Programmer and sysadmin (DevOps?), wannabe polymath in tech, science and the mind. Neurodivergent, disabled, burned out, and close to throwing in the towel, but still liking ponies 🦄 and sometimes willing to discuss stuff.

  • 4 Posts
  • 1.63K Comments
Joined 1 year ago
cake
Cake day: June 26th, 2023

help-circle




  • As Bitcoin has grown, transactions have become slow

    Except for Bitcoin Lightning Network:

    https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lightning_Network

    Bitcoin is always being diluted

    It’s also constantly getting un-diluted by people losing their keys.

    Current estimates put the “lost coins” at around 25% of the total. That is twice as many as there are left to mine.

    it is possible that transaction fees will need to be raised to compensate miners.

    That’s been the plan from the beginning.

    Mining halving has been defined with a rough estimate of adoption, volume, and technological advances. It’s why Lightning Network was developed, and why Ethereum has switched to a Proof-of-ownership mining scheme.

    The estimate is rough and quite inflexible, which has lead to cyclic fluctuations around the period of halvings… but from a long term perspective, it has been working reasonably well for the first 10% of Bitcoin’s starting period.


  • This is a fancy way to say that it is slower unless you pay higher fees.

    My bank takes:

    • 24-48 hours for 0€, only in the EU, up to 15k€
    • 5 minutes for 0.50% (min 1.25€), only in the EU, up to 900€
    • 48-120 hours for 0.70% (min 35€), international, up to 20k€

    So my bank is also “slower unless you pay higher fees”… or “slower even with higher fees”… and on top of that, it has an amount cap.

    Meanwhile, on Bitcoin Lightning (https://1ml.com/statistics):

    • Median Base Fee: $0.000617

    fork the network and update it if they had 50%+1

    No. There are 3 components to Bitcoin: Miners, P2P nodes. and coin owners.

    • Getting 1 miner and 1 P2P node, allows forking… and getting kicked off the network.
    • Getting >50% of mining power, allows a chance at double-spending some own coins.
    • Getting 100% of miners AND/OR 100% of P2P nodes, allows taking over the network.
    • Getting an owner’s key, allows full access to the coins tied to that key.

    Neither of those are impossible, some are just easier and have a higher ROI than others.

    The tax and identity layers have to be added on top. They are not built-in.

    Same as with cash.

    Yes, this is one of the selling points of Bitcoin vs. Banks, in an age where cash is getting phased out.

    The opposite, is also a selling point of “OpenSource Money with Taxes built-in” vs. Bitcoin.

    Pick whichever side you prefer.






  • There is an allegation about him helping/inciting/collaborating/conspiring with Manning to break a password that would allow them to access information requiring a higher security clearance.

    It’s a serious accusation, and it’s compounded by suspicions of him favoring Russia in his filtering of leak releases, but it’s still crazy the amount of time he’s been not-free because of something he hasn’t been tried or found guilty of.



  • This is an interesting issue, with multiple fronts:

    • Spain has a large chunk of its GDP tied to tourism, but…
    • Some places are getting overcrowded, like Ibiza, Barcelona, or Madrid, which discourages tourism.
    • Having a large number or holiday apartments, increases housing prices for local residents…
    • And causes noise issues during the holiday season…
    • And makes it difficult for seasonal workers to find a place to live.
    • While during the off-season, it leaves a lot of apartments unoccupied, making them an easy target for illegal occupation, with whole gangs living from it, which then require LEO resources to vacate them…
    • And makes it extra difficult for local non-tourism businesses to survive…
    • To the point that they’re converting business locals into… holiday apartments.

    The plan to shut “all” holiday apartments is kind of a pipe dream, or part of populist politics… more so in Barcelona, where right now the recent elections have left Catalonia with parties so divided, that they can’t even agree on a viable candidate to lead it.

    A slightly more realistic issue to tackle, are “illegal” holiday apartments that don’t pay the corresponding taxes. Some estimate that Madrid has a 10:1 ratio of illegal vs. registered holiday apartments.

    But in general, there is currently no solution that would keep those apartments occupied all year round, without neighbor conflict, in areas that live mainly off seasonal tourism.

    For example, Ibiza has 40K permanent residents, but capacity for 600K tourists, which leads to seasonal workers living in trailer parks, or even in their own cars.



  • From the first 15 min of the edited video: that FUTO boss is an embarrassment, good on Rossman to get him to change things.

    I don’t really want to watch the remaining hour, after someone says things like:

    • He didn’t follow the discussions back in the 2000s
    • OSI didn’t hijack the “open source” definition
    • Less than 1000 people would care
    • Asked his programmers, and they didn’t care

    I call BS. Weak excuses.

    There is a reason people say “FLOSS” instead of “Open Source”. There is a reason Stallman says what he says. There is a reason you can tell apart who understands what’s going on, by whether they understand the differences or not.


    A quick reminder:

    • Free - as in beer, not as in freedom
    • Libre - as in freedom
    • Open Source - you can see the source code

    Stallman created the GPL to allow people to see (open) and change (libre) the code (source)… then “pay forward” that freedom, in echange for being able to charge money (non-free) for their contributions.

    He often referred to it as simply “Open Source”… which turned out to be a mistake. Very soon (as in pre-1990), it became clear that there were two more competing camps for the “Open Source” definition:

    • Academia - people who got paid anyway, whether they saw a penny from their software or not
    • Business - who wanted to get as much money as possible, for as cheap as possible

    Both those camps aligned with licenses where developers gave up all their rights, but anyone could very easily take them back and claim as their own (“closing” the software). Famous examples are Microsoft, Apple, Google, Facebook, etc.

    The “Open Source Initiative” was created to gatekeep the “Open Source” definition, by keeping a list of licenses that were “OSI compliant”. A side effect of that gatekeeping, was erasing the understanding of the terms “Free” and “Libre” from the public’s minds.

    Plenty more than “1000 people” understood what was going on, and were against OSI, seeing it as an EEE move from the Business camp.

    People new to it, started using the term “open source” (as per OSI) without a care, only to later realize the Business camp was taking advantage of them… [surprised Pikachu face]


    This FUTO boss is not young or inexperienced, he’s a Business-man who, not surprisingly, decided to use a license with a closing clause, that he used the chance to call “Open Source” by exploiting people’s lack of understanding.






  • Watching that ABA link is highly unnerving.

    I’ve been offered behavioral therapy as an adult, but now I see that fortunately the psychiatrist in charge was dismissed before it would start. Later I learned that he wrote down I “don’t meet minimums”… and now I think I know what he meant: there was a session where I’m pretty sure he was trying me out, buy didn’t manage to provoke me. F-ing thank the FSM.

    The only time I’ve done something remotely similar, was with a stray cat that wouldn’t stop attacking everyone: put her in a dark bathroom (with food, water, and a litter box), turning the light only every few hours to offer her to come out to me. Took the stubborn thing 3 days to make up her mind… and from then on she became a fluffy ball with just the occasional minor outburst. I still admit that was basically torture… except the alternative was to either throw her out back onto the street, or give to a shelter with a 24-hour “no adoption, no cat” policy.

    It’s hard to believe anyone would advocate doing something like that to a person.