turkeytotal

> Today we show that our AI designed new molecule, synthecin, stops drug-resistant S. aureus MRSA in mouse model

> We created synthecin w/ SyntheMol-RL, our new RL generative AI. All open source.

https://x.com/james_y_zou/status/1924506075312894253

https://github.com/swansonk14/SyntheMol

they drop pamphlets in the water, of course

Specific or not (yes many different types of institutions can access these markets), hedge funds are known for taking highly leveraged bets with this overnight cash. There is a huge market for sponsored repo trades.

Hedge funds were most certainly a part of this problem, and were bailed out.

Happens all the time.

e.g. https://www.nytimes.com/2020/07/23/business/economy/hedge-fu...

I am surprised to hear that the NYDFS considers a service that facilitates the sale of cash equivalents for cryptocurrency exempt from licensing. Would you mind sharing more?

Cool product! Can you elaborate on the regulatory framework you guys operate under? I am surprised to see so little data collection for such high volumes (up to $10,000 / day). Do you guys have a BitLicense? Or any MT licenses for the other 49 states?

FWIW, I looked through the APIs and while I did see mechanisms for rejecting phone calls and faxes, I did not see a way to block specific numbers from sending you SMS. Not that it matters, free inbound more or less solves the problem. Thanks again.

>Your carrier should not be charging you for inbound SMS

Agreed!

>look at Teli, Telnyx & Signalwire

Thank you, a quick glance seems to indicate they do not charge for inbound SMS on local numbers.

Abstract:

The novel Wuhan coronavirus (SARS-CoV-2) has been sequenced, and the virus shares substantial similarity with SARS-CoV. Here, using a computational model of the spike protein (S-protein) of SARS-CoV-2 interacting with the human ACE2 receptor, we make use of the world's most powerful supercomputer, SUMMIT, to enact an ensemble docking virtual high-throughput screening campaign and identify small-molecules which bind to either the isolated Viral S-protein at its host receptor region or to the S protein-human ACE2 interface. We hypothesize the identified small-molecules may be repurposed to limit viral recognition of host cells and/or disrupt host-virus interactions. A ranked list of compounds is given that can be tested experimentally

Additional snippet:

Here we combine restrained temperature replica-exchangemolecular dynamics (restrained T-REMD) simulations with virtual high-throughput screening in an ensemble docking campaign to identify well-characterized drugs, metabolites, and/or natural products that may disrupt S-protein:ACE2 receptor interface stability or the ability of the S-protein to recognize the ACE2 receptor. From this ensemble docking campaign,we provide a ranking of the predicted binding affinities ofover 8000 drugs, metabolites, and natural products (and their isomers)with regards to the COVID-19 S-protein and the S-protein:ACE2 receptor. Further, we highlight seven of our top ranked compounds, which are currently available and have had either regulatory approval as drugs or have had multiple prior studies which indicating high-potential for therapeuticuse

What sort of censorship are you referring to? If taproot-schnorr is deployed and adopted, cooperative channel operations will look exactly like normal single-sig transactions. As for routing censorship, if one node fails to route for me, I can open a channel with a different node and route around them.

Was unable to redeploy one of our cloud functions for quite awhile there.

VOIP numbers are much more anon-accessible. You can buy a ready to go google account with voice enabled if you know where to look.

This story is another testament to the dangers of using SMS as second factor.

Even if Google's dates are not "high confidence," this function was still useful outside of News search. Very disappointed to see this be retired.

Brian has done that with Signal Foundation:

https://signal.org/blog/signal-foundation/

You can't use gold online in an trust-minimized way. One counterexample are industries with high chargeback/fraud rates. Bitcoin is perfect for merchants exposed to friendly fraud, it completely removes the leverage customers have over them.

This should come as no surprise, but not for the reasons the author thinks.

>I could list 50 different reasons why but for us it boils down to two main facts. A very small percentage of our customers posses Bitcoin in a hot wallet ready to transfer and secondly, Bitcoin can be slow and expensive for small payments.

