ryebit

4 ms·

1.
by ryebit 5y ago
I don't think that invalidates the quote. It's how I came across it in the first place. I think economists are well aware of the nature of the beast they're studying. And even if doing the task is daunting, and the landscape
2.
by ryebit 5y ago
IMO, economics is an area that will continually be hampered by models that don't fit, and increasing complexity. Any model that predicts things simply and well, will be gamed; thus requiring a more complex model. Or as Goodhart's
3.
by ryebit 5y ago
Deploying via IPFS might also work? Though it'd require having a trustworthy backend storing state ... or I suppose auditing to ensure backend can't inject anything malicious into client layer. From what I understand, some cryptoc
4.
by ryebit 5y ago
In addition to BIP39 cited below, the EFF also published some useful wordlists a few years ago... https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2016/07/new-wordlists-random-p... One has the nice property that all words have
5.
by ryebit 5y ago
To clarify: I don't think proof of stake is perfect. I think the original pie in the sky dream, as hinted at in the Bitcoin white paper, was for decentralization through anyone (all the way to students in their dorms) being able to par
6.
by ryebit 5y ago
History of stuff like Antminers has been stages of private access, high end market, then low end ... But while products are moving down those stages, more wattage-efficient ones are entering at top. I think you're right that ROI curve
7.
by ryebit 5y ago
Except under mining, increased investment opens up access to better equipment like ASICs, access to cheaper energy agreements, etc. But no amount of $ unlocks the ability to validate faster (per unit staked).
8.
by ryebit 5y ago
Reversibility could probably be added on top via smart contract if someone wanted to provide the service, and people trusted the third party. But you can't make a trustless exchange on top of a custodial framework. Base layer has to be
9.
by ryebit 5y ago
Thank you! That's... well, beautiful isn't the right word, given nature of example... But I was hoping to find a simple non-ergodic example. The situation the article explores was interesting, but made the jump to something mathem
10.
by ryebit 5y ago
Ethereum is working to address a lot of those points. When it switches to Proof of Stake (beacon chain is already live), energy costs will drop significantly (talking < 100 watts / node)... Just doing minimum to process blocks, no w
11.
by ryebit 6y ago
Not to find a solution, it was already found. The roadmap plan was always to switch to PoS, the miners and PoW were always temporary until it was developed / ready. Now the beacon chain (core of PoS) is live, with around $6 billion sta
12.
by ryebit 6y ago
I've had the Droid48 app on my android phone for years. It's a little unstable, hope author updates it. But it's so awesome to have a 48GX available whenever, while my real one sits safely on the shelf at home. When I first
13.
by ryebit 6y ago
What would a successful attack even look like? My understanding was that malicious validator has to publish votes for two different blocks in one round; which then can be used to slash them. Unlike PoW they can't "sit" on th
14.
by ryebit 6y ago
That's pretty much describing Ethereum (once it finishes switching to PoS in the next year or so). Popularity wise it's already doing way more than others in txn or $ volume. It's NFT market for asset ownership (mainly artwor
15.
by ryebit 6y ago
Going a bit further, once an object has been confirmed as alien, then it's not really "Unidentified" anymore, now is it? Almost a linguistic catch-22 version of the "ATM Machine" phrase. Not redundant, but guarante
16.
by ryebit 6y ago
I'm not an expert at the mechanism design, but yeah, that's my understanding. The network's goal is to have a block every X seconds; and the difficulty periodically adjusts if blocks come in too fast / too slow (due to
17.
by ryebit 6y ago
Ethereum's Proof of Stake "beacon chain" is already live, with around $6 billion staked (since launch in december 2020). Next year is just formalizing and testing it taking over from the miners. So despite timeframe, there&#x
18.
by ryebit 6y ago
Pretty much, from what I can tell! I sorta see this as Nvidia trying to create some market segmentation not for the miners, but so gamers can actually get their cards before Nvidia loses mindshare. (Not that I think that's likely)
19.
by ryebit 6y ago
I think right now biggest earner for GPU mining is Ethereum. And (I think) it's aiming to move to Proof of Stake sometime in next 12-24 months, which kinda time limits the utility of both Eth-specific mining chips, and large investmen
20.
by ryebit 6y ago
Just to expound on that point here. While Tether's bank accounts being private is a problem for auditing, even if that were removed, you'd still have to somehow "snapshot" all the bank accounts an transactions, freezing
21.
by ryebit 6y ago
Not OP, but USDT / Tether is an example of something which exists as a proxy for something off-chain; so auditing the chain is obviously not going to work to see how much USD they actually have. Though it is possible to provably aud
22.
by ryebit 6y ago
Good Lord, that's a great idea. They'd be able to sell the shares in no time. Soon as it hits public I'm sure a ton of folks who just invest in everything semiconductor would just jump in. I've been avoiding SoftBank be
23.
by ryebit 6y ago
Linux Mint has even removed snap, which is impressive since they're downstream from Ubuntu. After hearing some of the issues with it (here and elsewhere), I'm kinda grateful to them for making the effort. Though this concerns me -
24.
by ryebit 6y ago
Per other responses, they frequently do charge a special fee (I think Aave charged around 0.09% at one point but can't find good ref right now). One interesting thing I think is still under dev/consideration is adding the ability
25.
by ryebit 6y ago
> the stakers only need to make an investment once in the beginning > The whole system could collapse overnight like a domino if something goes wrong IMO, these two things are one of the main points of tension which PoS uses to operat
26.
by ryebit 6y ago
I agree that OP is confusing / conflating a bunch of different things. But to clarify that one bit (I think?) they're talking about -- the code is OP_RETURN. Originally it could return larger amounts of arbitrary data, which was
27.
by ryebit 6y ago
I think they meant more system technical risk than financial . as in, a change to prevent bypassing private key checks, or minting quadrillions of BTC / ETH beyond the issuance schedule.
28.
by ryebit 6y ago
> the trust is not in the code, it's in the community and their policies I can heartily agree with that. That's why I think having the "layer 0" social consensus of a network aim for maximum clarity, so participants h
29.
by ryebit 6y ago
That is rather misleading to use as an example... It's widely regarded as a one time thing that was agreed upon partly because the system (and testing tools) were so new at the time. Bitcoin had a bug that was required an organized cha
30.
by ryebit 6y ago
Ethereum's Ice Age is real, but saying it will "implode if Vitalik doesn't intervene" is wrong on so many levels, and is incredibly misleading, if not outright dishonest. --- The "Ice Age" is a builtin feature

More ›