relyio

It came to mind but it's reversed versus the process exposed in PowerHammer

~3ms average for both from Western Europe

>regulating it

Why no one has thought of that before? Problem solved!

I'm sure you can do a better job at illustrating your point than ressucitating a +10y old quote from Zuck, 19 at the time.

Teenagers and college students say a lot of condescending, dumb, immature stuff in group discussions. It's not news and no evidence at all.

Leah M Goodman is the journalist who wrote the Newsweek article about Dorian Nakamoto.

It is also a pen name used by the Breitman as a joke.

You understood OP wrong. He is not saying that PoW is the only viable method of securing the chain, but rather, that you need a mining incentive.

There is such a mining incentive in proof-of-stake, block signers get rewarded.

I had the exact same issues with Quora. Both websites I used to hang out frequently. Facebook to see what was going on within my social circles (not content consumption) and Quora to learn new things from the people I followed.

Both websites became unbearingly bad after they updated their feed algorithm. To this day, this remains for me the quintessential case of bad product thinking meets over-engineering.

Then replace the board of the Tezos Foundation and force Johann Gevers (foundation board president) to release the audit report investigating the self-dealing he is accused of.

FYI, Tezos (self-amending ledger, one of the largest commercial application of OCaml) has raised ~250 million dollars in July. The funds were supposed to go toward funding the ecosystem, development, and so on.

Unfortunately, the founders of the project made a terrible call early on and selected a bad apple (JOHANN GEVERS) to become chairman of the foundation holding the fundraiser/ICO proceedings. After some digging, frustrated community members found out that this guy has a long track record of failed ventures and what some would call very sketchy behavior. He's the self-appointed "visionary" kind if you want know what I mean (not kidding that's from his website).

The project is developed by an independent company owned by the founders so it is still under development (https://gitlab.com/tezos/tezos/activity) despite that foundation issue.

The Tezos Foundation hasn't communicated in months. They are sitting on close to a billion dollars of donations and broke their fiduciary duty to spend the money on development.

Research this, it is completely nuts.

Some links to start:

https://www.reddit.com/r/tezos/comments/7kzbm9/the_story_and...

https://www.reddit.com/r/tezos/comments/7qt548/the_true_hist...

>stablecoin shill

You make some good points but I'm not sure labeling everyone and everything as "shilling" is helping your case at all.

There was plenty of mathiness though! The audience were overwhelmingly cryptographers.

>What seems fair is to ban arbitrary "top-N" quotas. If you can get a job that pays you a living wage (such that you don't have to draw from subsidies), then you can stay without hassle.

Ok. I just know that this won't happen anytime soon. My top-N solution feels like something the current administration would not be too reluctant to implement. It also address the concern that foreign labor pressure downs salaries for US citizens.

The process is ridiculously complicated and not worth the time and effort, when it is possible at all.

I say that as someone who lived in the Bay area for almost a year and loved it. I had a great job, generated tons of wealth, got full-time offers with generous signing bonuses that I would have accepted in a heartbeat if it was not for the fact that not having a degree makes it impossible for me to get a visa.

The process would be a lot better for me if the work visa were simply allocated to the top N people in a priority queue where the weight of each entry is the salary.

Zurich, Toronto, and Montreal are my top choices now.

>Do something if you believe in change.

Ross Ulbricht filed an appeal to the Supreme Court this week (http://reason.com/blog/2017/12/27/ross-ulbricht-files-appeal...).

I think the claim that it is closer to the "original vision" has some substance if you think of Bitcoin as a peer-to-peer cash system rather than as a settlement layer.

With that said, this certainly does not imply that p2p cash is what Bitcoin could actually excel at once it reach global scale. Modifying the original vision is not some great sin, it literally happens all the time with startups and no one bats an eye.

I don't think being closer to Satoshi's original vision is any important, Bitcoin is not a religion and Satoshi isn't a prophet.

The split-up was a good thing, I'm excited that different avenues are being explored. Maybe core maintainers are wrong and p2p cash is actually the way to go. Maybe Bitcoin Cash fans are wrong and the solution lies in developing L2 solutions. Maybe both are wrong. Time will tell and we should be happy that different things are being tried.

The engineer in me says that the "real" Bitcoin is the one with the most total difficulty. I think that definition is too narrow. To me, both are the real Bitcoin, just in different timelines. The timeline that wins will overwrite reality such that it was the real Bitcoin all along. Meta!

Increasing block size is the low hanging fruit for reducing tx fees.

It's a dead-simple idea. You increase the supply side of the fee market and users don't have to compete for transaction finality anymore. It has been implemented and we know it works.

