producer or if that kWh is used to charge a van that's used to drive people around a town all day to pick up paper with the faces of dead people on it so it can be counted and update a centralized database.
Luckily a freed market exists where we can price if the money maintained by freed people performs better than the Banking<->Authoritarian Oligopolies.
If you care about climate change, realize the infinite and perpetual money printing is destroying the earth by mandating perpetual "growth", and fiat money and their investment derivatives fuel that ecological destruction.
>I've read both the Bitcoin and Ethereum whitepaper and there's nothing about grievances of traditional governments usage of printing of their currencies
and
>[The desire to be a part of a "new elite"] is why the most popular currencies have a fixed supply. That way, if they're popular earlier adopters get to be a part of the elite.
Technical papers tend to focus on their contribution to knowledge. In Bitcoin's case it's a distributed systems paper that shows a globally consistent database is possible in an adversarial network with no central coordinator, if finality properties are allowed to be probibalistic in the short term. Though an cryptography author may feel passionately about Bill of Rights, 4th Amendment protections, they needn't say it in a paper they write about a cryptographic primative.
and
If we are to assume bitcoin is a "popular currency" and want to read the opinions of early thinkers rather than straw-man them:
I also do think that there is potential value in a form of unforgeable token whose production rate is predictable and can't be influenced by corrupt parties. This would be more analogous to gold than to fiat currencies. [1]
[1] https://www.mail-archive.com/cryptography@metzdowd.com/msg09...
>I do see value in a crypto that's pinned at a weighted average of every single currencies' worldwide weight. [People holding these 'weighted average' currencies a]re not getting rich
How is it that these supposed weighted average monies are superior while simultaneously no one in the market place is demanding them while simultaneously the demand for bitcoin is increasing?
The exchange ratio, what you're saying is price, cannot be arbitrarily decreed (Thou shall have X weighted exchange ratio with all government monies). Exchange ratios / prices are the result of many individual agents swaping, exchanging with eachother. All previous attempts at information/digital monies (see bmoney) failed because of this misunderstanding of how prices arise.
>My biggest concern is a fixed-supply currency gives no government the ability to provide stimulus if necessary.
How does printing/diluting money create wealth? If someone wants to work for a money that's costly for them to obtain (via work) and costless for someone else to obtain (money printing) they're free to do so -- the problem is that one will bankrupt themselves doing so relative to someone wants to work for a money that's just as costly for everyone else to obtain. Those still holding their wealth in fiat monies (euro, dollar, yuan, yen) or fiat-economy derivatives (bonds, fiat-company equities/stocks) are exposed to this bankrupcy potential -- it's the same dynamic as all currency debasements manifest.
>every government in world history that's pinned their currency to something that's relatively fixed has had a severe depression with some part of that depression being contributed to said pinning. It's just not good economics.
Governments aren't economies, Whether people can produce more than they consume (a functioning economy) is orthogonal to whether the same people who have the monopoly on violence also are trying to enforce a monetary monopoly as well. If a government fails because it consumes more than it produces, that reflects a failure in the management of said government -- not because someone, somewhere has a money in their posession. Typically, it's marginally harder for people to produce more than they consume when they're forced to be subject to a cartel/monopoly.
Governments lost the war against information, cryptography, and money. The most charitable interpretation one can have for tyranny is that if you're going to talk about the tanks in Tienanmen, it's more costly to do it privately.
* Large energy use (lights, fans, pumps?)
* Very characteristic energy use (high, relatively invariant)
* Massive government budgets/surveillance to attack producers
* The need to move non negligible amounts of physical goods
* Moral campaigns by governments and social groups that it's bad for society
And yet the banned-market drug trade revenue is something on the order of 80 billion dollars per year or 220 million a year.
Bitcoin miners, currently:
* Large energy use (fans, HVAC, ASICs)
* Very characteristic energy use (high, relatively invariant)
* Mix of jurisdictions banning or allowing it.
