...that is why you were congratulated. Nice reading comprehension there. I've had this exact conversation at least a dozen times over the years, it is formulaic. There is always a claim of some kind of nonsensical fraud, after that unravels then it turns to speculation about mass delusion, and it usually ends with political appeal/slander and "we live in a society!" Every year there are positive developments and evidence of wider interest, but the opposition's script has remained unchanged. I got into it with a tech reporter a while ago who was obviously very emotionally invested in bitcoin being a fad/scam/bubble, after searching archives of his timeline I understood why: he had been predicting bitcoin's demise, very confidently and regularly, since back when it was trading at $130. Every year it gets funnier.
But the beanie baby craze only lasted 3 years. The CBOE didn't start trading beanie baby options. NIST didn't begin several beanie baby focused work groups and studies. The IRS didn't provide tax guidance on beanie babies... You guys really need to update that script, but I do congratulate you on dropping the tulip mania talking point - given the fact that there is no evidence it ever happened in the first place.
So not a "Classic Ponzi scheme", but the opposite - where Charles Ponzi is the victim of "people who have latched on". That is twice now that you've claimed something based on a bizarre redefinition. Even if there were some kind of campaign of revolving pyramid schemes over all these YEARS, bitcoin is net positive... while pyramid schemes operate at a deficit all the way up to the point where they go to zero.
lol, so nothing even close to an off chain network - but somehow the "same value". Well, except for the real time cryptographically secure stuff - but nobody wanted those values anyway.
10+ years is a pretty long con, that satoshi is one patient fraudster.
I don't follow the day to day, and it has been years since I contributed any code, but a quick peek at the lightning network stats makes me think that everything is fine. Good organic growth, with over 1000 BTC presently in flight. A lot of people seemed to be under the impression that the off chain networks would take center stage, and the blockchain would quietly power it from behind the scenes - but I'm pretty sure the direct opposite will occur. As far as why there hasn't been an explosion in network activity: I guess there isn't enough pressure. Every so often there is a spike that gets people up in arms, then it quiets down and they forget. Larger wallets will eventually start moving transactions off chain, but they've obviously got as much enthusiasm about it as they did in updating their backends to take advantage of space saving changes in the protocol. But once its done, its done.
I haven't received my official enthusiast talking points memo, but the obvious solution was proposed years ago: off chain transaction that use smart contracts for settlement on the public ledger. I vaguely remember "store of value" being used for what would more accurately be described as "trust anchor" or "root authority".
Canada actually tried that, at least once - maybe twice. When it became clear that the government was talking about a pre-mined, non-transparent, centralized fedcoin - everybody laughed and then ignored it.
Many years ago USPS provided a data stream that included every sorting machine operation a mail piece went through, the location it occurred (zip code), and the local time (sans timezone information). That was an absolute nightmare of a project that always had a few weekly cases of letters somehow time-traveling. Also, I was surprised to learn that there are sort facilities on tribal lands - I was not surprised to learn that they elected to record time differently from the state that surrounded them.
BoA had it happen a couple of times after they screwed over home owners and tried to ignore the courts. It seems like there should be a significant consequence to forcing the aggrieved party to form a posse with the sheriff in order to collect the local branch's office furniture.
Sounds like classic trolling fare, as in: Mitt Romney's penis is only discussed in places where mention of his penis is frowned on. Given how many Americans think "hate speech" is a legally defined thing, I'd expect offensive language in any environment where there is a chance to remotely provoke a reaction. That is, unless Romney's penis is commonly discussed on amateur radio - in that case there is something much more interesting happening.
I guess c-span got a lot more interesting since I stopped watching tv, not only allowing racist rants on air - but doing it to a degree that develops a level notoriety supporting cultural shorthand. Like Emily Post. Either that or... nah, I don't wanna put words in your mouth.
uh huh, but their tangibility has as much to do with randomly modeling them as a proof of work in a crypto currency - as every potential tangible thing you can spend the currency on. That is to say: none.
This has been wondered for years, usually by people who don't know the purpose of hashing functions. If nuclear fusion models + protein folding were easily verifiable, then there would be no point in leveraging distributed computing for them - we'd have the same level of understanding for them as we do for contrived hashing functions. If they somehow also ended up with the difficulty directionality intentionally designed for in cryptography, then that would be fine. But that is pretty unlikely, and in that event your currency is totally hacked and useless.
