liquidify

Is bitcoin specifically legal tender, or other digital currencies, or layer 2 solutions, or what exactly? If bitcoin only was made legal tender, then layer 2 solutions will not be legal tender, and businesses could choose to only accept direct bitcoin payments via the blockchain, forcing customers to pay high fees.

What? Representing criminals is not unethical or 'immoral'. Period. Protecting criminals legally is not unethical unless you are knowingly doing something illegal yourself.

I imagine that most layers are just doing their job and getting paid for it. Bringing morality into that equation makes no sense in a legal system that has little to nothing to do with morality.

Not touching tether with a 10 ft' pole. Stay away from that junk. Use USDC or something else to on ramp.

Primarily because the bitcoin codebase got taken over by some bad actors. However, if ETH takes over in market share, BTC can either improve or become irrelevant. The people controlling bitcoin may be dumb, but they aren't dumb enough to let something else take over without a fight.

This is nonsensical. PoS is a mechanism for assuring transactions can get added to the block chain securely. It has nothing to do with whether the controlling interests are centralized or not.

DAO fork has absolutely nothing to do with PoS. This is nonsense.

Keep in mind that bitcoin is software. It can, and will be upgraded. If Ethereum ends up leading the way with proof of stake and it ends up being a success, then there is no reason to believe that bitcoin wouldn't follow in its footsteps. Crypto is a concept, as much as it is an individual coin game. Bitcoin may not end up being the leader, but your money will definitely change in the future, and it will absolutely be because of crypto currencies.

Until Apple unlocks their chips (see never) from their own ecosystem and starts selling server chips and chips that other people can build systems with, they are not really 'competing' in the space.

Percentages of BTC were acceptable also, so it was accessible to people with lower income / value levels.

To be fair, I don't think you can really compare many others to Monero, which is the only major cryto with the property of fungibility. Personally I consider that property so important that if a crypto doesn't consider it a first class citizen, I don't buy much or any of the crypto.

Seems like a bad idea unless they offer some other peer to peer alternative for digital payments. This is clearly something that people want. I can imagine they will be reversing this decision at some point.

This is nonsense. Bitcoin has not had much utility since 2015 when the repo was taken over by people who refused to increase the block capacity.

A purchase of bitcoin by the govt would massively increase the prices. Transaction of value by the big players would become even easier. The high degree of divisibility would ensure that small players could still play. There would be no more liquidity issue than there is currently.

same, and can't visit the site at all

how does winndows resolve these issues?

I think the authors point is generally valid. But...

Personally, I see things as 'programming can be easy or hard (but doable), but only if you have the type of mentality that you will never quit.'

Basically anyone can learn a language if they are exposed to it constantly, and if you are programming or debugging a lot, it is inevitable that you will learn the language you are looking at. And basically everyone could get to that point. They could also learn to communicate basics with their language. But it obviously doesn't mean you can build a rocket just because you have the ability to read language and books related to rockets.

So I think there are some easy things about programming that do apply to 'everyone', and for those things it may be appropriate to say 'anyone can do it'. However, there are certain things that require deep understanding of complex subjects generally only learned by hard work. If you are not the type of person who likes to work hard to learn, then you "can't" do those kinds of programming tasks.

So it is both easy and hard, depending on your mentality. What parts of it are easy and what parts are hard may vary based on aptitude and a variety of other factors.

really... negative 4 votes for a legit question... hmm.

Is this due to U.S. military involvement? I remember reading they were sending dredging experts.

Amazing. It seems possible that the killer would have required a fairly advanced education to create a cypher with this complexity. Not too many self taught encryption creators exist out there.

I think that is pretty narrow sighted. A new major world war could be won with viruses, bacteria, drones, small robots, hacking financial systems, space lazers, genetically enhancing your population for financial domination, etc.. Air superiority is possibly a factor in some possible versions of war, but the reality is that it mostly gives us an advantage that allows us to press our will upon lesser militaries. That doesn't mean it couldn't be the dominant factor, but I imagine a major war between any super powers would be so costly to human life (since we are so good at killing now), that alternatives to traditional means of takeover would probably be preferred.

Wow. Personally I wouldn't make it a week. I value my time outside of work more than I value work. Of course, like they said, they didn't sign up expecting a 40 week. But yeah, this sounds like torture.

I'm curious about laws in this case. Is there 'jurisdiction' in space? Or is it just whoever is there can decide what they want to do.

Why would anyone trust Intel with encrypted data? They have basically proven they are working with the U.S. government who clearly doesn't care about your privacy.

You are clearly a core supporter. Obviously any reasonable person is aware that there are technical limitations that prevent infinite scaling.

However, your entire argument is a strawman. This never was about scaling instantaneously to accept all transactions in the entire world. The debate was, and is, about allowing storage, money, markets, network speed, technology in general, and other natural phenomena govern the amount of data the network supports.

This debate is about a small group of people deciding that they were able to make a better decision about the block size than the free market. This is about arrogance, power, and control. Until you can bring an argument relating to scaling that actually acknowledges the reality that the free market can govern things better than you can, you can keep it to yourself.

I loved this article.

They leave out just about everything important. No details regarding how the block size increases were blocked, which crippled bitcoin's use as a payment network.

I've often wondered why we haven't been spending some effort developing optimized test areas which integrate helpful elements for self driving cars into the roads. Obviously, we wouldn't want a car that couldn't go everywhere, but it seems like at a national level, we could implement something into the highway system that would make it easy for interstate self driving vehicles.

Yeah that was an especially confusing part.

Any small non commercial craft use these? They look awesome and I'd imagine they are a lot tougher than a typical fan bladed motor.

I have a really hard time of understanding what the differences are between level 2 and 3. The article is short of words relating to the distinction. It claims Tesla isn't there, but Honda is, but they don't really say exactly why or how they were able to surpass Tesla. Is this really believable when they don't have a fleet of cars to test on like Tesla does?

>>>"the growing percentage who coreside with their parents all contribute significantly to the decline in casual sex. The authors find no evidence that trends in young adults’ economic circumstances, ... explain the recent decline in casual sexual activity."

Is the author suggesting that increased co-residence is not related to economic circumstances?