361–370 of 381 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> The energy consumption is merely the cost of all those features. This is a big assumption, and almost certainly untrue.
Why?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> I would even argue that they would work better and more efficiently under a free market economy That sort of argument would need some extraordinary evidence, given the sort of chaotic, crime-ridden, violent state places without governments tend to devolve into.
I didn't say "no government" or "no laws", I asked for free market. For a free market to work one of the important aspects is open competition with low barriers of entry. I believe most governments today do the opposite: their laws add barriers to competition, leading to inefficiencies that are in detriment of the general public. Examples are all around us, from cities forbidding Uber as a competition to taxi compani…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
THIS, THIS THIS THIS. How does Toom, not understand this. Not only does it scale but then miners get more fee's from more transactions. It baffles me the keyboard gymnastics against BSV, while showing exactly why BSV is the best.
May I ask how much you have invested in BSV, and whether that investment might be coloring your portrayal of BSV's strengths?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> No one is being rude to you. You may wanna chat with your mother for a second opinion ;) > No one is complaining and no one said "haters", these are things you hallucinated. I didn't say you said 'haters' that's a stylized/flourished way of saying an opposing viewpoint. That's why it's in quotes. If anything it was self-deprecating/deferential with respect to my biases. Jumping in with "that's not how logic works"…
You said it makes sense to put something in terms of a ratio even though they are uncorrelated except for a binary neccesity. That's like saying movies need sound and movies make money so let's measure movies by volume to dollars. It is literally broken logic. You seem happy to engage on how something is being said, but not so much on what is being said.
Of course, because I'm here to have an interesting conversation about an idea on its own merits, not be accused of hallucinating when you misinterpret something I've said. If you stop attacking the speaker, assumed some good faith, and have a civil conversation I suspect you'd have a better time.
Normally I have much more tolerance for shenanigans but you've demonstrated a pattern in our interactions.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
You said it makes sense to put something in terms of a ratio even though they are uncorrelated except for a binary neccesity. That's like saying movies need sound and movies make money so let's measure movies by volume to dollars. It is literally broken logic. You seem happy to engage on how something is being said, but not so much on what is being said.
> You seem happy to engage on how something is being said, but not so much on what is being said. Of course, because I'm here to have an interesting conversation about an idea on its own merits, not be accused of hallucinating when you misinterpret something I've said. If you stop attacking the speaker, assumed some good faith, and have a civil conversation I suspect you'd have a better time. Normally I have much mor…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> You seem happy to engage on how something is being said, but not so much on what is being said. Of course, because I'm here to have an interesting conversation about an idea on its own merits, not be accused of hallucinating when you misinterpret something I've said. If you stop attacking the speaker, assumed some good faith, and have a civil conversation I suspect you'd have a better time. Normally I have much mor…
I think if you had something of substance to say backing up what you originally said, you would have said it already instead of constantly calling yourself a victim as a diversion.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Why are BSV and BCH insecure?
Larger blocks means that they take longer to propagate across the network, meaning there is a much longer period where two or more miners might find alternative "next blocks", which could be exploited by tricking miners into including a different transaction in each split of the chain. This means that you basically have to wait much longer before you can be sure that your transaction will not be reversed. On top of t…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I'm not sure what you mean. Isn't the typical fork selection method for proof-of-stake to choose the chain with the most validators?
Unfortunately it's more complex than that. You can't rely on number of stakers for anything because of sybil attacks. You also can't rely on amount of stake because some of it could be double-staked (you can detect this but it still may not help you choose which fork is legit). The solutions to PoS fork choice don't really fit in an HN comment.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I think if you had something of substance to say backing up what you originally said, you would have said it already instead of constantly calling yourself a victim as a diversion.
Nope, the last time I engaged after you descended to name calling was totally unproductive.