The main reason is that no one needs to use Bitcoin to pay for their locksmithing. Bitcoin is not your neighborhood Visa competitor. Bitcoin is your last resort payment method/store of value--for when you don't have access to traditional financial infrastructure (for whatever reason). This article is a signal only that people are not ideologically using Bitcoin as a payment (which is a good thing, I don't care to store payments on my node that would be better served by Visa).

On principle I agree, however Bitcoin poses additional complexities that other commodities do not, specifically in regards to contentious netsplits that result in irreconcilable forks (which may or may not be fighting for the name Bitcoin). In the event of a netsplit, barring physical delivery of actual outputs (private keys, not a settlement transaction), CME has the power to dictate which is settled and even which fork gets the BTC ticker for in-flight contracts. This gives CME quite a bit of influence in the outcome of a fork; for example, what would CME have called Bitcoin if their futures were live during the 2x hard fork? If they were swayed by some of the larger players in the space, this could cause serious consequences for the wider network (confusion, loss of funds and other moral hazards).

This is one of the complexities of the ETF filings, where the filers stated their intention to determine which fork the ETF represented by things like hashpower, market cap or other temporal data points. This is dangerous for many reasons, thus it is best for the contracts to represent all possible future forks and not make a decision on them, allow the private keys to be delivered and allow the party who the coins are delivered to take split as they see fit. While this condition could be represented in a cash settled contract, there are infinite possible forks and CME could not possibly keep up with them all, thus the only practical way to solve the problem is physical delivery of private keys.

> Notice how almost all news of Bitcoin now are about its price. Bitcoin used to be exciting in both technical and economical aspects, but has now become just a store of value entirely driven by speculation.

Citation needed.

>Other technically superior cryptocurrencies (e.g. Monero, Ethereum) have replaced most of its usecases, boasting much faster and cheaper transactions and real anonymity in the case of Monero.

Citation needed.

> it has little uses outside of being worth a lot of money.

Citation needed.

I guess you are missing the entire point of this conversation. It is about the marginal cost of participating on multiple chains with PoW. You can point out oscillations as much as you like, it doesn't change the marginal cost. You are pointing out something that is entirely orthogonal.

No, I am disagreeing with you. You are claiming that the hashpower oscillations between BTC and BCH contradict the GP's comment, when in fact you have you missed exactly what I and the GP have said:

>the miners must select one chain to mine

I am pointing out that the "sloshing" is in fact perfect evidence that they are only mining one chain at a time, or splitting their hashpower to varying proportions. This is completely normal and healthy miner behavior, they are simply greedy actors looking for the most profit. They cannot however mine both chains with their full hashpower for free (as you can with PoS), and this is an essential understanding when analyzing the security model of a consensus algorithm.

Also, the oscillations are most commonly exploitable only when the difficulty adjustments happen very quickly (see: BCH's EDA), so if 70% of the hashpower left, even if 16% of the remaining hashpower was malicious, the efficacy of a 51% will be handicapped by the disproportionately high difficulty.

That is a contentious hard fork with a rule change, completely different from a normal fork caused by an orphan race. With proof of stake there is no marginal cost to playing multiple forks, ultimately opening up the network to a flood of competitive same-rule forks that have to be resolved using "weak subjectivity."

Adding layers of complexity like Ethereum's Casper to solve the incentive incompatibilities caused by the nothing at stake and long range attacks do not address the fundamental issues, as consensus then require users to agree on a list of bonded validators (for which there is no switching cost). "Phone a friend" consensus is objectively weaker as a security model compared to POW which just requires users to validate the rules and calculate the chain with the most work.

POW is secure because it requires energy from outside the system to be provably burned. It's thermodynamically sound in that respect. /u/nullc recently described POS as a logical tautalogy which I think captures the issue well. If chains were a car, Bitcoin would be fueled by gas and a POS coin would be fueled by the leather on the seats. You're not going to get very far.

Addresses have a checksum so unless the wallet ignores that, a fat finger causing funds loss in that scenario is unlikely. [0] With the newly designed address format there is also error detection. [1]

[0] https://bitcoin.stackexchange.com/questions/32353/how-do-i-c...

[1] https://github.com/bitcoin/bips/blob/master/bip-0173.mediawi...