barnbuilder

> For Bitcoin, the most popular one, on the order of 100.000.000.000.000.000.000 of hashes get calculated to mine a single block, multiple trillion per second. Within ten minutes, only a single one of those 100.000.000.000.000.000.000 hashes is actually used, depending entirely on luck. The rest are thrown away entirely. They do not form part of the final hash or anything else, the energy spent on them is lost.

All of those hashes and the energy required to generate them represent work that would need to be redone (along with all subsequent work) by an attacker in order to double-spend the transactions in that block. It's the most efficient way to use energy for security that there is.

The linked article seems to be copied and pasted from here: https://www.businessinsider.com/jump-trading-sues-over-wormh...

Not sure what "kqeducationgroup.com" is but it looks illegitimate.

Lightning Network is a "layer 2" on top of "layer 1" bitcoin. The short summary is that it allows two parties to conduct lots of transactions and, when one of them decides they are done, the final balance is committed to the bitcoin blockchain rather than every single one of the transactions. These channels can also be used to forward payments to others, which means that depending on your Lightning node's connections you are able to transact in this way with many thousands of parties beyond just the ones you are directly connected to.

Each channel sets their own rates so the cost of transacting this way varies but it usually comes out to a very tiny amount, much less than 0.1%.

This is a pretty good overview with more detail: https://cointelegraph.com/bitcoin-for-beginners/what-is-the-...

The network has grown a ton in the past year and apps like CashApp and Strike now support it.

> According to cryptofees.net, BTC transaction fees average 4%

That site hasn't been updated in almost a year. (Check the prices and recent transactions it links to.)

Here's a more accurate way to estimate bitcoin's fees. Go to mempool.space and look at the current estimated Low/Medium/High priority fees. That is based on current pending transactions and most of the time, unless you are in a hurry, "Low" is enough to get a transaction confirmed in the next hour.

At current writing, and for most of the past year, those fees are a few cents.

And this is the expensive way to transact bitcoin -- on-chain! Nowadays most commerce is moving to the layer-2 Lightning Network, where transactions are instant and typically nearly free via payment channels that are settled on-chain in the future.

The "problem" being solved is that the manufacturers of the products sold at Walgreens (presumably) profit from their sale, which means there is room for Walgreens (and an accomplice) to shake them down for a fee and still leave everyone willing to continue the relationship.

This is already done through methods like selling prime shelf space (e.g. eye level) but this only works to a certain extent. Cooler Screens and Walgreens are pioneering a new system where video screens and advertisements are used to further manipulate shoppers towards certain products. Manufacturers who play the game are able to maintain their existing level of sales or even slightly grow them, minus the additional rent they are paying Walgreens and Cooler Screens, at the expense of manufacturers who don't play the game.

This could backfire if the video screens both increase store costs (for the reasons you described) and reduce store revenues from upset customers who no longer wish to shop in such a hostile environment. On the other hand, Walgreens is apparently betting that they have capacity to harass their customers without losing too many of them.

I guess the same way Theranos made a deal with Walgreens.

What makes Breezewood unique is that you are forced off of a freeway to drive through that strip. Otherwise it looks like many other American roads.

I think the internet without Adblock is more like these heinous digital video billboards in Los Angeles that appear above the road, directly in the line of vision of drivers. Why these are legal is incomprehensible to me.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i7ZeROERRrg

Always worth keeping in mind that professional athletes have a limited span of time until they will no longer be employable in their field, so they are under a different pressure to maximize their earnings than e.g. software engineers.

You've heard about this a lot because it is a common thing for the police in many parts of the world to plant drugs on foreigners so they can arrest them.

Not only are they apparently lying to US News, they appear to be running a scheme of enrolling an unusually high amount of transfer students (who are not counted in the US News graduation rates) for the purpose of soaking them for tuition revenue.

Per the article, transfers get much less financial aid than non-transfers at Columbia and also have much lower graduation rates, which is the opposite of what is seen at other schools with large transfer populations like in the UC system.

Prof. Thaddeus is very courageous for bringing these facts to light, and/or has a deep love for his university that he feels is being corrupted by their pursuit of a higher ranking.

You only forgot one thing.

The post would be written like this.

This insufferable style of two line breaks between short sentences.

Seems to be a requirement for LinkedIn viral content.

Obviously it is not a requirement but it's quite helpful, even if LinkedIn is a dreadful web site in so many ways. I've gotten 3 of my last 4 jobs as a result of LinkedIn inmails (including 1 MAMAA).

Applying for open jobs is always going to be a numbers game that most candidates will lose. On the other hand there is no better way that I know of to passively receive inquiries from companies. Most of them are irrelevant or garbage but it only takes one good one to be your next job.

There are people and organizations attempting to do this with Bitcoin right now. How do people tell the difference? Sometimes they don't and they get scammed.

I for one don't want the administration to have an "official response" to this, so a non-sequitur is positively delightful.

No, BSV is hopeless because nobody wants anything to do with Craig S. Wright (Good summary here: https://bitcoinmagazine.com/articles/op-ed-how-many-wrongs-m...).

Also, if BSV had enough users to ever experience scaling, its network would be so centralized it would be like a new PayPal but with Craig's employer running the show. Not surprisingly, after 2 years this idea has not caught on at all and the value of BSV as a fraction of BTC continues to plunge to new lows.

My suggestion is to get out of this scam immediately and stop listening to your gullible boss.

When that individual says anything truthful or delivers on any of his promises, it will be the first time. Until then feel free to ignore the troll.