* Only need about 2G / Shortwave radio worth of bandwidth to produce blocks
* Moral campaigns by governments and social groups that it's bad for society
Miner revenues need to be on the order of 10-50 million USD per year to sustain themselves. That's almost 10 times less than the failed (relatively global) "war on drugs"
Add to it that by defecting from national socialist forms of storing one's wealth, rather than just momentarily indulging in vice, one improves their position, I'd suspect your hypothetical ban won't work that well.
The CoP of a heat pump is dependent on the temperature potential across the heat pump. Caution to the reader who thinks one could pump heat from frigid external temperatures into their very warm, high temperature house: the very scenario your post suggests they should be used.
Heat pumps are great for increasing thermal potentials and moving heat across them (not for sourcing energy). They're also great for balancing an internal thermal state that is, on-net, in balance (think of a large office building in the morning, one side is being heated by the sun, the other side is frigid -- heat pumps can balance the internal energy demands instead of simultaneously cooling one part of the building and heating the other)
This thread seems to be full of arguments that YouTube's product (customer eyeballs) should induce a tax for YouTube's suppliers (content creators they pay) even when YouTube's suppliers and YouTube's customers (advertisement purchasers) aren't even located in the US.
1) "blockchain inventor David Chaum"
Chaum developed methods to do blinded ecash, there's nothing "blockchain" about a central database checking blinded signatures for double spends.
D. Bayer, S. Haber, W.S. Stornetta, and N. Szabo were working on methods of how to distribute property titles and timestamp data to reduce trust requirements of the data through out time.
Chaum's design never solved the problem of how to create bits that people can inherently reason about how much they trust them as money/scarcity. He was ardent about turning fiat currencies into digital tokens -- drastically different than making bits into money.
2) Does it make much sense for Bitcoin's author to be, as the article claims, highly experienced with asymmetric cryptography but also soliciting advice from "real cryptographers" on the cryptography mailing list? Sassaman's archived site doesn't show much cryptography work (but much cypherpunk work)
3) "Len joined Network Associates to help develop the PGP encryption central to Bitcoin"
The curves used in bitcoin's -- and very limited amount of -- cryptography aren't used in PGP.
4) "the remailer technology that was a precursor to Bitcoin."
Much of this article seems to be straining to make connections. Remailers don't have anything to do with Bitcoin. If anything remailers are the precursors to Tor / i2P. Identification of bitcoin nodes in the early version of bitcoin code was as shockingly easy as... joining an IRC channel.
"he confirmed that he had corresponded with Bitcoin's creator, but denied any connection to the invention of Bitcoin"[1]
[1] >In the mean time, I emailed Finney a few times. When I didn't hear back--he's been mostly absent from the Internet as his paralysis deepens--I called his wife, Fran, who now works as Finney's full-time caregiver. She explained her husband's medical situation, and patiently relayed my questions to him. Using his eyebrows and eye movements, as she described to me over the phone, he confirmed that he had corresponded with Bitcoin's creator, but denied any connection to the invention of Bitcoin or the Dorian Nakamoto Newsweek had named, just as he would when I visited a week later. "For all Hal knew, Satoshi Nakamoto could have been next door, or he could have been in Japan," Fran said.
source: https://www.forbes.com/sites/andygreenberg/2014/03/25/satosh...
The produced good (SHA256 hashes and the transferable UTXO set of bitcoin nodes) is an excludable, rivalrous good. Hence it doesn't suffers from tragedy of the commons problems. This is the foundation of excludability in economics.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Excludability
"seller's" or "buyer's" "markets" are weak concepts that don't control which goods are produced. If an agent market sells or market buys that doesn't dictate which goods are produced.
Again, no amount of production nor no amount of consumption can get a consumer or producer to shift their consumption or production to a good they do not want.
Block producers (miners) must find buyers for the blocks they produce, if they don't find buyers, they go bankrupt.
>changes to update the Bitcoin protocol need to be accepted by the miners
You've got it backwards, changes to Bitcoin need to be accepted by block consumers (node operators). If they don't demand those changes, blocks with those changes don't get produced.
Demand and supply are fundamental components to economic action. The steal man version of your argument is: "While consumers induce production, some consumers' demands might be flippant -- They signal they will only buy kosher bread but they'll accept an alternate good. Though production switching costs are practically zero in SHA256 PoW, and entry into production is non excludable, an adversary has enough funding to pay premiums to producers to forego market demand, for the good they produce, longer than consumers are willing to refrain from consumption -- inducing a consumer-demand shift."
