Jump to content

NightJanitor

Member
  • Content count

    228
  • Joined

  • Last visited

About NightJanitor

  • Rank
    Advanced Member

Contact Methods

  • Website URL
    http://www.example.com

Profile Information

  • Gender
  1. NightJanitor

    Zerpening 3: HODL My Zerps

    Well, then, by all means. Why, it's almost meme-war season; we're gonna need all the help we can get in that department.
  2. NightJanitor

    Zerpening 3: HODL My Zerps

    I dunno who he is or what he did, but if he didn't start 900 threads on the same topic in the rest of the forum because some "news" article "scared" him, then he's alright by me.
  3. NightJanitor

    Zerpening 3: HODL My Zerps

    Same here. They wised up! :)
  4. https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-cftc-bitcoin/virtual-currencies-are-commodities-u-s-judge-rules-idUSKCN1GI32C
  5. First, loved this talk. Evan's great. On your Q re: IP vs ILP, and sort of "what goes over which channel/protocol", it's a function of both adoption*bandwidth, at this point, I believe. But it's a really, really interesting question, down the line. You're totally not alone in wondering what's possible, with that...
  6. I can appreciate any government official's interest in economic and national security; but this genie does not go back in the bottle, so, if they're going to ok all of the Proof-Of-Work (ie, "he who has the most computing power to allocate and maintain on spending to secure bitcoin or any other PoW token wins," then it's an arms race and that's why gov needs to be brought in. This "is this coin or that coin a security" stuff will affect prices, short term, but in the long term, what's really important is getting these guys briefed on the security implications of models. It seems to me that there ought to be clear national interest in wondering why China didn't want its own citizens investing in bitcoin, beyond the very surface concern about "capital flight" - do they know something? What do they know? Could it be that they understand that PoW - which they currently control - can be used at any moment as a weapon to evaporate an enemy? Gov needs to get this right; unfortunately, that means they'll actually have to find some people to explain to them the different models and usecases - as some of them are quite "shaky"... Nobody in XRP - aside from some fan fiction writers - seems to be interested in "killing the dollar" or even "replacing" it as the reserve currency - but some of these models do present risk. Primarily, the ones which are "secured" by 50.1% of computing power, which can, when power is wielded, be "changed" or "rewritten" or any number of really nasty things "control" brings... "Decentralization" - however they define that - is a lot less interesting to me than "security" (in the sense of immutability, limited power, limited risk of any technological payment systems). (I may be in the early minority, viewing "decentralization" - again, however defined - as just one method of ensuring "security" - but I don't think I'm wrong to view it as sub to "reliability" + "security" - which I believe to be sort of on par with one another - and "decentralization" as "just one tool of many" to ensure those two much more important qualities.) Unfortunately, the politicians seem to be far more interested in questions of "who will profit from this stuff that now exists" than the initial step of deciding which tech is "safe to deploy"... Let the other countries spend themselves to death securing these expensively insecure PoW model tokens and make sure that whatever system that we pick doesn't wind up blowing up. I'm pretty sure that's what some of the competition is doing...
  7. "Bitcoin - which the regulators have declared not to be a security - actually lacks technical security. We think the regulators are confused, but we're taking advantage of their confusion and hoping that nobody figures out that all it would take is DoE to turn on a couple of supercomputers to take 51% hashing power and totally capture PoW models, kinda like China can do, at present, and like Russia almost did, when they had to arrest a few poor nuclear scientists, at one of their weapons facilities, who had hooked up a Top500 machine to the internet to mine bitcoin to try to make a buck or two." https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2018/02/russian-nuclear-weapons-engineers-caught-­­­­minting-blockchange-with-supercomputer/ I love bitcoin "experts" with opinions who don't know anything about science.
  8. NightJanitor

    Zerpening 3: HODL My Zerps

    Yup. If that were an open form, I'd have just put "NONE OF YOUR BUSINESS" on a bunch of the questions and, likely, been denied. That's ok; maybe they'll wise up...
  9. Here's the short, summary version of it all: Cmte 1: "Regulate crypto as a commodity." Cmte 2: "Put that genie back in the bottle!" Only one of these outcomes is possible.
  10. NightJanitor

    Asheesh Birla at Fortune Brainstorm Tech 2018

    But her diamond earrings have "blockchain provenance". Or could. Or might soon.
  11. Since when does "bivalent" mean "superpositional"? I muted the guy and looked through the rest of the slides - but, uh...
  12. NightJanitor

    Asheesh Birla at Fortune Brainstorm Tech 2018

    I'll make this quick: The IBM lady's selling lock-in.
  13. NightJanitor

    Zerpening 3: HODL My Zerps

×