everfree

I think it's important because a lot of people still don't know what it entails.

For example, you say "cancer" and everyone has an idea of what that is. As of the 2000s/2010s, awareness has been rising about mental health and what it actually means to have mental illness. But if you say "long covid", most people still don't know what that really means to a sufferer of it. With its relative commonness compared to other, rarer yet more well-known illnesses (like DID), I'd say it deserves more attention than it gets.

If we think of public disease messaging as having limited "bandwidth", it makes sense to message about the most common, newest, and least understood diseases, wouldn't you agree?

The more the public understands what having an illness means for its sufferer, the more understanding the public will be of that person's needs and limitations, and thus the fuller a life that person will be able to live as their limitations are accommodated.

Symmetric file encryption yes, key file I’m not aware of.

What’s the advantage over symmetric PGP encryption?

UPF means "ultra-processed foods", in case anyone else had to look it up like I did.

I do get this. I don't know why you'd assume I don't.

And the sentiment behind your comment seems very reasonable, reading past its non-sequitur tone.

It's not reasonable to expect to be able to turn off "any part" of a piece of software, unless it's open source and you're digging through the code yourself to remove sections of it, refactor and re-compile everything.

That said, Apple generally gives people very fine-grained controls over what software features they want enabled, at least compared to other closed-source software vendors.

My question "what part and why" was intended to open up a discussion about privacy in regards to Apple's AI. But if your answer is simply "none of your business", then my answer to the question "can I turn it off" is simply "nobody has any way of knowing yet." Neither of those answers are great discussion openers.

Your username seems to check out.

Turn off what part and why? They announced several new systems, much of which runs on-device, one of which is simply an improved Siri. I was surprised by how considerate they seemed about AI data privacy, even for Apple.

> And, who is going to be able to have a larger percentage of their funds staked, a poor or a whale?

This is a truth that's fundamental to all types of investing. Advantaged people can set aside millions and not touch it for a year or five or twenty. Disadvantaged people can't invest $20 because there's a good chance they'll need it to buy dinner.

Stocks, bonds, CDs, real estate, it all works like this. You've touched on a fundamental property of wealth.

In what way is this an SEC violation?

Just hash it before it's broken.

In very simplified terms, "404" is just a number that's included in the "invisible" HTTP header of the web page you're visiting. Whether this number is "200" (success) or "404" (not found), it doesn't affect how your browser renders the web page.

Technically you could have a website where you serve real web pages full of content using the (wrong) 404 code, or serve web pages that tell the user "not found" using the (wrong) 200 code. It would massively mess up bots, search engines, browser extensions, and any other software that needs to know whether a page actually exists - but it would be fully browsable like normal by a human with a web browser, since humans don't see or read HTTP headers.

404 means the server cannot find the requested resource. In the case of a database, the "resource" is the database endpoint.

So, 404 would be used in case the database endpoint does not exist at the URL you tried to access it at. A query returning zero rows would be a "success" in HTTP terms.

> the cryptocurrency people can't seem to decide if they're a bunch of nerd hobbyists or the Future of Finance

I think it's strange to take a diverse set of people from around the world, from hobbyists to open source developers to fortune 500 teams, and group them all together as "cryptocurrency people", as if they represent a united movement towards a single goal.

It's as if I said "those Linux people can't decide whether they want to be nerd hobbyists or the future of server computing" while pointing out the seeming contradiction between Red Hat Linux and Hannah Montana Linux, both produced by the same "group" of "those Linux people".

Or it's as if I compared a unicycle to a fighter jet, both made by "those vehicle people".

> If you want to be HAM radio, then fine, nobody except your club needs to understand or care what you're talking about.

It doesn't matter much what I want it to be. It just is.

I find it unorthodox to compare a software standard to a "club". I'm imagining someone refer to the worldwide group of Linux users as a "club". Much like Linux, I don't need to explain to the world how cryptocurrency works in order for it to be useful to me, nor do I consider myself part of a club for using it. It's just there and I use it. As Andreessen Horowitz said many years ago, "It’s becoming like air or water. It just is, like it or hate it. It just is."

