Readit News logoReadit News
decentralised commented on Ross Ulbricht granted a full pardon   twitter.com/Free_Ross/sta... · Posted by u/Ozarkian
decentralised · 8 months ago
This is just. If a president can pardon people preemptively then they can pardon someone retroactively as well.
decentralised commented on All clocks are 30 seconds late   victorpoughon.fr/all-cloc... · Posted by u/fouronnes3
zemnmez · 8 months ago
I apologise for my "but, actually...":

Analogue clocks like the face of big ben are not like digital displays, and whether they "show seconds" in the context of the meaning of this article is not, like digital displays, down to whether there is a dedicated hand.

Unlike digital displays, the largest denomination hand on an analogue clock display contains all of the information that the smaller hands do (depending on the movement in some cases).

The easiest way to realise this is to imagine a clock without the minute hand. Can you tell when it's half-past the hour? You can. The hour hand is half way between the two hours.

Again, it depends on the movement, but it is not out of the question that your minute hand is moving once every second, and not every minute. It is down to the number of beats per unit time for an analogue display as to what the minimum display resolution is (regardless of if the movement is analogue or digital itself).

decentralised · 8 months ago
>The easiest way to realise this is to imagine a clock without the minute hand.

No need to imagine it, it's been invented many years ago and it's called a perigraph. Meistersinger makes one of the nicest I've seen: https://www.relogios.pt/meistersinger-perigraph-relogio-auto...

decentralised commented on Why banks are suddenly closing down customer accounts   nytimes.com/2023/11/05/bu... · Posted by u/ljosa
krupan · 2 years ago
How about metrics like answering the question of, "how much of the coin exists?" Or metrics like, "how understandable and simple is the overall protocol and mining scheme?" Or "has this chain ever broken it's own rules and rolled back transactions at the behest of its benevolent dictator?"

Spoiler: Bitcoin wins on all of those. The market cap is better for a reason.

decentralised · 2 years ago
Actually... the account model is much easier to use to get an accurate view of all balances than the UTXO model. As for rollbacks, Bitcoin had one in 2010 (https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/Value_overflow_incident) and a chain fork in 2013 (https://bitcoin.org/en/alert/2013-03-11-chain-fork) both decided by those who could make the decision... and accepted by a majority of nodes, same as with the ETH hard fork

I'm not so sure about understandability at protocol level, I do believe Ethereum to be straightforward but then again I've followed its progress over the years

decentralised commented on Chainalysis CTO said blockchain is easier to trace than paper money   lancengym.medium.com/form... · Posted by u/threelinepitch
SevenNation · 3 years ago
That's because when most people use "blockchain" or "DeFi" they're using AML/KYC entities that post their transaction logs to public servers. Law enforcement eats this up because it saves them the trouble of getting warrants for investigations.

Bad for customers to be sure. Most have no idea what they're doing and have fallen for a scam hook, line, and sinker. They (loudly, incessantly) proclaim to their friends the benefits of a new money paradigm while deriving all sustenance through the umbilical cord of OldFi. ChromaFlair on a Model T.

The article itself is a hot mess of muddled thinking. It starts by talking about the Bitcoin white paper (not a "manifesto"), then asking the absurd question: "Why can't DeFi make good on the promise?" The reason is that "DeFi" is about as far from Bitcoin as "car" is from "carpet."

The Bitcoin white paper describes the application of proof of work to the problem of electronic cash. The vast majority of DeFi projects are just centralized ledgers operating through trusted institutions. They are the very definition of "mint" in the white paper - a single, corruptible player that sets the rules - arbitrarily if need be.

decentralised · 3 years ago
The traceability of very much part of design of most blockchains, starting with Bitcoin. The whitepaper makes this clear in section "10) Privacy" and the article quotes half of the relevant text.

The remaining half states: "As an additional firewall, a new key pair should be used for each transaction to keep them from being linked to a common owner. Some linking is still unavoidable with multi-input transactions, which necessarily reveal that their inputs were owned by the same owner. The risk is that if the owner of a key is revealed, linking could reveal other transactions that belonged to the same owner"

Unlike Bitcoin, account based blockchains make this extra measure of privacy harder as the receiving and sending address is one and the same, however there's no limit to how many accounts one can have, so anonymity is still possible as long as acquiring the coins doesn't reveal your identity.

