Who said I'm trying to seem smart?
If you don't already know that the first world war setup nearly everything that's happening in the world today, the pity isn't that I'm not telling you about it, but that you've neglected to learn history.
15YXRh…GL4t
15YXRhqbHawbH49aYzfiww2UQ4Cz82GL4t
- 0 Following
- 0 Followers
- 552 Posts
Activity
The fact that you feel you need an explanation is sufficient explanation.
Y'all need to learn about WW I...
@931 ??
@931 it is time for me to call you out - you're not meeting your commitments!
So I'm here to keep you honest. Historians shall look back on this day and know...
I vote every day.
Pick your poison. I think it applies to all of it.
I don't think most of y'all actually understand why things are going wrong the way they are going wrong...
Don't get me wrong - I think many of you are close. Also, I don't think I really get it either. But, I think I'm close, too...
Valuable Bitcoin based business idea:
http://www.newsdiffs.org/about/
Not even that hard. Most of the tools already exist on BSV.
Web scraper + version management tools + upload to BSV + retrieval tools.
Their code and the tools they used is literally on that above linked page.
This will be interesting to watch:
https://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/statement-attorney-general-announcement-civil-antitrust-lawsuit-filed-against-google
Who is the last US president not to start a war (or substantially similar military action)?
PSA: If you want people to call you out when you're being foolish, don't ostracize them when they do.
It would be nice to get this guy on Streamanity or something...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EWLzQLmNFlM
Mmmm.... Tea....
Barking Chihuahuas don't bark because they're strong.
That, I can agree with too.
I am purposefully not stepping beyond that issue yet because I'm not a fan of going round and round in circles. Settle one point at a time, then move on.
What I'm explaining is that the economic incentives trend towards one chain where any disagreements on the rules lead to dead chains on smaller instances of the system.
In any contentious system that doesn't force replay protection, scale is irrelevant.
To merely assume that there will always be a chain for everyone's desired rule set is naive at best.
Look up at the thread to see what scenarios also exist, and what Nakamoto Consensus actually solves, if the system is left unlimited.
You're thinking of a single chain scenario, or one where the chains willfully split.
If you assume peaceful intentions by all, then all sorts of things become possible that are unrealistic to expect in reality.
Why can't an adversarial miner produce empty blocks on your chain?
Is it because you've installed permissioned mining?
Because you've changed the hashing algorithm?
Because they don't have a majority of hash rate?
If by "full nodes" you mean non-mining nodes, they're not providing anything new to anyone. Only miners produce the chain.
Non-mining nodes are useful for consuming the chain, not creating it.
It goes well beyond court, too. All words can be manipulated to mean something you didn't intend. Language is imperfect, so interpretation can always go wrong.
Understanding this is a prerequisite to truly listening to people.
Everything you say can and will be used against you.
People misunderstand this phrase.
Everything you say can be used against you... And, it will be used against you.
Learn that lesson, and what it means. Then, learn not to perpetuate the pattern.
Watching my lady play through Final Fantasy X for the first time.
I think Yuna is an exceptionally good example of a strong female character.
For all the flaws in that game (I call it 'quaint,') they did a very good job with the characters.
To say that the effect of picking up litter is small is true, but the effect of a vote that isn't on the margin is non-existent.
No, we're not.
If you vote against the winning ticket, does the winning ticket change in any way?
If you vote for the winning ticket, does the winning ticket change in any way?
Vs: If you pick up a piece of trash, is the piece of trash still there?
That assumes your vote made any difference.
Have you worked through the statistical likelihood of that?