179 karma · joined January 20, 2013
Every holder who is staking is rewarded for staking, in proportion to their stake.
> To me it sounds like staking has a much more powerful snowball effect than mining
No, because issuance under proof of stake is much lower than that under proof of work.
The point of validating is to secure the chain, not to get rich. The more validators that are active, the lower the per-validator rewards, reducing compounding effects.
The decision to trust the issuer or not is down to the entity viewing the information, and depends on the particular requirements of the situation. A zero-knowledge proof that I am over 25 issued by my local library may be enough for the local theatre to let me in to watch a suitably rated movie, but not for the local bar to let me purchase liquor (in the latter case a proof directly from a government entity would be more appropriate).
"Long time" is also relative. I've been updating /etc/fstab directly for over 25 years.
Is the seed created and encrypted on the client or the server?
There is no such thing as an invalid Ethereum address.
Separately, what the researchers seem to miss is that the majority of these funds were stolen due to a far more traditional software exploit: the Go Ethereum client (geth) has a JSON-RPC interface. If the user:
- enables the interface (it's disabled by default)
- listening on a public address (it defaults to 127.0.0.1)
- and unlocks their wallet (they are locked by default)
then anyone can send a request to the interface to sign a transaction transferring all funds in the account to another address.If anyone cares enough, it's easy to set up an instance of geth with the first two conditions met and watch the transfer attempts coming in.
The whole point of semver is that it allows people to know if they can upgrade version without hitting incompatibilities. So yes, this would be a 2.2 and those on 2.1 would know that they could upgrade to it without worrying about fixing their own integrations.
The calender version 19.1 tells me nothing other than when it was released, which is of no interest whatsoever when evaluating what it does. Sounds like a triumph of marketing over useful information.
Using ->> (or ->) in a WHERE statement is generally a bad idea, and certainly a terrible idea without an explicit index. Use @> instead.