Of course, that is only kicking the can down the road and has many caveats. It still has proven effective to complete its goal (minimize tx fees).

Lightning networks is a WIP that is months, perhaps years, away from hitting production. As such, I wouldn't call them the "main approach" to scaling except in the mind of core engineers. It might drive tx costs down, it might not, at this stage it is too early to tell for sure.

As such, I think OP is right. It is completely fair to say that block size increase is the "main" approach, as in the "the one that we know for sure works right now", to making Bitcoin usable as a payment system.

Now on a side note: I don't think you needed to be that aggressive with OP. I won't address the attacks on Roger Ver because it is my belief that attempts at turning a technical debate into politics should be met with contempt.

I attended a few years ago (28C3). Had a great time and gave my first (unofficial) talk ever there. Found people to be supportive and chill; maybe it had to do with the fact that I was rather young at the time. I don't know.

That said, it is frustrating that they don't release the schedule weeks ahead. I was seriously thinking about attending but did not go through because conferences these days tend to have far less technical content than they used to.

There is clearly an interest because we routinely see links about crypto-backed currencies make it to the front page but the quality of comments is usually astonishingly low. I don't know if that is because people "hate it" or if they overestimate their own knowledge of the topic.

In my opinion, your outrage is misplaced.

Don't hate the other players, hate the game that coerce you into paying taxes (i.e punish you) because you have partaken in a peaceful and voluntary exchange with another person.

I wonder why there hasn't been an attempt at making a country where regulations are kept minimal and taxes nonexistent or only dependent on what you use.

It would probably attract a ton of economic activity. Does it exist?

edit: rephrase

Sadly the article doesn't link to the study by Verto Analytics and I wasn't able to found it on their website (http://www.vertoanalytics.com/verto-reports/).

Most "cryptocurrency evangelists" as you say stayed as far away as they could from USDT and are rather supportive of Bitfinexed's arguments against tether.

The author conflates several things into the label "SV": the private capital, the founders, the startup execs and so on. but surprisingly it barely mentions the engineers that are perhaps SV's most defining characteristic.

Now to address the article, the current ecosystem of companies in SV and the people it attracts is the byproduct of what venture capitalists are willing to invest in, which is itself a consequence of what the economy wants and the kind of ventures regulators allow to succeed.

So, if you want to point fingers asking why aren't tough problems solved you should start by asking yourself why is it that those are so much more capital-intensive to solve in the first place. And more importantly, what could be done to make them more attractive to private capital.

Of course, there's a narrow category of problems that are intrinsically capital intense. But many more are just artificial moonshots i.e problems that aren't that hard if not for the many roadblocks and hoops one would need to go through to formulate even a basic answer.

How long would it take to get a railroad network going in 2017 v. 1830s?

tl;dr: the entities influencing the incentive structure are more to blame than the individual agents trying to optimize for their own KPIs.

Agreed.

It isn't an awfully common anti-pattern for startups though. Or at least, not as common as picking Mongo<3.* instead of pq because things needs to be "webscale".

The point OP is making is that in a startup, you don't do engineering for the sake of engineering. In the end, what matters is generating wealth.

Obviously, you want a sane legacy for the future but unless you already have hit that sweet product-market fit spot it is likely that you will spend a non-trivial amount of time optimizing (prematurely) for something that's in fact orthogonal to what you actually need.

The trick, as usual, is to balance engineering and business depending on which stage your at.

France has lifted its state of emergency two weeks ago after a new anti-terror law was passed by the government. While I wasn't fond of it, I am not sure it is fair to call it "undemocratic".

It was hard to get out of that state of emergency precisely because it was 1/ popular 2/ politically dangerous (what happens if a major scale attack happens right after it is being lifted?).

Same story here. I had used a mix of Fedora/Debian with a custom window manager for the longest time. Then reluctantly got a macbook and had a great user experience.

I used to love Macbooks, now I hate them with passion.

I'm confused as well. I believe OP meant front-end/templating.

There's a practical difference between optimizing for content quality with honest and well-known criteria. And, optimization to prevent people to subject the party-line to criticism.

Unless you have examples where it has been the case, that's an unfair comparison.

Are you talking about UCB? Nearly all my friends doing EECS or the likes are depressed, swamped with work and borderline suicidal. It has taken such proportions that it has become a meme on the facebook meme page UCBMFET. From what they have told me, their administration has no interest in student satisfaction or mental health.

The gruesome workload and collective depression is perhaps only topped by Waterloo.

Yeah, you get a top notch engineering education. But, I'd wager the trauma isn't worth it when you realize the workforce standards are well below what's requires of you in the "dojo".

Stanford kids seem much happier.