• 92 Post
  • 118 Comment
Joined 1Y ago
Cake day: May 12, 2020


does anyone have a sip provider that they can recommend that works well with it?

yep many great reason not to! But the point here is that climite change is probably not one of them

If you think privileged modern Americans shouldn’t have children now because of quality-of-life issues, you implicitly believe that nobody in the Third World, or nobody before 1900, should ever have had children. This isn’t necessarily wrong. There’s a group of philosophers called “antinatalists” who believe nobody should ever have kids because life is suffering. These people are at least consistent. If you’re not one of them, I think the quality-of-life argument for not having kids now is pretty weak.

Can you highlight a point in the article that you consider delusional or “privilaged”?

The article calls it the great Inflation. And that makes sense, Inflation leads to higher prices. But he doesn’t go on to example on the negative effects of inflation.

And PoS have the problem that your power is proportional to your wealth

PoW has essentially the same problem. If you are more wealthy, you can buy more mining hardware.

I think both will coexist. PoW (Nakamoto consensus) has some really nice properties. For example if all the bitcoin node where nocked offline, as long as one computer somewhere had the entire chain, the whole thing could start up again no matter how long it had been off. In other words, PoW values liveness above all else. Another nice thing is that you can mine a coin, and therefore get crypto kyc free.

PoS on the other hand generally values safety over liveness. Which means once a block has been finalized, it can never be rolled back, unlike PoW. But with PoW if the more than 2/3 of the validators go offline the chain is dead and has to be restarted manually (with a hard fork). Other benefits are that you have predictable block times, and it’s more energy friendly.

I think they will co-exist because people will never stop mining since there is always some energy going to waste somewhere which can be turned into crunching hashes and would probably survive the nuclear holocaust. PoS on the other hand will become more poplar in the future as it more energy efficient, faster and provides finality (therefore better UX).

I think the major difference is that IPFS uses a single DHT whereas torrents have a DHT (or tracker) per torrent. This mean that if there are shared chunks between media, then they will be deduplicated. The downside to this is that you have a single massive DHT, so lookups can be slower (and were very, very slow early on, but the situation is improving).

The other difference is that ipfs is built with a very modular stack. Networking, Self describing hash, ect, which should allow for reuse else where. IPFS is also very general, you can use different hash functions and chunking methods when importing data. This allows for existing hashed to be imported into ipfs (like a git repo, or a blockchain like bitcoin) and shared a crossed the network. But that modularity and generality can also come at a price of performance, so there are trade-offs.

yeah the diffence is that layered protocols would be intrinsically difficult to inject coupling. Protocol labs help create protocols, but its out of their hands now. For example polkadot uses libp2p and also did most of the rust implementation. Also many Ethereum project use lib2p2 and IPFS (although eth use DEVp2p for it networking) If protocol labs wanted to add something to the protocol that was helped just filecoin that would go against libp2p’s largest consumers and they would just fork the protocol anyways. Protocol lab’s approach is to be as plurilistic as possible so they can get the largest mindshare of developers using and working on the protocols, then eventually the protocols becomes self sustaining through the projects that are built on them.

Ipfs has always had a strongly layered philosophy. The team believes in modular software architects. They will never be coupled. Just look at their stack, heck they even made a protocol for self decribing hashes. Also libp2p is quite nice.

i have spent many hours in there :)

Crazy, he gave a talk at a public confernce in NK, titled “blockchian and peace” which contained nothing that can’t easly be accessed on the internet.

you can do voice calls though

yeah its the sock that is the problem here

Proof-of-Stake is not an ideal solution because it reinforces the systems and organizations that already have influence and power, whether monetary or political, and pooling requires entrusting those parties with the crypto assets

I would love it if someone could break down how this is any different the PoW’s mining pool. Also we need to clarafy which PoS system you are talking about. System that inhert from DPoS where you only have 1000 or so validators which users are required to delegate to, are not in my mind decentrilized and I think that statement make sense for those. Eth 2.0 on there other hand has no upper limit of fixed set size of validators. And there is no way to delegate to validators (by the base protocol, there are third party solution of this though).

