XR0CSWV3h3kZWg

Including India in that list is pretty wild

Many languages will die before being digitized if they have to wait for 20-25 years

I saw this at my last company. Even worse breaking it into microservices allowed teams of 2 or 3 to start building entire realms where only they could commit and used it for internal politics.

I witnessed someone that wanted to leverage their service into a promotion so they started pushing for an architecture where everything flowed through their service.

It was the slowest part of our stack and capped at 10tps.

Why do you believe that?

Yeah the first version looks like something that many people would try to 'optimize' but in reality it is extremely readable and should be very easy to change/extend.

> And I would find it interesting to be able to claim that magic leap has sued me for distributing 3 month old api docs to myself.

Do you have that much money to burn?

> What if we were to set up a project in response to this that made the Magic Leap API docs available in a distributed fashion?

If your name is still attached you will still get these letters. Because they will continue to try and show they are protecting their IP.

> As well as a technical breakdown of everything that can be learned from them.

Then that would be your IP which you'd be free to distribute. You won't receive the same letter again, but you may be breaking an NDA and the terms of which may apply.

Why do you think that ipfs and/or blockchain is going to change how copying IP works?

In practice there is a time limit. Nodes will not relay blocks that are too far from their current clock.

I've only found yelp to be trust worthy in some cities, not universally.

That fails for the case that you have an appointment at 3pm in 30 days, and 15 days later the timezone's offset changed.

Could you point to a PoW based cryptocurrency that isn't vulnerable to a 51% attack?

As the space matures I'd love to see a company that offers double spend insurance for a given tx.

For example changes could wait for 10 minutes worth of blocks then request a quote for double spend insurance. The company evaluates the probability of a double spend and maybe even has a couple standing contracts with rentable hashing power to be able to target smaller PoW chains and prevent any double spend attack.

There are lots of interesting and cool problems to be solved in evaluating the safety of a given tx. Unfortunately I don't know if the space is mature enough that exchanges would actually use the service.

It's great if you own NVDA!

You won't really be able to process tx that low, you'll need to pay a tx fee proprtionate to the number of bytes. 1 satoshi per byte is a good rule of thumb for a very cheap tx. It takes more than 1 byte to describe one satoshi, so you can't get your tx to propagate.

Yeah in the next couple years I'd expect to start seeing smaller PoW chains wither away due to attacks like this and exchanges starting to have prohibitively high conf times as they'll need to protect them selves from attacks like this.

Merchants are probably fine.

As someone that follows the space partially because it's a really cool story, I am amped about all of the attacks these days! It looks like there weren't any protocol failures or anything that made the attack easier. It's a simple case of 51% attack.

The hashrate for BTG is well below most other coins, a modest miner on another coin could easily switch and execute the attack, then switch back to their main coin and not have to pay large transaction costs for hardware acq or rental costs.

more details here:

https://forum.bitcoingold.org/t/double-spend-attack-on-excha...

Bitcoin gold was a fork to try and decentralize mining. It changed to a proof of work that is supposed to be ASIC resistant. It looks like the typical situation is mining by GPU for equihash (BTG PoW).

BTG hashrate is at ~30MH/s at the moment, where Zcash's hashrate is at ~486MH/s.

I don't have the numbers off hand, but it'd be interesting to see how many GPUs you'd need to pull of a double spend against BTG and if any of the other equihash coins saw a drop off during the attack.

It'd be really interesting if it wasn't a rental attack, but an invested miner just switching over to BTG to achieve the hack.

They reversed 22 blocks, the recommendation is to increase the # of confirmations to rely upon to 50. If you are trying to react to 51% attack doubling the number of confirmations only doubles the cost of attack, and the attacker likely just doubled the number of BTG they have. If they can pay the electricity/rental cost for the attack they have enough BTG to execute the attack in a cost effective manner again.

This is pretty offtopic, but the amount of time it takes to download the block isn't the only factor, amount of time to process & verify the block is pretty important as well as the storage costs etc.

That's all pretty moot at the moment as BCH is averaging ~50kb blocks.

My response seems to have upset you. I'm sorry that happened.

In general I believe that number of lines of code is correlated with number of bugs, but I would hesitate to say that it is proportional to. Going in with the explicit goal of reducing the number of lines could easily lead to more bugs, not less.

> we believe that the number of bugs is proportional to the number of lines of code

Why would you believe that?

And if you do believe that why don't you use a code golfing language?

Huh I didn't know that fraud through email could be considered wire fraud.

I also didn't anticipate that abusing a rewards system could lead to a wire fraud case.

I am sorry to hear about this case, but I don't quite get how you are arguing you are innocent. What part of their case do you dispute?

Sounds like this a perfect situation to try and talk to a recruiting firm.

> I look at how blockchain don't solve a single problem that hasn't already been solved more efficiently on much grander scales, and I call them out as such.

What about the problem of running an immutable log using compute power around the world without paying for the costs? That's what santoshi accomplished. He stopped mining many years ago and it's been committing logs every 10 minutes for years.

Neat! Thanks for sharing.

Good point. You'd likely want to also encode something that opaque to who exactly has participated, only really show whether this is the last step and a way for individuals to tell if they have already added their secret.

The really bad part would be that if the poisoner happens to be the last step then the final step would produce the secret before handing it to be poisoned.

There is a lot of hate for the trusted party set up of this, which seems reasonable.

It seems like you could create a dead man's switch using arbitrary participants. You distribute a secret to every participant and then to attempt to activate the dead man's switch they raise k to the power s mod p and pass it to the next participant. As long as you act as a participant each time and raise the passed value to some invalid s then the answer that is arrived at won't be the final secret.

As long as you participate every round the wrong answer will be arrived at, but as soon as you don't participate the right answer will be arrived at.

Any singular party refusing to cooperate would destroy the deadman's switch so malicious activation would be tough.

Designing it so it can tolerate failures would be the hard part.

EDIT: I am wrong, this isn't that great. It's really hard to hide information that can be recovered without a secret being revealed.

If the only action your AI takes is to hold bitcoin I've been running an AI for many years.

Capital that you can not leverage is a disadvantage.

Bitcoin is pretty bad at offering advanced securities or derivatives.

Really bitcoin is pretty bad at everything except atomic transfers.

Bitcoin is shit at loans, it's shit at writing wills, it's shit at scheduling payments, it's shit at offering shorts, it's shit at offering options, it's shit at providing oracles etc.

> I see cryptocurrency as a harbinger of AI, which is the real revolution. Blockchain is just a tool. People get really confused trying to understand and develop pricing models for the current state of the world but I see a lot of cryptocurrency value as reflecting the adoption of AI.

This seems like a strange thing to believe. Why do you believe it?

> My experience is that it almost always results in the person seeing the world in a different, more individualist, way.

It's unsubstantiated that the above actually strengthens civilization.