Those who sign up for cryptocurrency service providers (who are required by law to perform AML/KYC checks - and do so with the consent of their customers) trade away the privacy (of some of their) transactions for the benefits (most commonly, yield and ease of use) said services offer. This is not different from use cases of cash money, where getting cash money from an ATM or most money transmitters will reveal your identity, and while one is free to make in person transactions and remain "anonymous", if one wants to have a bank account or invest legally, then some level of KYC will be in place.

The article indeed asks the wrong question. DeFi can't operate legally without KYC/AML and customers know it. Your comment on the other hand seems to me to be making an error in believing DeFi users don't know this.

decentralised commented on The bug which lost more than $600M in various cryptocurrencies a few hours ago   twitter.com/simonw/status... · Posted by u/edward
decentralised · 4 years ago
The "bug" is that some developers think of matching function signatures as some form of authN / authZ.

A few years back I wrote https://medium.com/coinmonks/lashing-out-at-a-spank-channel-... about a similar hack where a contract "trusted" a given (user input) contract based on nothing other than verifying a function signature. This latest hack was smarter but ultimately it still exploited a 4 bytes hash "security" feature...

decentralised commented on Ethereum just activated its ‘London’ hard fork   cnbc.com/2021/08/05/ether... · Posted by u/alexrustic
dyndos · 4 years ago
The key distinction is that PoW is permissionless, whereas PoS is permissioned.

Bitcoin is secured by hashpower, which is produced by physical capital outside the network. Nobody needs to ask for permission to start hashing and trade kilowatts for sats.

PoS networks are secured by on-chain assets. This means you can't "mine" it without first buying tokens from someone who already owns them. You need permission from an existing player in order to start participating.

Another aspect of this is 51% attacks are recoverable for PoW, but are a permanent takeover condition for PoS networks. If a single entity ever accumulates more than half the tokens on a PoS network, they are unassailable.

decentralised · 4 years ago
>Another aspect of this is 51% attacks are recoverable for PoW, but are a permanent takeover condition for PoS networks. If a single entity ever accumulates more than half the tokens on a PoS network, they are unassailable.

This is not true. PoS has many design flavours and the one Ethereum is planning on implementing includes random selection of validators and the amount staked has no influence on the inclusion or the vote "weight".

Also with PoS an attacker will always incur economic losses similar to having your mining rig burning down if you were to try to foce a bad block through. In PoW networks attackers can keep on mixing attacks with producing normal blocks and remain profitable

decentralised commented on Ask HN: What feature did you find after years of using macOS?    · Posted by u/hooda
decentralised · 5 years ago
cmd + k to clear the terminal
decentralised commented on Words that don't translate into English   theguardian.com/world/201... · Posted by u/tintinnabula
ithkuil · 5 years ago
A nice Italian word that might be hard to translate is "ni" which means "yes and no" (literally first letter of "no" and second letter of "si", which means yes).

Often I hear English speakers use the answer "It depends." where an Italian would use "Ni."

decentralised · 5 years ago
We use a similar word in Portuguese: nim (n for nao/ no and im for sim/yes)
decentralised commented on Stranger Things, JavaScript Edition   livecodestream.dev/post/2... · Posted by u/bajcmartinez
sproketboy · 5 years ago
" ['1', '7', '11'].map(parseInt);

For what you would expect the output to be:

[1, 7, 11]

However, things get a bit off here, and the actual result is:

[1,NaN,3]

At first, this may look up very weird, but it actually has an elegant explanation. "

The elegant explanation is that JavaScript was taken over by psychopaths like bajcmartinez.

JavaScript is fine for button onClick code. Outside of that it's garbage.

decentralised · 5 years ago
I think the parseInt example is more of a gotcha of point-free syntax. Normally it would be written as ['1','7','11'].map(e => parseInt(e))
decentralised commented on 402 Payment Required, and why micropayments are doomed   piszek.com/2020/05/19/mic... · Posted by u/artpi
somebodythere · 5 years ago
It is broken in Ethereum. In Ethereum, since consistency is enforced by transaction nonce rather than UTXOs, there is no way for a "watcher" to keep the payer honest by rebroadcasting a previously signed transaction output. Indeed, in Ethereum you can "cancel" a transaction in the mempool by signing a blank transaction with a higher fee and same nonce, which is by design.
decentralised · 5 years ago
Mind you that a tx in the mempool has not yet produced any changes to state. In BTC you can also replace-by-fee for instance (https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/Transaction_replacement).

This page (https://github.com/ethereum/wiki/wiki/Design-Rationale) contains a good overview of the UTXO vs Account model with each's strengths and weaknesses.

u/decentralised

KarmaCake day183July 18, 2017View Original