When a system hurts the majority who participate should that system be legal?

I think so far the majority has come out on top. I’m not at all fond of scams, but a simple metric; if a project is promising riches fast, it’s probably a scam. And if a majority of ppl are going all in on getting rich fast we have a broader social and cultural problem.

Unfortunately this just isn’t the case. This is what cryptocurrency mining looks like, these aren’t “unused resources"

Miners go for the cheapest electricity. Why is it cheap? because it can’t be used elsewhere atm. As far as the GPUs, ethereum is the largest consumer of GPU due to ethash. I had a small role to play in that as far as making GPU friendly. But honestly at the time we were not thinking about the global supply for GPUs. It was always supposed to be a temporary thing until we had PoS.

I guess my real concern with Proof of Stake is that it is fundamentally regressive. If you stake a larger amount of a crypto you will reap a larger reward. A system structured to benefit its already affluent members the most is the definition of regressive.

This dynamic exists with PoW also. It is just a layer removed. You need to buy asics, the more asics you have the more you can mine, ect. I think this problem is broader than PoS or PoW. For example I can use a crypto as collateral on one of the various defi lending platforms, borrow a stablecoin then lend the stable coin for a high APY (often competing with the rates you would get from staking). Figuring out how to redistribute wealth imbalances is interesting, but I doubt it will be solved on a layer 1 to start with. But I encourage you to work on designing such a system. The great thing about crypto is that you don’t need anyone’s permission to experiment with new economics. That saids if you, or anyone is actually interested in the problem feel free to message me.

Is it a good thing that the makers of ransomware are using cryptocurrency to evade law-enforcement?

On the topic of ransomware, crypto incentivizes the creation of secure computer systems. The weakness was always there, probably being exploited by state-actors all long, but unlike state agents crypto hackers have no incentive to lie and wait. Therefore the exploits become public much faster. It does give the propaganda machine a boogie man though but the real demons where always there… the state doesn’t like competition.

Is it a good thing that cryptocurrencies enable powerful elites to circumvent international sanctions?

The powerful elites already have that. The plebs don’t, with crypto we are on equal ground.

I would also argue that efficiency is imperative. According to the numbers available here the electricity cost of one single bitcoin transaction is equivalent to 1,218,287 VISA transactions. It’s not even as if VISA is the pinnacle of efficiency, bitcoin is genuinely that wasteful.

This comparison doesn’t make sense, I can open a lighting channel and do thousands for tx for a fraction of a penny. What you are really comparing is defense budgets. PoW is bitcoin’s military expenditure. If you want to compare it to  Visa you should factor in every Visa tx the yearly cost of the US military.

yeah sure there are a lot of scams in crypto. But I disgree that you need an authority to tell ppl what is a scam or not. I don’t think the state should controll that. People should have the freedom to spend their money on scams if they want to.

Proof of Work is a crime against nature, it’s a pissing contest of who can waste the most resources.

Or its utilizing unused resources to secure a censorship resistant network.

Proof of Stake is undemocratic and exploitative, literally whomever has the most money makes the rules.

Not exatly, there are many PoS sytems though. I don’t know of any PoS system that allow validators to vote on protocol changes. There are several that use coin voting for protocol changes though. I also have mixed feeling about that.

centralized authority for consensus is many orders of magnitude more efficient than every decentralized consensus algorithm yet invented.

Sure, efficient is not the point. The point is to build system that can withstand nation-state attacks and noone can censor.

Time to see which cryptos are actully decentralized and censorship resistant! :)

These questions will surely strike the average crypto supporter as heretical. But they also help us to get to the heart of the issue, for ultimately the question at hand concerns not just one’s view of crypto, but of the world crypto aspires to change. …

The data shows Bitcoin’s energy use would represent just a rounding error in the construction, transportation or healthcare industries…

null_radix has never resold an NFT. He doesn’t even think of his NFT acquisitions as investments: “NFTs don’t seem to me to have value that can be defined as easily as ‘owning a piece of art.’ It’s more some sort of collective geist. The draw is the insanity of it all.”…