jeremyt

Not if it takes 6 months to get a new developer up and running on the codebase, and then they leave just when they are getting productive.

It doesn't transport money, it trades tokens.

Wasn't anonymous or untraceable.

Oh, well, if there is no perceived use case for you, then there must not be any use cases, even though someone just pointed out a very specific and valuable use case. That's logical.

If the new chain gets, say, 1% of the hashing power, then blocks will be found on average 100 times less often, which extends the time to reaching a new adjustment period from two weeks to 200 weeks...enough to arguably kill it.

100% of the remaining people don't know what net neutrality is. Pick two of them at random and their definitions will not line up.

It's just a blank slate for people to project their political biases on.

Because you can flip coins for a profit. Can't do that on kickstarter.

Of course I don't have any proof. If I had proof, there wouldn't be any discussion.

A five minute Google search will show you that the vast majority of the models have ranged from being somewhat inaccurate to wildly inaccurate all in the direction of predicting more global warming.

Furthermore, I'm not aware of any other models with publicly released source code. In my opinion, that's ridiculous, since people want us to literally re-organize the economy around these predictions.

Do you want to defend the idea of keeping the source code for the models private?

I looked into this deeply about six months ago. I don't remember the specifics.

There's a paper out there where two completely separate groups of scientists disagree with each other on what the adjustments to the data should be. These are not alarmist versus deniers, these are both alarmist scientists who think it's a big problem.

They both can't be correct. Someone is making incorrect adjustments.

As to the models, when the models failed to predict reality, they should have been thrown out. But they keep turning out revision after revision of the models, which continue to fail to predict the future.

You cannot claim that models are predictive of anything until they have successfully predicted actual reality, but what these scientists are doing are saying "well, the models didn't predict well, but we made adjustments and now they predict better), which means nothing. For all we know, the adjustments could've made the predictions worse.

The other side defends by stating that the models are the best we have, but I would argue that they are worse than nothing. They have gone from being wildly inaccurate, to just somewhat inaccurate.

Of course I don't have any proof, because the internal deliberations are not public, the code for the models is not public, and the revisions to the data and models are not public.

Frankly, I'd be very happy if they would release the source code for the models so we could see what a clusterfuck they are.

No, I think that the data has been adjusted, sometimes purposefully and sometimes unknowingly, in a direction which results in more warming due to the peer pressure involved. Some of the adjustments are justifiable and some are questionable. Sometimes, the adjustments need to be adjusted because of additional changes in the environment. Sometimes this gets done and sometimes it doesn't.

Then, we have scientists who make models which should be falsifiable, but instead of declaring that the models don't work when they fail to match reality, they make adjustments to "fit the curve". Anyone who has dealt with models before knows that you can make any number of adjustments to fit any curve you want. After the adjustments, the models continue to be inaccurate. Sometimes, suspiciously, the models become more accurate in the near term but still predict the same huge temperature rise in the future.

Then, the activists on the left take the current claims made by science and extend them as far as possible. This is then stated as fact. See: Al Gore. Said activists use "97% consensus" to defend their hyperbolic claims, mostly knowing that the 97% consensus doesn't apply to their exaggerations.

These "facts" are then used as justifications for massive government involvement in the economy, which just so happens to line up with the political wishes of the left.

Your entire comment is political. There's nothing scientific in it.

You're basically just saying that everybody else agrees, so you need to get in line.

Decentralized exchanges are already in the works.

Be transparent with the data. Stop making adjustments that are questionable and coincidentally result in increased warming. Stop blacklisting scientists who disagree with the consensus. Stop getting hacked and releasing emails showing people discussing how to "hide the decline". Stop gaming peer review by having the papers reviewed by a group of people who all agree. Stop making hyperbolic predictions about the future which are completely falsifiable and indeed end up to be false. Stop insisting that the models are completely accurate even though they have been completely inaccurate thus far. Stop accusing people who have questions about mitigation strategies as "climate deniers".

That would be a good start.

They convert to shares, which are junior to debt.

SAFEs are not bad for entrepreneurs, they're bad for investors.

I won't make one anymore.

I've done two deals that involved a SAFE, and it's been almost 2 years and the companies are still looking to raise a round. If they do, I'm looking at a 10-20% return.

It's not worth it for the risk.

Indeed, at least convertible notes are debt and can be seen you're in a liquidation. A SAFE doesn't even give you that.

