phoyd

I second this recommendation. DBeaver is great and will work with almost every RDBMS you'll ever encounter.

Looks like it is the name of a FORTRAN subroutine[1] from MTS (Michigan Terminal System) that somehow creeped into our dictionary files. Now you can buy hoodies with "1 <3 PGNTTRP" prints and watch videos like that above, because of bot produced content.

[1] https://deepblue.lib.umich.edu/bitstream/handle/2027.42/7958...

Gas releases 50% less CO2 per kWh produced than coal, so it is a good intermediate to reduce emissions on the short term.

Germany invests in energy storage technology to harvest cheap surplus energy from the renewables and balance supply and demand over time. The spot price for electricity here reliably oscillates between 30 and 50 € / Mwh per day, with occasional periods with negative prices on windy/sunny days. Energy storage can be used to pocket the arbitrage, so there is a direct incentive to deploy it.

Assuming China had not become a liberal market economy with free capital flow and strong property rights while I'm typing this, doesn't that mean, the Chinese government effectively controls BTC because it can seize the global majority of mines at any time and put them under direct government control?

That would be Seafile (https://www.seafile.com). Has a desktop sync client (like Dropbox), a Web interface which has all kind of useful features (like upload-only links) and a mobile client which actually works.

The network hash rate is roughly equivalent to 1M Antminer S9 rigs, which would cost something around $2bn, perhaps $3bn.

Your attack scenario assumes an attacker who wants to extract a financial gain from his advantage while keeping a long position.

However, there are scenarios where an attack might benefit from a crashing bitcoin or the ability to deliver a plausible threat to trigger that crash

An example could be a nation state who would like to remind its negotiating partner, how easily they could establish control over a network that holds a substantial amount of foreign wealth. China obviously. Another one would be an investor who wants to short bitcoin in a massive scale (This has been done before, think of George Soro's 10bn GBP bet against the Bank of England)

Crashing seems a lot easier that trying to double spend. A majority hasher could simply ignore all blocks that are generated from the minority and mine only their own blocks, containing nothing but dummy transactions between the attackers wallets. The minority miners would at a 50% chance mine a new "honest" block and at 50% mine an attackers block, giving the attackers blockchain an 75 over 25 advantage. Since there are no real transactions in the attackers blocks, there would be no way to move bitcoins around anymore, holding them literally hostage.

If there is a way to make a profit from a large scale attack, then that large scale attack will be made some day.

Mining will be in an equilibrium, but the equilibrium might be at a point, where the network can not be protected from a 51% attack.

Currently, it will cost around $2bn to buy the hashing power to control Bitcoin - that's the price of one Stealth Bomber.

>Does the value of XMR mined exceed the electricity consumed by the app?

Yes: https://whattomine.com/coins

Actually, I'm using a computer mining Moneros at 2000H/s in a closed room to help dry a damp wall. The rig converts 250W Power to heat (for the wall) and produces Moneros worth $200/m - leaving me $100 after paying for electricity the computer and the air dehumidifier consumed.

Decentraland: It's totally not "Second Live" again!

There are only gold miners in the original whitepaper. At the time of writing, nodes were supposed to be miners that used their CPU[sic!] power. Presently, the hard part has been outsourced to dedicated facilities (ASIC farms). But, and that's the point, these facilities are still controlled by a node (the pool operator), which decides on the blocks to work on and subsequently has petahashes of voting power.

Changing the PoW algorithm (your example) would require these powernodes to vote for their own abolishment, if their $100M worth of ASICs can't support the change. So it's very unlikely.

“As the price of bitcoin stabilizes, then the net worldwide energy because of the block reward will start to decrease rather than increase.”

I don't think so. As long as PoW is in place, the level of work required to create a block must be high, no matter what the reward is. If the blocks are too cheap, then a determined attacker with the incentive to destroy, control or harm bitcoin (a state actor who loves capital controls and hates money laundering perhaps?) could easily buy enough hashing power to squeeze out the honest miners, who need to be profitable to stay in business, and eventually control a majority.

digiconomist has a more "realistic" estimate by including real world factors like cooling costs, the operation of older, but still profitable hardware etc. into their balance sheet. Their number is 32 TWh over the year (vs 9,6 TWh in the article above)

https://digiconomist.net/bitcoin-energy-consumption#assumpti...

Also, their yearly estimate was only 26 TWh a month ago. If we project this into the next year, then we'll end with 130 TWh at the end of 2018 - or roughly 40% of what the UK consumes.

A single page version is here: http://hakmem.org/

It is 90 GFLOPS at less that 5 Watts. That's not too shabby. Adapteva claims that the Epiphany cores have a GFLOPS/W ratio of 50.

See here: http://streamcomputing.eu/blog/2012-08-27/processors-that-ca...

Also, the boards for the backers feature a ZYNQ-7020 SOC by XILINX which sports a 1.3M Gate FPGA, available to the user. This ain't bad either.

All the laptops I'm currently owning run fine and cool, except the one with ATI graphics. The open source radeon driver has broken power management and ATI stopped support for the GPU in it with the Catalyst driver.

Robbing a bank is irrational, yet it happens. Economists baffled. Film at 11.

Page is down right now. cached page is here: http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:http%3A...

This modification looks like "Skip List" and according to Wikipedia http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Skip_list is was first described in 1990.

It is method #9.

July 2010? Apparently, PHP dies a horrible, slow death.

Why is the decoded mail address pointing to a server in china?

Ow, this is cool. Here's the mouth watering announcement:

http://article.gmane.org/gmane.comp.lang.lua.general/74072

What's really cool is, that on a system with a c-compiler and swig it is now possible (and trivial) to inline some C-code in a lua script, generate a swig wrapper from lua, compile it from lua, load it as a module into the lua interpreter and then export the defined functions automatically to bash!!