trevelyan

> I don't think it's an accident that analysis supporting unlimited block sizes assumes perpetual inflation instead of limited supply.

Agree, although this assumes that the free market cannot be trusted to regulate the size of the blockchain which seems possible with automatic transaction rebroadcasting. Are you familiar with the technique? Thoughts on it?

https://youtu.be/agppUdX9YvI?t=105

I'd be curious what you think about the approach. The basic idea is that forcing new and old transactions to compete for space on-chain pushes the blockchain into an equilibrium where data-in equals data-out. On either side of the equilibrium point block producers can increase their profits (and reduce costs) by moving towards equilibrium. So no need for a hardcap and no need for perpetual inflation.

Coda uses ZK-snarks -- not suitable for affixing data to transactions.

Sounds interesting -- if you remember the details pls post.

I think you're thinking of Wimblemimble and ZK-snarks. They use cryptographic techniques where the signatures need to "add up" to what they should in order to be valid -- demonstrating that no new tokens have been added in the course of the new block.

Quite cool approaches. The problem is that you can't attach data to transactions, so only useful for a subset of applications, those unlikely to create much bloat in the first place.

There is a solution (#3). Best known is to have the consensus layer prune data periodically, but check to see if the UTXO getting pruned are still spendable and charge fees for rebroadcasting them.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=agppUdX9YvI&feature=youtu.be...

An actual market-powered mechanism for data-pruning. As the price of new transactions rise, the amount paid by old (rebroadcast) transactions rise more. Network hits equilibrium where data in == data out.

I really like the way Conflux combines POW and a DAG. With that said, I still do wonder how the economics are supposed to work out.

Once multiple blocks are produced at the same time, what is stopping the miner with the greater hash power from just stealing the transactions (and their associated fees) from the side-blocks and moving them onto the larger chain. This sort of economic substructure feels like a leap of faith. Maybe it will work, but Bitcoin does have a single thread of miners and blocks for a reason.

It would indeed be excellent city planning to do what you are suggesting. Other ideas include taxing vacant properties; restricting immigrants to ownership of a single property for N years; taxing immigration more heavily and investing in municipal infrastructure; or following Australia's lead and restricting non-residents to the purchase of newly-built housing.

And it's an great question why so many cities fail to take these steps. My guess is that inertia wins partly because it becomes politically inexpedient to blame immigrants for anything once cities have a certain percent of non-native residents, and partly because rising home prices make older homeowners happy while pushing the marginalized and disaffected younger voters into other ridings.

According to new data from Statistics Canada, immigrants own 43 per cent of all residential properties in Toronto and 37 per cent in Vancouver, while making up 46 per cent of Toronto’s population and 41 per cent of Vancouver’s. An additional 4.8 and 3.4 percent of residential properties have foreign owners in Vancouver and Toronto respectively. And these statistics do not seem to include people coming in on student visas.

https://ca.finance.yahoo.com/news/immigrants-canadas-highest...

Even without students the numbers are pretty high comparatively. In contrast, "of all the metropolitan areas in the [United States], Miami had the highest rate of immigrant homeownership (26 percent), as well as the largest percentage of immigrants in its population (41 percent)."

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/11/15/realestate/immigrants-and...

A lot of Chinese money involves families paying for housing ostensibly bought by a legal resident or green card purchaser, usually a student who comes over and then ends up owning one or two properties and sheltering family assets.

These purchases aren't usually reflected in the stats. It is more unusual for non-residents to end up owning property with no guarantees they can use it. Same in Australia and Vancouver.

details?

From our manual testing the worst seem to be 360, Sogou, and Liebao.

thank you

Right now it's been manual stuff. We get reports of users have trouble on bizarre mobile phone combos. Midnight here and just back from the gym, but I'll make sure we check out BrowserStack and Tesults tomorrow and let you know if we hae any questions.

Thank you Pulkitsh, late at night now, but I'll have us look at this tomorrow.

This is fantastic advice. Thank you so much for sharing!

Multiple upvotes if I could.

Thanks for the downvote whoever it was. History is not going to be kind to those unaware of basic facts however, in this case the fact that the Assange case was re-opened in 2010 on the basis of fabricated evidence:

https://www.smh.com.au/world/no-assange-dna-on-torn-condom--...

https://www.rt.com/news/assange-condom-no-dna-277/

Assume that people can get their hands on the UK high court ruling. It takes only a bit of reading to confirm the complete accuracy of the statements above.

The UK trial was not on the rape charges (there was no permitted discussion of the evidence or total lack of it). The ruling was over whether the UK was bound to extradite given the Swedish government's refusal to interview Assange in England or indict him in Sweden. The tortured legal conclusion was basically that the UK couldn't definitively conclude the Swedes were acting in bad faith, and they couldn't be entirely sure that Assange was only being extradited for questioning (technically illegal).

As far as the Swedes go, the Swedish government discussed the case when it closed it for the first time. If the government hasn't been public about the case since it was re-opened by a political appointee, perhaps it is because there is zero evidence against Assange. We know this because the pretext for re-opening the case was the "discovery" of new physical evidence (a broken condom) that lacked any of Assange's DNA. This is all public knowledge, btw. Funny how it isn't discussed much in the press.