> If you think you're going to upend the world economy and force all the rest of us to use your bullshit, then you better expect the rest of us to demand explanations in plain English.

I don't know where you're getting this adversarial tone from. Nobody was or is "forced" to do anything. This is not "me vs you". We're commenting on a post about a piece of software.

It seems to me like you're trying to defend something or express some deeper frustration, and I'd be curious to know what it is. To you it's not just a piece of accounting software, is it? This software must represent some ideological point that is dear to you.

> I could tell my grandma what TCP/IP is and why it's important. Cryptocurrency proponents have been trying (and failing) to do the same to me for over a decade now.

This really seems to me like it goes far beyond jargon. Are you perhaps frustrated that cryptocurrency's continued adoption conflicts with your world view that it is unimportant? That's not necessarily something I can help with, beyond saying something trite like "each individual person has their own reasons for adopting a technology" or "there's some kind of social aspect that nobody has really been able to properly measure" or simply "protocols can be sticky".

Inefficiencies aren’t really inherent if they can be worked around.

> accelerating climate change, enabling various forms of crime, and doing financial damage to many people who have been convinced to put their savings into various ponzi schemes

Bitcoin accelerates climate change - no other cryptocurrency has a measurable environmental impact. The internet also enabled various forms of crime. Bank wires do financial damage to people who invest in ponzi schemes, in more volume than blockchain transactions do if I'm not mistaken.

Basically, I don't look at distributed ledger systems and think immediately of all the crimes that they enable. But I also don't look at a knife and immediately think of all the crimes that have been committed with knives. On the other hand though I've never known anyone who was a victim of a knife-related crime, so perhaps my opinion would be different if that were the case.

Looks like it's not available in my country.

You're entitled to your opinion on that, I suppose. As someone who actually does understand most of the jargon (because it's what I do for a living), data availability sampling feels to me just as inherent to good blockchain design as fast fourier transforms are to good digital signal processing.

> consensus algorithms are complicated but they solve a hard problem

Ironically, this article is about an algorithm that comes to consensus on and distributes data. Yes it's a hard problem, thus the article.

This is not really an article about cryptocurrency or monkey jpegs, it's a nitty-gritty article about the design of a computer protocol, written for the benefit of protocol researchers and implementers. If it's nonsensical to you, perhaps consider that you're not the target audience.

This is a highly technical article written by a protocol researcher to be read by other protocol researchers and implementers. I'm not really sure what level of jargon you expected.

This article is akin to an aircraft architect writing about engine design to engine manufacturers - there's no reason to spell things out that the target audience already knows well.

Sorry, but I thought you said in your last comment that you believe USDC will be outcompeted by a centralized solution. Do you believe that, or do you believe that there is not enough demand to justify the regulatory headache of launching a centralized solution? Those seem to me to be opposing viewpoints.

Typically when there's a highly technical topic on HN that I don't understand, I don't comment on the domain jargon.

I didn't go into today's Babylon thread and comment "Node geometry? Gaussian splat rendering? Sounds like a Douglas Adams novel."

So I guess just don't really understand the mentality.

Typically when there's a highly technical topic on HN that I don't understand, I don't comment on the thread about the domain jargon going over my head.

I didn't go into today's Babylon thread and comment "Node geometry? Gaussian splat rendering? We are deep into angels dancing on a pin territory. Just use jQuery."

I just don't understand the mentality of comments like yours, I suppose.

I think a shared, "slow" database could be useful for property deeds. Give the state admin access to override the typical transfer process in case of theft, and then you're left with a 24/7 accessible public database of property deeds, where the current owner and full history of a deed (transfers, liens, easements) can be accessed and verified by any joe with a computer.

It could be useful for professional licenses, too. Everyone could have a verifiable history of someone's professional license - when it was issued, when it was revoked, again mathematically verifiable. You could be sure that someone's record was never changed or deleted without leaving an audit trail.

