audleman

You're forgetting about difficulty adjustment. Every time mining gets more expensive large number of miners drop out. This causes the difficulty target to drop. The remaining miners then start mining more blocks and profits rise. As a system it has built-in economic incentives to keep in in homeostasis.

I read this comment in the spirit of "you might not have known that K did much more that write awk, but he's a genius." Which I didn't know, so I appreciate the context.

> Blue lets you post really really long tweets. Thats potentially interesting and useful

You mean degraded the user experience. People used to split their long-form thoughts out into a series of tweets ("a thread 1/8 -->") which I could read by simply scrolling down.

Now they still do this, but half of the tweets are too long to fit above the fold. I'll get to tweet #3 and have to click into it to read the text. Then scroll to tweet 4 and do it again. By the time I'm done I have to click back half a dozen times to return to my feed.

That or they post an essay in one tweet which is just terrible. Bad font, hard to read. And besides, I didn't come to Twitter to read long-form content. Make it concise.

It's amazing how one little change can ruin the UX. It's almost as if Elon didn't think through the downstream impact of his change, or why tweet limits existed in the first place.

This is up there with "you guys don't have phones?"

> If crypto poses a legitimate threat to that power and control, it is much easier to remove the threat than to adapt your system to it.

In fact the opposite of this is happening. We are in a discussion about how the SEC was ordered by the courts to further integrate Bitcoin into the existing financial system. Despite their protests and attempts to impose their own will on the rights of the people.

> None exist and unlikely any will exist in the future (at least not the type of countries many people would want to live int)

El Salvador has already made Bitcoin a legal tender. I assume your no-true-scotsman addition of "any country somebody would want to live in" is meant to disqualify it? That's rather disrespectful to the 6 million people who live there in addition to being wrong.

In my opinion more countries will adopt it in the coming years and convert a small portion of their reserves to Bitcoin. Time will tell which of us is correct.

And of course, like when China banned mining, they would simply pick up shop and move to another country. One with fewer regulatory risks.

To the contrary, as long as you can hold through the volatility window of about 4 years, you are better off holding Bitcoin.

The price of a house used to be 100 bitcoin, then 10, now it's 5. Wait 10 years and it'll be 0.5. Meanwhile, hold dollars and the price keeps going up. You are defacto forced to put your saving in an investment vehicle to keep up with inflation, taking on risk.

Which shows that it was the impact of pretending their currency hadn't been devalued that dragged them through a prolonged depression. Had they simply priced gold at its true value in pounds, they would have gotten through it as quickly as France.

Why wait? It's been 15 years of Bitcoin outperforming every other asset. Nobody has found an exploit making the tech worthless, nor have competitors stolen its market share. Bitcoin is here to stay and the only ones shouting at it are too stubborn to ever admit it has value.

Heroku is great until you need to do something non-standard in your deployment, like compile node and configure a python virtualenv in the same deploy. Then you have to learn their Buildpack framework and that is a nightmare. It's a hugely complicated abstraction layer that, like one of the parent comments says, requires me to learn 200%. I have to learn all the steps to install/configure nodejs, then python, then how they decided to slap together a layer on top of it that made assumptions like you would only be doing one of these things.

Doesn't a circuit breaker imply human intervention? The point of DeFi is that you get some code running on a blockchain then release control. No central point of control. How this is going to work is beyond me. But without it a blockchain is just an expensive database.

> The highly centralized structure which transpired to make Bitcoin popular

What centralized structure?

They are trying to build a physical/digital bearer instrument. Not a company, pure cash in your pocket. Of course the standards for security are higher.

I don't understand your point. If a stablecoin issuer has trouble compiling a list of their assets that's a red flag. If a competitor comes out with simpler accounting I'll switch to them.

In reality, only 13% of our planet’s population is born into the dollar, euro, Japanese yen, British pound, Australian dollar, Canadian dollar or Swiss Franc. The other 87% are born into autocracy or considerably less trustworthy currencies. 4.3 billion people live under authoritarianism, and 1.2 billion people live under double- or triple-digit inflation. [https://bitcoinmagazine.com/culture/check-your-financial-pri...]

Since 1920, at least 55 hyperinflation events have taken place, destroying savings and creating economic hardship. [https://assets.website-files.com/614e11526f6630959fc98679/61...]

A stable currency and strong property rights are the exception, not the rule.

A little deflation discourages spending, a little inflation encourages it. A lot of either is ruinous. Your example is one with deflation at an average of 120% for a decade straight. How well would an economy with inflation of 120% work out? Just ask Argentina.