I think Saito (saito.tech) has the better approach. Surely the problem with the Brave model isn't that they are hijacking the browser so much as that they're just replacing who is in the monopolistic position. Better to let anyone in the world setup an advertising network and let anyone receive adverts from anyone else.

The law is extremely clear: you have to prove intent not just infer it from a vaguely worded chat message that reads the other way. I guess we will see how your predictions about a public trial hold out.

Claims that Assange assisted Manning with hacking the documents released by Wikileaks are obviously false. Those claims are inconsistent with the indictment and the publicly-released evidence such as the Manning-Lamo chat logs. There is no public evidence that Assange conspired with Manning to get those materials.

All you are alleging here is conspiracy with regards to targeting of a separate server that was never hacked. If that is the case then evidence can be certainly presented with regards to it, but the burden is on the prosecution not the defense and the statements alleged as regards it do not seem to indicate much beyond a vague excuse for inaction.

Read it again, Aqueous. And read it literally this time.

The indictment cites Assange saying, "no luck so far" after asking some questions about the stuff Manning is sending him. You want to read complicity into a vague statement made to excuse non-contribution, whereas there could have been any number of reasons Assange replied that way, such as not alienating a source, or laziness, or knowledge that actually doing anything would put him in legal jeopardy.

There is no actual claim here that Assange did anything to crack the system or assisted Manning in doing so. He is not accused of delivering a password. He is not accused of downloading password cracking software. He is not accused of contacting others to ask for their assistance. He is just accused of saying, "nope, can't help".

If there is evidence that Assange delivered cracked passwords to Manning, I'm sure that people will change their minds and agree with you. But that is not what the indictment claims. And the lack of anything more specific in such a high-profile case suggests there is nothing more that they have on him than an ambiguous statement of sympathy with a source.

Did he? How do you know? As above, evidence rather than speculation please.

Avoid spreading FUD please. No-one has claimed that Assange provided Manning with any assistance compromising any computer systems. The only revelation from the leaked indictment is that Manning apparently sent him a password hash once and Assange said, "can't break it."

The Manning-Lamo chat logs leaked to Wired also clearly show that Manning sought out Assange. If you have any evidence to the contrary on these two points, please post as your claims are running against what is publicly known.

They released an edited and unedited version, as you should know if you indeed watched it.

As far as the ethics of it go, it is pretty typical for media not to air a forty minute video in a one minute news segment. Perhaps the other thirty eight minutes of the killers just chatting was more newsworthy though.

such a great game

The game engine runs in the browser takes care of that. If you clear your cache you'll get a new account the next time it loads.

Distributed POW eliminates ASICs by not paying for centralized mining:

https://medium.com/@SaitoOfficial/eliminating-51-attacks-in-...

The problem is that the approach does not pay the peer-to-peer network. But then neither does LN, so who is counting?

Yeah, that's it exactly. Interestingly, the technique was invented by the creators of RSA public key encryption, although they considered it impractical as it required the exchange of too much information back in the 1970s (all of the cards needs to be double-encrypted with separate keys after a XOR-powered shuffle).

It's exactly the sort of thing we want the underlying Saito game engine to handle, because implementing the cryptographic techniques is a huge pain. Right now the underlying engine simplifies the who process to pushing a new deck onto the stack and dealing from it. The development work is reduced to generating the "associative array" object that defines what the cards are.

    this.game.queue.push("DEAL\t1\t2\t8");
    this.game.queue.push("DEAL\t1\t1\t8");
    this.game.queue.push("DECKENCRYPT\t1\t2");
    this.game.queue.push("DECKENCRYPT\t1\t1");
    this.game.queue.push("DECKXOR\t1\t2");
    this.game.queue.push("DECKXOR\t1\t1");
    this.game.queue.push("DECK\t1\t"+cardjson);

Thanks for the comment anyway -- and reach out anytime if you have ideas for XMPP integration or thoughts on the project. You can also find us on the Saito dReddit btw: https://apps.saito.network/r/

Hi CyborgX7,

Thanks for the comment. What exactly do you mean about incomplete information through hashing? Saito comes with a lot of backend cryptographic tools so it should be possible to do almost anything. One current feature that uses hashing is when players pick cards simultaneously -- they share their picks in hashed format before revealing the secret that prove their picks were made independently of the other player's -- not sure if this is the sort of thing you mean or you are thinking of something different.

The underlying game engine handles data transfers, abstracts away the complicated cryptographic data exchanges and makes sure that the game "stack" is the same. Once a new move is broadcast all of the players/observers add the received move to their local stack and then execute the instructions step by step until more input is required, at which point the game halts while everyone waits for the active player to provide input by "playing their turn".

In terms of game features, right now the core engine focuses on things like provably fair deck shuffling and card dealing and random number generation. Other features we hope to add which should benefit from the blockchain layer include things like decentralized leaderboards (everyone can see who won / lost public games so we can have distributed rankings), the ability for players to stake other cryptocurrencies on games (if people want they can even pay for games move-by-move), and the fact that game modules will be genuinely decentralized, which avoids the problems with distribution channels like Steam and/or the App Store, etc.

XMPP integration is a really interesting idea. What exactly did you have in mind with it?

Ritualized patterns of obligation and dependence lead to inauthentic relationships, an inability to communicate, and self-harm.