Though to be fair, the important part of this is the chain of cryptographically signed and timestamped events. It could work without strictly being a blockchain. You could imagine something that behaves more like a git repository with a flat file database in it.

Why is it that no other solution has been developed in the 40 years of the internet, but you believe now is a particularly ripe time for one to pop up?

> People need to look outside of the USA to understand the state of the art.

And yet people need only to look down at their smartphone, no matter where in the world they are located, to understand the state of the art in public ledgers.

I think it's helpful to realize that most everything on the internet is already financialized by default. Whenever you post a comment, upvote, or "write", it costs some company somewhere an amount of money to maintain the marginal amount of server capacity required to process your request. And if you aren't paying for the product, then you are the product of course (ads).

So blockchains don't necessarily financialize things that aren't already financialized, they just tend to make money flow in a more direct way from a group of people using a service to a group of people hosting/providing it. Instead of paying using a micropayment of attention that gets monetized through a complex and often bespoke advertising arrangement, you can pay using a micropayment of a recognizable asset that has actual market value.

Personally, if I could click a single Apple-pay-like button in my browser to attach say 0.5 cents of postage to this Hacker News comment to get it to post, I doubt I would think twice about it. In fact, I would probably participate more confidently knowing it's a deterrent for bots (less of a problem for Hacker News, but a huge problem on Reddit and Xitter).

Ethereum should also make plenty of sense to an average programmer who understands basic cryptography. The concept of a distributed virtual machine shouldn't be difficult to grasp.

You could dive deeper into either of the topics you mentioned and start losing people - for example how QUIC carries a TLS handshake, or why enshrined proposer-builder separation is important to Ethereum. All that means is that both protocols hide complexity under the surface.

What are you saying? There's a "test-cases" folder in the "prover" folder you linked to a search of.

Not sure why it doesn't show up in GitHub's search, but it's right there in front of both of our faces.

I'm pretty sure that this is part of the code that implements fraud proofs on Arbitrum One, which is one of the few L2s to currently have fraud proofs.

Sequencer side:

https://github.com/OffchainLabs/nitro/blob/d28682b9300d50214...

Contract side:

https://github.com/OffchainLabs/nitro-contracts/blob/90037b9...

It seems to me that Optimism is lagging way behind - I'm not sure if they have fraud proofs yet even to this day. I consider Arbitrum to have "picked up the torch" so-to-say.

The actual quote is "we are not *currently* at the point where we can be confident enough in the complex code of an optimistic or SNARK-based EVM verifier". The article seems to imply that "in the end", they will be.

Because transaction fees on blockchains run as an auction market, low-cost transactions are enabled by high transaction throughput, at least relative to demand. In other words, any chain that has high throughput and/or low demand will have low-cost transactions. Solana and Ethereum attempt to achieve high throughput in very different ways.

Ethereum blobs create transaction space that has a 0-of-n trust model (for zk-roll-ups) or a 1-of-n trust model (for optimistic roll-ups). This means that there needs to be either zero or one honest participant who carefully receives, processes and validates every single roll-up transaction in order for an outsider to be able to prove that the chain was not tampered with.

In contrast, Solana achieves throughput by taking the classic blockchain structure (with its n-of-n trust model) and cranking the parameters up to 11. Basically they said "be a standard blockchain, but do everything a hundred times faster on expensive servers with beefy CPUs and datacenter connections". The advantages are that it took less development time and there are less moving parts in the stack. The disadvantage is that the Solana blockchain is not actually verifiable, in the sense that you or I could download a piece of software onto our home computer and follow along with the chain to make sure it's valid. Ethereum is verifiable in this way, even down through all of its (properly-designed and fully implemented) L2s.

To distill the entire situation: In order to scale, Solana gives up some of the fundamental properties that make blockchains powerful. Ethereum, scaling with blobs, retains these fundamental blockchain properties.