Recent submissions

Comment · 4 years ago
Comment · 5 years ago
> Any application that could be done on a blockchain could be better done on a centralized database. Except crime.

In a weird way, this quote is a good explanation of why cryptos exist: they give the possibility of creating systems evading state controls.

Crime is a relative thing: moving money outside of certain countries is prohibited, in others it's owning property for certain category of people.

Comment · 5 years ago
yes, you can email it to your miner buddy.

it's possible to spot such transactions if they violate transaction forwarding rules (aka standardness rules) but not consensus rules. for example, a transaction greater than 100kB is not standard but still valid.

Comment · 5 years ago
Excited to see this new release. Seems to me this would (slightly?) negatively impact query performance for recent data (when the query concerns data is both in O3 and persisted zones), is that the case?
Comment · 5 years ago
Proof-of-stake coins lack one of proof-of-work coins most important properties: censorship resistance.

In both consensus systems, a censor is someone that has amassed 51% of the currently available stake (in PoW stake is mining machines, in PoS it is outstanding tokens).

In proof-of-work systems, a censor can be unseated by censored parties allocating more capital to mining machines until non-censoring parties own 51% of all machines.

In proof-of-stake systems, it is impossible to unseat a censor: since it owns 51% of tokens, it will also owns 51% of newly minted units in perpetuity (assuming it doesn't stop censoring and doesn't run into issues that would end up slashing some of their stake).

Comment · 5 years ago
Comment · 5 years ago
inflation in consumer goods might not be high, but financial assets have clearly inflated: a quick look at gold denominated SPY shows it.
Comment · 6 years ago
In some cases, increasing the fee once the transaction has been broadcast is not possible (original transaction doesn't use replace-by-fee OR child-pay-for-parent is not possible)
Comment · 6 years ago
"miners somehowd eviate from the conventional wisdom or the norm, which dictates that transactions are prioritized for inclusion based on the fee-per-byte metric"

Miners prioritize by fee-per-byte, except that the on-chain fee only accounts for part of the fee paid for some transactions.

Over the years, many services have popped up where you can pay an out-of-band fee to a miner to include your transactions first.

Of course, this is detrimental to users not using these systems as it biases the algorithms used to determine what is the current best fee-per-byte to pay.

Comment · 6 years ago
Comment · 6 years ago
Using a full node, you not only sync the history, but also validate it. In recent days, on a modern machine with a good internet connection, it takes less than 12hrs to achieve this.

If you don't care about validating the history, I guess using BigQuery would work but I don't know how to achieve it.

Comment · 7 years ago
How many AAPL shares have not been traded for the past 2 years? And how many BRK.A?

Bitcoin gives the opportunity to answer those questions contrarily to the complex and somewhat opaque equities ownership rules.

Comment · 7 years ago
Comment · 7 years ago
According to the complaint, the defendant:

- went back to the US several time after traveling to the DPRK despite being warned not to by the US state department

- had several consensual interviews with FBI agents

- consented to a search of his phone

It's hard to read this and not think that he brought this upon himself. If you really want to do what he did, get a lawyer, don't travel back to the US, don't speak to law enforcement.

Comment · 7 years ago
When you have traveled to the DPRK despite warnings of the Department of State, visiting the US is not the best decision to take.

Live from the official Hacker News API

A modern reader for Hacker News · SvelteKit + Skeleton