WFHRenaissance

Recent experience with from COVID-related layoffs. No one I know spent more than 2 months on the market.

But also, stop being a know-it-all empiricism addict. just use your head. Snap is a company with a high-hiring bar and plenty of competition that's still hiring. Of course they'll be scooped up by competition, even if only to prevent them from going to competitors.

This comment screams Reddit-brain

I generally agree, but I think Snap probably hires good people. I bet they all do fine within 1-2 months.

Doubtful. Most of these employees will have new gigs doing similar work within 1-2 months.

This, along with the obvious intersection of skillsets and interests, is why I often now see either network ops and security bundled together on the same team/org, or DevOps people doing the work of both teams.

Name one

The threat of a 51% attack still exists on proof-of-stake as it does on proof-of-work, but it's even riskier for the attackers. A attacker would need 51% of the staked ETH (about $15,000,000,000 USD). They could then use their own attestations to ensure their preferred fork was the one with the most accumulated attestations. The 'weight' of accumulated attestations is what consensus clients use to determine the correct chain, so this attacker would be able to make their fork the canonical one. However, a strength of proof-of-stake over proof-of-work is that the community has flexibility in mounting a counter-attack. For example, the honest validators could decide to keep building on the minority chain and ignore the attacker's fork while encouraging apps, exchanges, and pools to do the same. They could also decide to forcibly remove the attacker from the network and destroy their staked ether. These are strong economic defenses against a 51% attack.

Staking-as-a-service will operate as a market of diverse options. The network could decide to fork from an outsized dishonest market participant. It would be controversial, but the validity of the network is generally a common incentive for most involved.

They’re brute-forcing the solution to a mathematical puzzle.

Brute-force solutions are still solutions :)

Yeah I veiled a lot of complexity for sure, but honestly that's for the best. If we talked too in-depth about the implementation of most protocols, I'm sure we'd find something to scoff about XD.

It definitely takes a bit of power away from miners, and it adds a bit of complication to the overall consensus mechanism of the chain.

1. Punishment mechanisms here are kind of complicated, but in short, you're punished for mainly 2 reasons: being an offline validator, or for an attestation violating.

Slashers are entities that enforce the two above rules. If a slasher determines that you're node is down, or that you're committing an attestation violation (i.e. that you're signing more than one attestation in a given epoch mainly). The slasher actually does not get rewarded here. The block proposer who takes the broadcasted slashing and and adds a proof of it to their block proposition, and get what's called a whistleblower reward. Slashing is not meant to profitable, and the whistleblower reward is quite small. We don't need a million slashers, in fact, we could operate with just one... expect the Eth Foundation to run them, among other large players who can spare the resources.

2. Owning 2/3 of nodes economically is kind of silly. You essentially just 51% the network, and everyone else leaves. You're then stuck with a worthless personal currency. Have fun!

3. More than one validator means more validator rewards, and a bit more "power" in that you're a larger component of the general validation network.

No one would use a network with this level of centralization, or at least, it would be unwise to.

Eh, a mathematical puzzle is being solved via brute-force. My intent was to explain briefly that the problem/puzzle is by nature computationally-intensive to the extent that brute-force is the most efficient way to solve/complete it.

Acronym could be better, but not sure what the rest of your comment is getting at.

Ethereum in its current state is using proof-of-work (PoW) to ensure consensus amongst the thousands of nodes in the network. While PoW is reliable and secure, it is also extremely energy intensive. To produce each block on the network participants are required to use powerful and energy-hungry GPUs to solve a complex mathematical problem.

Alternatively, proof-of-stake (PoS) guarantees the security of the network in a different way. In PoS, anyone with 32 ETH can deposit that ETH to become a validator, a node that participates in the network's consensus algorithm. Finalizing a block requires 2/3 of all active validators to sign off on it. Should a malicious actor try to tamper with the underlying protocol by using a large number of validators to revert a finalized block (the equivalent of a "51% attack" in PoW) their funds are slashed — meaning they lose a portion of their staked ETH. This makes attacks extremely expensive; it would be like a PoW system where if you use your mining hardware to attack the network then your hardware catches fire and is destroyed.

PoS does not require the same energy-intensive hardware as PoW. Any relatively recent consumer hardware should be capable of running the software required to operate a 32 ETH staking node. If you deposit more than 32 ETH, you will be assigned multiple "validator slots" by the protocol, but you will still be able to run them from a single computer, though hardware requirements go up the more you stake. Most estimates put the expected energy savings from the switch to PoS to be around 99%.

If you have any additional questions please let me know!

Us Gen Z'ers use the implicit (fnord)... we're forcing the adoption of inferential role semantics.

There is a secret keyword that you can use in comments to "sage" a post – i.e. using a secret keyword in the comments of a post will prevent it from gaining traction in the article scoring algo. I cannot say the keyword here because it would sink this post, but if you look around at some posts you can find it.

Sinking ship!

> Most guys I know here in the Austria boonies have a hunting rifle.

First of all, Austria is the only country in the European Union where firearms are only partially licensed.

Second of all... Sorry, what I really meant was to say was that European gun ownership (broadly speaking) is very different from USian gun ownership. Europeans generally need permits, reasons for ownership, training, et cetera just to own a firearm. Carrying is heavily discouraged, and often illegal without a permit... which the state is under no obligation to give you. Magazine size restrictions are rampant.

In the United States, in many territories, we don't have equivalent policies. Many states allow for entirely permit-less ownership and carrying of firearms. We don't need to ask permission – that's the difference I'm trying to indicate here.

You do know RSA is a company too, right? What are the odds that RSA SecurID has been used by bad actors before?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RSA_Security

No ban, just increasingly restrictive laws on ownership and use that end up resulting in something tantamount to a ban. Look at gun ownership in most countries in Europe if you want an idea of what the future could look like.

Then give some thought to what Europe was like in the early 20th century!

> The right to privacy ends at the moment that it is used as an excuse to evade the law.

Sufficiently good use of sufficiently good privacy technology would make this judgement impossible. What happens then? Good luck not becoming a police state.

> Now, there’s no special brilliance needed to come up with this kind of test. Frankly, it’s pretty obvious and I’m sure the Wirecutter is aware they could do it. They just don’t.

They are giving others way too much credit here. If Wirecutter is aware they could do it they probably also think that their test and this test are equivalent.

> You can’t argue in good faith with people who don’t want to learn.

You can’t argue in good faith with people who don’t agree with the ideology behind crypto and decentralization. I'm a "crypto" person. I work for a "crypto" company. I do so for primarily ideological reasons. The tech is cool, but I'm here for the ideas and the possibility of a different world. Most people on HN are creating developer tools and SaaS software for corporations. Different ideology. They simply don't agree with the worldview that crypto is offering developers/users.

The code is already public on IPFS I think.

Prompt engineering. The perfection of "programming as verbal intelligence".

My thinking is that if you're giving someone equity in a company, they have a market incentive to ensure that the product and company succeed. This extends to on-call. Handcuffs.

I can't imagine telling an engineer to temporarily take more week on a given week. Every company I've worked at has done it like this:

Not on-call engineers work on 20 story points a sprint (2 week sprints). On-call engineers (if you're on-call for a week) get 10 points of work + on-call.

Yeah, this is sort of hell on earth in many ways. Hence why I specified "you build it, you run it". On-call for a legacy system with no owner and few active devs is hell, and I don't recommend it.

I'm young and unmarried, and I work at a company that I like and on a product that I use, so maybe I'm a bit too passionate about my work to be unbiased here lol.