281–290 of 321 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The estimated energy consumption of BTC is between the electricity consumption of Ukraine and Argentina. It's as if everyone would be a banker in Ukraine and every building would be a bank. Seems excessive.
It's also Bitcoin _right now_. It's still growing!
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Fwiw the PoS network is already running, with $6 billion staked and 100,000 validators. Migrating the rest of the network is relatively simple, they're just being really careful with it.
Curious how that works? Parallel blockchain? But how do you “migrate”? Incremental migration?
The quickest migration is basically to upgrade both clients to talk to each other, and for the old client, instead of choosing blocks with the highest hashpower, choose blocks whose hashes are chosen by the beacon chain. Details here: https://notes.ethereum.org/@vbuterin/B1mUf6DXO
The next step is a more integrated system, described here: https://ethresear.ch/t/executable-beacon-chain/8271
Earlier quoted context omitted.
If you don’t have a certain number of karma points you cannot even post there, I guess the largest part there is only lurking.
It is striking how just about any subreddit is several orders of magnitude larger than their average engagement. It's seemingly no matter the size and affects huge and tiny subeditors. I guess there really are that many bot accounts on reddit.
In defiance of the bear and bull, the gorilla market rages on
Worth noting they've also adopted whales, belugas, sloths, falcons, and probably a lot of other animals I didn't notice when scrolling the past few days.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
>My point was, the concept of layers of indirection making perpetrating evil/immoral acts easier is a well-recognized one It seems that you are again assuming that drone strikes are evil immoral acts. Most people view civilian casualties in war as a trolley car problem, (e.g. a necessary evil in an overall moral action)
I don't really care what most people think. If I chose my beliefs based solely on what most people thought, I would be guilty of committing the bandwagon fallacy. So don't hide behind "most people". What do you think about this issue? My own personal view is this: The Geneva convention forbids the killing and torture of non-combatants. The Geneva convention exists for a reason: without it, war would be more brutal an…
Do you really hold that that it isn't acceptable to kill 1 non-combatant to save a greater number of non-combatants at a future date?
You can change the conditions or description, but it is still a trolly problem.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Are you advocating for some sort of central authority who regulates what individuals use power for?
We already have that for large classes of equipment.
Just trying to get your position straight here.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
>My point was, the concept of layers of indirection making perpetrating evil/immoral acts easier is a well-recognized one It seems that you are again assuming that drone strikes are evil immoral acts. Most people view civilian casualties in war as a trolley car problem, (e.g. a necessary evil in an overall moral action)
Why is there war in the first place? Also, it is a created trolley car problem not the trolley car problem. And creating such a situation instead of coming across it is definitely morally evil.
If it is moral to minimize the deaths by pulling a lever, shouldn't it also be moral to invent the lever?
Someone can certainly argue that drone strikes are not always an effective way to save lives, but if they are, I don't see an argument that makes them evil.