Dragon naturally speaking + Sennheiser ME-3 microphone should be at the top of your list

The point is to not to need to convert back to fiat.

5 minutes of internet searching should find my email based on my username and bio :)

If you'll send me one of your cold emails, i'll tell you why you got no response. I've seen it all.

Panic sell

Not to take any credit away from Birken, but he was the 2nd CTO.

Coffee is a lot of trouble. I think you will have more success just emailing a very brief pitch with something more detailed attached.

Well if true, I stand corrected. I have received no communication from Schwab about any changes. I assume that if they had made stronger passwords available, for example, they would notify their customers.

I no longer hold any assets at Schwab, but I do poke around every now and then, and it's possible they changed things without me noticing.

I wrote this a couple years ago about Schwab's embarrasing security. Most of the issues are still there.

https://jeremytunnell.com/2014/12/22/swab-password-policies-...

Ripple, while interesting, isn't designed to be crypto money, it's designed to be a global settlement network, which is the first thing you'll see when you go to their webpage.

Furthermore, their transaction costs are currently at a minimum an order of magnitude more than what a Bitcoin transaction costs, running to 2-3 orders of magnitudes. It's a replacement for the SWIFT network, which is all great but not really directly competing with Bitcoin.

You mischaracterize my point completely. I, at no point, make the claim that politics isn't part of Bitcoin. In fact, that's part of its design. The whole system is designed to be very difficult to change.

The fact that we are at a stalemate right now because of politics is entirely true, and also entirely uninteresting to me. It doesn't matter which side is technically right or wrong, the underlying dispute is ephemeral and eventually something will have to be done, and will. Right now, the incentives are not such to force something to be done, but eventually the incentives will align.

Furthermore, even if I'm incorrect and Bitcoin grinds to a development halt completely, then it's still perfectly suitable to be digital gold and I'll be happy to make my 20-50x return on it based on that.

I don't know who these people you're referring to are who are claiming that Bitcoin is some autonomous system that always makes decisions based on technical merits, but it's not me.

Of course, I have an opinion on the current controversy, and I do think my side is technically right, but that's irrelevant. I also think my side is being political.

I don't really understand the question, but anybody can create a fork of Bitcoin anytime they want.

The controversy is over which fork gets to be called Bitcoin.

I'm pretty sure that if you try to buy a two dollar tube of toothpaste with a two dollar speck of gold, they'll say no thanks.

Whenever I look at anti-Bitcoin arguments, it mostly just boils down to the fact that they don't really know Bitcoin all that well.

There's absolutely no reason why digital gold can't be extremely liquid. There's no reason why increasing the valuation of bitcoin itself is going to do away with the digital gold market (raise your hand if you hold gold and would be super upset if it went up 100x).

The complaints about stagnation and the fact that the community is having political difficulties etc is true. But I also remember some years ago when twitter couldn't even keep its servers running and everyone was writing it off as a technology that couldn't scale.

Even if the naysayers are right and and Bitcoin never becomes anything but digital gold and a way to send money between different countries, then the market cap still has like 50x to go.

Finally, I'll only accept arguments that Bitcoin can't become the next digital currency from people who thoroughly understand the lightning network. If you actually understand how Bitcoin is structured, there's no way it could ever scale to the point where every transaction is written to the block chain.

That's why we are creating the lightning network, which is essentially a VISA prepaid credit card system on top of Bitcoin. You can contribute a certain amount to your lightning account and then make unlimited purchases, instantly and it practically zero cost all month and then settle with one transaction to the blockchain. All of this is secure and trustless.

The only thing standing between the lightning network and what we have now is a fix for malleable transactions which is held up because of a political dispute.

The nature of the dispute is unimportant, mostly due to the fact that the rebels have tried to do a hard fork attack over the last month and have failed, proving Bitcoin to be decentralized enough (and it will get more decentralized as it gets larger). The opposition, at this point, can't win and can only delay. At some point, incentives will ensure that they have to go along with the fix, and then it's Bitcoin 10,000.

I'm invested in Bitcoin for the long-term and have no interest in pumping and dumping. To date, I haven't sold any Bitcoin, and I have high six figures worth.

I'm more bullish on Bitcoin than I have been on anything, and I would openly welcome any legitimate arguments that convinced me otherwise, but I haven't heard anything yet that can't easily be explained by a misunderstanding of the underlying technology.