The counterargument has been the same for years: the present financial system consumes for more energy, to the point where people complaining about it look like they're either trying to deceive others, or they've just put so little thought into it that they should be ignored.
Do you know how much of the fingerprint match process is left up to the judgement of the examiner? You can't get much more "black box" than another person's brain. Last time I checked (several years ago), tool mark analysis was still without objective foundation. Also... bitemark analysis - that was a thing.
lol, yeah, "networking". That kind of self delusion will come in handy as the cartel activity becomes increasingly bold and the regulatory capture ensures no way out.
That would be a good argument if there weren't public conferences, discussion panels, and work groups that these companies send representatives to in order to coordinate their efforts in "combating the rising threat of <insert boogeyman>".
Enforce existing law. You remember the last several times that a person/alt-service was permabanned across multiple platforms in a period of time so short that it looked coordinated? It looked that way because it was. That kind of coordinated gatekeeping should have drawn heavy scrutiny, but it didn't - for obvious reasons.
My point is that systemd is intentionally designed to make that impossible to do without also pulling linux (ABI, environment, whatever) within the same standard.
Are you intentionally missing that the point is the fact that any one of them can use the portable init system that isn't systemd?
> No, they should turn systemd into a real standard. ECMAinitd :-p
Well systemd can only work on linux, by design. So every standard compliant init system would require that it package a linux kernel. That is not only moronic, but with history as our guide: would directly result in never patched, network active, embedded software.
lol, wow. On one occasion I actually did need to know, but only remembered which playlist it would have been in. I ended up having to search for websites that linked to a few dozen dead youtube urls. I never thought I'd be happy to land on a poorly executed Chinese content farm full of scraped html and incomprehensible markov chains. After that I started treating Youtube like the ephemeral thing it is.
> So, like mobile? Which is 70%+ of computing these days? :-)
Media consumption spy devices + smiley emoticon. Yuck.
> ...and ideally standardized fully...
uh, you know that you are advocating for the direct opposite of that - right? Systemd is designed to be impossible to use outside of linux. So what, everyone should adopt the perpetually changing linux ABI as their point of commonality? You know that would be insanely stupid, right?
So what are you arguing? Because I see a list of disparate platforms sharing the same init system, and I see the homogeneity that is systemd/linux. What is that a counterpoint to? Or is this a celebration of network effect?
> POSIX isn't enough for a modern operating system.
So there should be no standard? I can think of only one time I ran into a shortcoming that can be blamed on POSIX, and a few more where the OS just did a bad job in implementing the standard. Can you imagine how awful things would be right now if the DoD hadn't forced the concepts of interface commonality and multi-source procurement? You'd likely be reading this on a Honeywell glass TTY hooked up to an IBM timeshare. Because without standards the network effect acts as an insurmountable barrier to entry, and incumbents fully control the height of that barrier with needless complexity and arbitrary breaking changes. Hell, not that long ago there was talk about wielding GPL export symbols as a weapon to punish nvidia... I'm no fan of nvidia, but I like the idea of an API inspired by spite a lot less. Also, in a world where your vision prevailed, there would be no AMD - because Intel already set the industry "standard", so why worry about second-source availability?
You've never written portable software, have you? You can't write portable software without a common interface. Have you ever looked at what autotools vomits out? You'll see shell scripts containing the likes of "echo $1 | sed 's/^x//'" in order to just get things to where they have a chance of sharing enough commonality to compile. Imagine how much worse it would be without POSIX. Nothing would run on anything that the developers didn't account for, this includes OS (plus version), environment, and hardware architecture. That is the world you are asking for, not the one we presently live in.
> What is the benefit to sticking with an rc script architecture designed to run a handful of processes on a pdp?
Freedom, for not only the end user but all the way up to distro packager. Systemd is designed to be non-portable, and force a network-effect pressure. I was similarly suspicious about WSL designing toward a linux API instead of POSIX... an effort to reduce the potential for alternatives emerging in the future, where your choices are windows or linux.