Maybe a little inflation is good for us, the problem is how often it becomes a lot. Since 1920, at least 55 hyperinflation events have taken place, destroying savings and creating economic hardship [1]. Such events generally result from the mismanagement of financial systems and the economy by central governments.

Bitcoin offers an alternative in which sound money exists outside the control of governments and central banks. Who knows where it'll go, but it's an interesting experiment.

[1] https://assets.website-files.com/614e11526f6630959fc98679/61...

If they made a bad investment and lost that 5% they couldn't ask their friends in the Bitcoin corporation for a bailout.

No politician could write a few lines of code and grant them a one-time issuance of new coins.

No matter what percentage of coins one person, corporation, or government holds they have gained zero control over the network.

Equality of rules, not equality of wealth.

The ponzi part was not the root cause, it merely sped up asset accumulation until it became a ripe enough target.

The root cause was the flawed arbitrage mechanism. It relied on always being able to redeem 1 UST for $1 equivalent of LUNA, and that relied implicitly on LUNA having value. Without that, whenever somebody cashes out UST they also cash out LUNA causing both prices to enter a death spiral.

And what value did LUNA have? Nothing more than the promises of the development team that you were getting in early on a soon-to-be-burgeoning ecosystem. "Hundreds of developers! Amazing new protocols!" In other words, vaporware. Which during a bull market can work for a time.

I agree with you that a functioning algorithmic stablecoin would be "genius". However I prefer calling it the Holy Grail of stablecoins. Powerful, if it exists.

> Also, technically the value of UST was fully backed by LUNA

And what was LUNA backed by? Unless somebody gives a better definition I'll say it was backed by two things. One was UST successfully working as a stablecoin. The other was the vague promises made by the charismatic founder that they were enabling a whole ecosystem with hundreds of developers, creating blah blah. In other words, people bought into the hype that Terra was to become the next big blockchain startup and holding LUNA was as good as owning early stock.

So that goes back to the first point, and as soon as Terra wasn't able to run an effective stablecoin what was left? "We're still here making noise" says Do Kwon. Face palm.

Isn't the Fed taking directions from whatever administration is in power? Or do they have their own independent agenda?

I think it's more the former, leading to a circular argument on where the blame for that 60% lies.

Once you've gone the container route you no longer even need to think about virtual servers. You can just deploy it to a container service, like ECS.

> if you get a receipt then you could actually try to reverse it

Store puts up a 'No returns' sign, you have finality.

But the transactions were final, just as it would be if your employee stole the day's cash and escaped somewhere you couldn't find them. Reversible would mean you could press a few buttons on the cash register and poof, the money's back in it and not the pocket of the thief.

Tracking down said thief and taking the bag of money back in this metaphor constitutes a new transaction. As is subpoenaing Dropbox and gaining access to the poorly encrypted list of private keys from these Bitfinex rapper/hackers.

The article claims that bitcoin transactions are reversible, which they are not. He substitues the feds seizing the private keys and making new transactions as reversals.

The people claiming it's easy are, well, lying. Our deployments fail all the time for things like Google moved their Helm images to a new repo.

Kubernetes is still early tech and thus has more moving parts than a more well established stack. Keeping up to date is crucial and no small feat.

Let's just say they keep pay the same. All the employees who stay will look at those who moved to Pennsylvania and bought a 2br 2bath 2,000 square foot condo for $300k and say "hey, that costs $1.5 million in SF. Why am I not being compensated for the higher cost of living?"

Cost of living is higher if you live in a major metropolitan area. That higher SF salary gets you the same amount of goods and services as a lower salary in Utah. This is a pretty basic concept.

If you want to get paid the big salary, move to the big city. Don't complain about higher rent and cost of food. Or live frugally.

In a post about a new piece of graphics technology might not be the best place to have this conversation, but I'm glad it popped up. I recently decided to start playing Dwarf Fortress, a game with such terrible graphics it literally takes an act of will to get past them. Seriously, people post a screenshot full of commas and equal signs and say "epic battle, lol!"

Yet, something anazubg happened once I dedicated myself to deciphering the ascii characters: my imagination sprung to life to fill in the gaps. From those bland a-z characters came vaulting ceilings with intricate wall designs. Epic twisting caves. The oddest looking characters.

I compare it to a game of RimWorld, where the graphics make a lot more sense, but turns out limits my need to imagine it being different.