cocktailpeanuts

The whole article took about a minute to load because apparently it’s being loaded from some decentralized network called lbry.

I would rather be the product and get a great user experience than a shitty user experience that sells itself based on some ideal that probably will not work economically in the long run. If a decentralized network you invested a lot of your life in becomes irrelevant, it’s worse than using a centralized network that actually stays around. And most “decentralized” networks have failed to show enough traction for me to feel secure about their future.

I see the “ipfs less” terminology as similar to the term “serverless”. Just like how serverless still has servers but the point is that you don’t have to maintain your own server, ipfs less does make sense in that you don’t have to run ipfs node to use it. But also just like how many people hate the term serverless, ipfs less will be hated by many as well. I guess at the end of the day what’s important is whether something provides value, and I think this is pretty cool technology in that sense. Just my two cents…

How would you know which stock photo was used for training? Someone may take a whole bunch of images they buy on a dark market, create a huge train model, and dump it on the public internet over torrent or something. And there would be no way to know which images were used to train the model

If BTC price doesn't recover soon and falls further, Microstrategy is what will kill BTC. I don't know why BTC investors are so crazy about Microstrategy buying BTC (This would have never happened back in the early days of Bitcoin), but if BTC price goes down further, Microstrategy will be forced to sell their BTC by their shareholders. Otherwise the Microstrategy stock itself will crash. Also when Microstrategy loses too much money, they may finally have to shut down because they borrowed so much money from people just to buy BTC.

When Microstrategy crashes, along with them, the public sentiment for BTC will go to shit, and that will cause the crash of BTC itself since the whole recent price climb was based on the "institutions are buying up BTC" narrative. This is the scariest scenario. Once the downward spiral happens it will be unstoppable, it will be like the crash Mt. Gox caused, but like 100 times harsher.

What an idiotic essay.

What Osaka did has nothing to do with ambition, she did it because of the changing landscape of the media. Unlike the old days where athletes had to rely on press conferences to get their story out, nowadays they can directly broadcast their messages through their social media like Twitter, Instagram, TikTok or whatever, and shape the message JUST THE WAY THEY WANT, instead of getting tricked by sketchy reporters to be quoted in uncontrollable ways.

The author starts from this completely incorrect assumption (based on her own personal bias) and then writes a whole article about how people "should not be ambitious", which is her true agenda. Osaka has nothing to do with this writer's agenda, the writer simply "used" Osaka as a tool for her own agenda.

Ironically, this kind of idiotic "journalism" is EXACTLY why people like Osaka decide to not deal with the press. There's nothing to gain by giving these people the power to put words in their mouth, just to write articles that they were already going to write, only using you as a narrative tool and often times hurting your reputation to achieve their agenda.

And no, ambition is NOT a cult. It's the main reason why the humanity was able to evolve as fast as they did, and it IS a virtue. It's not for everyone, but telling people to get rid of their professional ambition while writing that on the NYTimes to promote themselves (ambition) is the most hypocritical thing ever.

> However, decentralized immutability means that nothing can be done should an unintended action occur with your account.

All that's needed is an elegant identity system that privately ties identity with transactions so that only the stakeholders can share their transactions while the ledger itself is public.

That way "Decentralized Immutability" can co-exist with mutability through law in case something terrible happens. You don't need to change the history, you simply need to make a court order to create an additional transaction that reverts the disaster. Just like how when a hacker gets caught stealing money, they are forced to send the money back (additional transaction) instead of deleting the original stealing transaction from the bank account and rewriting as if nothing happened.

The thing is, pseudo-Turing complete blockchains like Ethereum (and all EVM-like blockchains) are not really fit for this purpose because the entire logic is on chain. UTXO based blockchains like Bitcoin is optimized for this since each transaction can act as evidence trail.

> This isn’t inherent to PoW consensus. In 2010, Bitcoin was CPU mineable on any ordinary Windows PC. It wasn’t until Bitcoin commanded a significant market value — which wasn’t guaranteed in the slightest — that industrial scale mining operations came into the foray.

This is inherent to the PoW consensus. Satoshi Nakamoto himself even said Bitcoin would end up in data centers because of this property. It's not that hard to understand why this would be the case. PoW is powered by competition, and competition begets scale, just like any other industry.

> Your understanding of censorship resistance is gravely mistaken [1]:

Before making this kind of condescending comments, maybe make sure that you are not the one who's misunderstanding what I am saying? I was talking about what many PoS supporters think, not what I thought. Go ahead and re-read what I said.

Their (The PoS supporters) idea is that "because it's much more difficult to find PoS validators than PoW miners because PoW miners need to maintain a factory whereas PoS validators can just hide in their mom's basement and make money, it's more difficult for the governments to regulate PoS than PoW". And my point was that that was an incorrect belief.

My entire post was talking about this false sense of "censorship resistance", basically Pro-PoW and anti-PoS, and you didn't need to lecture me on your superior understanding of PoW. I understand everything you said, but you completely misunderstood my point. If you didn't get that by reading, maybe it's your reading comprehension problem.

"If a greedy attacker is able to assemble more CPU power than all the honest nodes, he would have to choose between using it to defraud people by stealing back his payments, or using it to generate new coins. He ought to find it more profitable to play by the rules, such rules that favour him with more new coins than everyone else combined, than to undermine the system and the validity of his own wealth."

- Section 6, Bitcoin Whitepaper

Just curious, has Anonymous ever threatened someone before attacking?

Maybe I'm wrong, I just haven't seen a top hacker who makes public threats before attacking.

Unlike Proof of Work based blockchains which require seizable factory infrastructure to break even, Proof of Stake doesn't need one.

Most Proof of Stake supporters see this as a good thing because it means there's no electricity waste and higher degree of "censorship resistance".

However what will actually happen is this "censorship resistance" is what will make the PoS blockchain as a whole get "censored", ironically.

Proof of Work blockchains, while wasting a lot of energy, can be regulated easily because the government can simply regulate the large miners in their countries. However Proof of Stake, because it can't be traced easily, the regulators will have to try to stop the entire blockchain as a whole.

Of course, it's impossible to completely stop it, but the governments can do a lot of things in their "anti-decentralized tech playbook" to make sure the adoption never goes mainstream. (See Tor, BitTorrent, etc.)

Maybe I'm missing something, but there is already the term "append only logs" which we use everywhere. How is this different from append only logs? Append only logs rely on cryptography to make the history transparent too. I skimmed through the website but couldn't find a distinction.

Also, the website format is kinda weird. As I reach the bottom of the page, it looks like this is a promotional site for Trillian. Maybe the confusion comes from here. What is this site really about?

I recently tried to sign up for Twitter API and the process is nothing like what it used to be. You have to give them a lot of information to even qualify, such as what you're going to use it for. It used to be that those were just some fields you need to fill out and you could sign up immediately. But nowadays the application process requires a direct approval from their team, which means they're monitoring every API account like Apple does with their app store. And if you like about your usage you are probably liable

Interesting that they don't do "GitHub by Microsoft", or "NPM by Microsoft". Maybe there's some insight in there somewhere...