lappa

The explanation completely went over your head. The numbers weren't from measurements of actual firm performance, they were demonstrative examples to explain why measuring the median isn't very useful in this case.

And no, my example was 6 firms with the median having -1% growth rate, for the record.

I have more money than every person in the US who has $0 to their name combined.

This metric isn't useful for anything other than shocking headlines.

>PoS is resistant to nothing at stake attack as long as at least one smallest stake is indefinitely honest in each block.

You completely misunderstand the security model if you think one honest stakeholder can prevent these attacks.

There is no concept of an honest stake holder in the eyes of the network, best they can do is try to estimate which history is the "true" history, however it is free to write a new history.

>To not cancel, the attacker has to own something in all histories

Why do you think this is difficult?

>Which currency system gets destroyed by the enemy country, wrecking their economy as a result?

This is a question of whether attacking PoW through expending energy is more expensive than attacking PoS through designing a program that takes advantage of known PoS flaws.

>P.S. I think in practice all cryptocurrencies are driven purely by social consensus

I'm sorry, but you clearly don't understand even the basics of distributed consensus if you think only social consensus and not a blockchain is necessary. I recommend looking into

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Byzantine_fault_tolerance#The_...

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

Yes, as I mentioned users who don't have to sync back up have their vulnerabilities limited to stake grinding attacks.

They don't, however, need trust to determine which chain has had the most work done on it. An alternative genesis with much less work done on it is suspect immediately.

I don't know why this paper needs to introduce so much already common terminology.

"Corrupt" is a re-org "stable transactions" are confirmed transactions

"Function maxvalid(C, C). Returns the longest chain from C ∪ {C} that does not fork from C more than k blocks."

This is the recipe for partitioning consensus. All you need to do is broadcast to anyone a lower-work chain and they will be on their own fork.

This is easy to do during a new sync in which the node has been offline for more than k blocks, or with a little more work you could stake grind and partition the network at the tip.

The former problem is covered in section 3.2.

Generally the nothing at stake problem will result in the problem of requiring some trusted source to not lie, regardless of the implementation, see https://download.wpsoftware.net/bitcoin/pos/

If you have 5 firms with ROIs of -10%, -5%, -3%, 1%, 14% and 31%, then 50% of the firms have negative growth rates and the median firm loses money.

However you can observe that if you invested $100 ($600 total) into each firm, you would end up with $636.

Median return isn't a very useful measure of the health of a sector. It is a predictor for risk, but not a very good one.

Due to the intelligence difference it doesn't seem reasonable to even equate one human year to one rat year.

There are no ethical complaints with trashing an artificial neural network.

It could be argued that it is ethical to kill a bivalve because their ganglia is comprised of about 100 nerves. Their "mind" mostly consists of direct signaling from input to response.

But what about 1000 neurons? 100,000? 100,000,000? Humans have 100,000,000,000. There likely isn't some perfect dividing point between conscious animal that should be saved and dumb animal that doesn't have a conscious. The negative utility of killing an animal probably increases continuously as the number of neurons increase.

The article said they would be targeting Russia.

We wouldn't be able to mate with Nakalipithecus nakayamai, so they are indeed a distinct species despite being our ancestor.

Not the person you're responding to, but aren't there service plans with unlimited texting and images? I'd definitely use this service if I could text.

Being a very good blackjack player doesn't mean much. You can follow a relatively simple set of instructions to maximize expected value.

This still exposes you to fake confirmation attacks. Any miner can give you a block that follows this clients rules and as long as most miners aren't following these rules, he can guarantee the block will be overwritten (reorged out). This allows cheaper double-spend attacks.

51% is guarantees that over infinite time consensus will be achieved. 75% is just a stronger guarantee that it will with higher probability come to consensus in a shorter time.

Do you know of a good resource listing all of these?

In the first paragraph, this is cited: https://download.wpsoftware.net/bitcoin/pos.pdf

It is a good, generalized overview of the faults in proof-of-stake consensus systems.

I wasn't aware, thanks for the info!

A bit more than 50

>The risk projections suggest that by now Chernobyl may have caused about 1000 cases of thyroid cancer and 4000 cases of other cancers in Europe, representing about 0.01% of all incident cancers since the accident. Models predict that by 2065 about 16,000 cases of thyroid cancer and 25,000 cases of other cancers may be expected due to radiation from the accident

http://allthingsnuclear.org/lgronlund/how-many-cancers-did-c...?

>In 2013, an easy way to add data to any Bitcoin transaction was introduced. By making standard a previously invalid script instruction, OP_RETURN, a Bitcoin user could add up to 40 bytes of data to his transactions.

It was already plenty easy to convert data to a multisig transaction. OP_RETURN doesn't add to the UTXO, while multisig transactions do, so OP_RETURN is less harmful.

This wasn't introduced to make it saving data to the blockchain easier, it was introduced to decrease the harm caused by spammers. It is more like a needle exchange.

Among the things I had knowledge of, a lot seemed incorrect, so I wasn't quite sure how to take the things I didn't have knowledge of.

This is a bit confusing. I don't suspect Netflix is built using primarily node.js, and I don't see how the Netflix Prize (algorithm for predicting what a person is most likely to want to watch) falls under "scaling".

Do they have any third party customer reviews? Their video claims 80% success on the first try, but since it isn't sold on eBay or Amazon I can't find any trustworthy reviews.

Just to be clear, the article is saying that using solar power technology from 2030 would be more cost effective 90% of the time, not that using 90% solar energy today would be cheaper by the time we reach 2030.

Ah, I didn't realize that these were updated, I thought it just used a regex to verify the email, phone number, filter bad words, etc.

A lot of these seem useful and having APIs that need to be updated is a good VP, however for things like HTML to PDF, there are libraries that already do this.

People will likely use the HTML -> PDF API, but in terms of the new APIs you are developing, I think you will attract more customers with things that cannot be implemented simply with a library and instead need to be managed by you.

Just my two cents, good luck!

What is the benefit of using this when a local, unlimited-use library without latency issues can be used?

Don't you think there's a bit of a selection bias there?

Well if each block has to be signed with 50% of the banks that reduces trust by some degree, however this still can be done more efficiently with a relational database.

That seems to leave them with the same problem where a single bank can lie and cause problems.

If they don't have miners or Bitcoin, then who is securing the ledger?

Latency is one of the problems with regards to creating an economy of scale and centralization. It may actually work better to increase the block size by having 3MB blocks with 20 minute intervals or 1 hour blocks with 20MB caps, though that also has some centralizing pressures in increasing the full node expenses and may even result in latency-blocktime ratio increasing. There also is of course the problem of confirmations being inconvenient with 1 hour blocks.