I think almost everyone is with you on readability, but I think it would be hard to make the case that it lacks power.
Indeed. Read some of the Project Euler discussions (after solving a problem). The J answers tend to be very short and very fast.
Readit NewsFabHK commented on An Implementation of J (1992) jsoftware.com/ioj/ioj.htm... · Posted by u/ofalkaed
Deleted Comment
Deleted Comment
Deleted Comment
FabHK commented on I wasted years of my life in crypto twitter.com/kenchangh/sta... · Posted by u/Anon84
FabHK commented on I wasted years of my life in crypto twitter.com/kenchangh/sta... · Posted by u/Anon84
Yeah and even more crazy: all other applications of blockchains are even more stupid. Haven't seen another application that wouldn't have been better, faster, cheaper implemented in a "classical" way.
Agree. Blockchain is good for nothing but crypto (by virtue of the oracle problem, among others), and crypto is good for nothing but crime.
It's funny, people speak as if decentralisation was a good thing, but very few bother to explain why. Typically, if you dig into it, they cite advantages that you can already get from good old permissioned distributed tech. The only thing that decentralisation gets you (at enormous cost) is that it's harder to regulate.
FabHK commented on I wasted years of my life in crypto twitter.com/kenchangh/sta... · Posted by u/Anon84
A different metric of comparison isn't Bitcoin's energy consumption compared to other countries but compared to the existing banking system it's trying to replace, which burns more energy than Bitcoin and allegedly burns more energy funding wars with fiat. Mining gold instead of Bitcoin burns more energy than Bitcoin too.
Compared to that for energy consumption, Bitcoin is superior really.
A bitcoin transaction costs around $100 (in invisible money supply increase, paid by everyone that holds Bitcoin, but received by the miners).
There's no way a fiat transfer costs that much.
FabHK commented on I wasted years of my life in crypto twitter.com/kenchangh/sta... · Posted by u/Anon84
Ah yes. And everyone in a country that suffers a banking collapse lives in a wilderness with solar power and a sattelite uplink.
Yes. And if a country with say 200m people suffered a banking collapse, everyone could do a Bitcoin transaction every 40 days (assuming everyone else stopped using it), and would use only about 1% of the world's electricity. Great stuff.
FabHK commented on I wasted years of my life in crypto twitter.com/kenchangh/sta... · Posted by u/Anon84
>BSV seemed to scale just fine, and you could also store entire files on it, including JSON, HTML or even music or videos
This doesn't pass the sniff test. Everyone must store the full blockchain in order to verify it. So to run a full node you would have to store everyone's JSON, HTML, music, videos. Full mirroring for every node in a distributed system is about as close as you can get to the definition of doesn't scale.
Indeed. Bitcoin's blockchain grows with a laughable 3kB/s, yet is an unwieldy 700 GB.
A blockchain that allowed you store one song per second would be hundreds of TB before long. There are other architectures for that sort of thing for a reason.
FabHK commented on I wasted years of my life in crypto twitter.com/kenchangh/sta... · Posted by u/Anon84
> and they were charlatans who wanted funding and hype, or signal how cutting edge they are
Interesting that those same hucksters and shysters who spread the gospel of the blockchain immediately jumped on th AI bandwaggon when this was the shiny new thing.
Or, maybe, 40 years working in IT turned me slightly cynical.
> spread the gospel of the blockchain immediately jumped on th AI bandwaggon
There were also a few months of super conductors, don't forget :-)