In game theory and economics its not a dominating strategy which is indicative of the many failed attempts to cartelize SHA256 PoW
Correct me if I'm wrong, but I didn't analyze anything. My goal was to assert: Inflation is present in the US economy, Home prices as an example; and to provide some relative bounds on what that rate might be.
>I wonder if tax policy has anything to do with this
What's you thesis of the tax policy changes that occurred in the past 12 years that caused asset-price inflation?
>way wealthy people can shelter money in a residence
How are "wealthy people" "sheltering money" in the bottom 50% of all home prices -- those homes who prices would need to change to change the median price?
>lack of savings interest is a big driver
The opportunity of high, investment returns doesn't reduce the prices of the goods we need to buy to exist.
If I was to actually provide some analysis for the price increases, I'd posit: Downward, interest-rate manipulation by central banks has caused systemic-wide credit expansion. The new money that results from this policy affects economic of all goods but most severely inelastic goods -- such as houses and in markets that receive artificial economic intervention from central planners (in the US, the housing market is a prime example).
Was there an assertion that there isn't a return on investment? Asserting that the inevitable outcome of rampant income redistribution is systemic collapse is compatible with "investment in personnel has returns"
Forcing the most productive workers to subsidize the consumption of unprofitable workers always leads to failure. "How am I to eat when I only grow 10kg of wheat a year but need to eat 11kg? We should use the state's violence to take 1kg from the farmer who grows 20kg and eats 12kg, Now I can grow 13kg of wheat for every 12kg I eat! A net gain in production!"
It's a misallocation of capital, simultaneously (the apparent) investing in the more profitable producer would have been better and (the non apparent) that deluding the worker into believing farming 13kg of wheat for every 12kg increases the price of the input goods and input labor for other industries.
Marxist Communism's argument is essentially: "While capitalism's losses are privatized, the fact that the profits are also privatized causes everyone to suffer. Instead of allow bricolage economics, the state's central planners will be to sole source of investment and sole consumer. Profits will be nationalized but losses will also be nationalized."
Having that state be the sole investor in an economic -- a monopoly on entrepreneurship -- dooms it to failure. It does not mean "investments [even centrally planned ones] don't returns"
Inflation's been normal? Maybe we don't share the same reality. Let's continue with the USA, which previous commenters have be referencing.
The median price of a US home has gone up 45% [1] since 2008 when The Fed started "printing money hand over fist". Did the quality of all homes suddenly go up by 45% in lockstep? I would doubt that. It could be that all people started to be more productive simultaneously, and despite an aversion to paying a premium on housing, the price increase is merely a symptom of a supply-restricted market -- and yet Median incomes (household, individual) only increased (26%[2],28%[3]).
The US is experiencing at least 13% and practically 45% asset-price inflation over the period you referenced. I would hardly say that's "normal". It's the sign of a dying currency -- one that cannot maintain its long term purchasing power. [4]
>Classical economics no longer correctly models reality.
Economics is not physics -- it's an intangible process of action, human action. One cannot make an economic model of the utility I get from the sloth of laying in a field on a warm day, even if it means I'll be less robust against a winter storm. "Ce qu'on voit et ce qu'on ne voit pas" and TNSTAAFL still hold despite what the central planners decree.
[1] https://dqydj.com/historical-home-prices/ [2] https://dqydj.com/household-income-by-year/ [3] https://dqydj.com/individual-income-by-year/
[4] Living in a home is a consumptive act: Using land, material, past labor for one's enjoyment. It is not "investing". One may try to reduce the costs of that consumption by buying the house etc.
>Why?
because https depends on certificate authorities and CAs depend on coercible companies which depend on governments from not molesting them.
The existence of QUANTUM INSERT and FOXACID attacks show CA-based authentication is weak (either due to their keys being compromised or coerced). DigitNotar also got pwned.
Strong authentication is one of the unrivaled advantages to onion addresses in tor.
The CIA also advocates to not solely rely on TLS for transport encryption: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=24426818