throwaway415415

7 ms·

1.
by throwaway415415 8y ago
Hence why it can work with algorand.
2.
by throwaway415415 8y ago
PoS by itself doesn't incentivize you to include transactions. That's called the "nothing at stake" problem.
3.
by throwaway415415 8y ago
That is not true. If network partitions happen in bitcoin you are utterly ducked. The system will fork and good luck to recover from that with all the double spendings.
4.
by throwaway415415 8y ago
There is no 51% attack in PoS system. Rather there is a more than 1/3rd attacker problem.
5.
by throwaway415415 8y ago
What folks?
6.
by throwaway415415 8y ago
Not true
7.
by throwaway415415 8y ago
Wow wow wow
8.
by throwaway415415 8y ago
Yes people can duck with a network by cutting cables. This works with all internet protocols.
9.
by throwaway415415 8y ago
Usually interface{} is abused by java programmers. I agree that it's not great, but if you don't come from java or c++ chances you won't follow these patterns at least.
10.
by throwaway415415 8y ago
Sure. Seems like they have the same experience than me then.
11.
by throwaway415415 8y ago
Whats the difference with vault?
12.
by throwaway415415 8y ago
Usually, for distributed systems in adversarial settings we talk about safety and liveness. Bitcoin doesn't have safety, and both bitcoin and algorand seems to fail the liveness test as well. In your terms, both bitcoin and algorand ha
13.
by throwaway415415 8y ago
You are not answering the question.
14.
by throwaway415415 8y ago
So I was correct. Thanks. Indeed outlook is the first desktop client in your list.
15.
by throwaway415415 8y ago
Unfortunately I am not parroting. If you are used to read code, and you read c++, you will see that templates are abused. No generics force devs to make their code clearer and thus more secure. It is evident that Go is a better language tha
16.
by throwaway415415 8y ago
Because they are easily abused (look at c++) and makes code unreadable. Working around generics usually make the code clearer and thus more secure
17.
by throwaway415415 8y ago
Its the hot thing for a reason. Adapt or be left out.
18.
by throwaway415415 8y ago
It is already dying
19.
by throwaway415415 8y ago
Algorand
20.
by throwaway415415 8y ago
If no fees, what are the incentives to accept transactions in a block?
21.
by throwaway415415 8y ago
When you look at the big cryptographers behind vault and algorand you understand why.
22.
by throwaway415415 8y ago
No it doesn't. Coda can work with Algorand's byzantine agreement protocol.
23.
by throwaway415415 8y ago
Unless you're willing to provide information about the tech and how it is better than algorand or coda, I see your comment as just promotion scam.
24.
by throwaway415415 8y ago
Yup. It's a shame that HN isn't willing to talk about the interesting new research instead of debating around the same philosophical discussions.
25.
by throwaway415415 8y ago
There is no energy waste with Algorand's pos. It doesn't use bitcoin's pow. So yeah the environement doesn't matter here.
26.
by throwaway415415 8y ago
One could argue that it prevents hashing power attacks, where an attacker can duck with the network with no money at stake. Check the 51% attack websites, it shows how easy it is to duck with altcoins who use pow.
27.
by throwaway415415 8y ago
Can we focus on an interesting discussion instead of the usual
28.
by throwaway415415 8y ago
False. Algorand has safety, unless you get confirmation from 2/3 of the "money", you don't go forward. The best you can get here is a denial of service.
29.
by throwaway415415 8y ago
This is true. I would be interested in knowing the difference in approaches between vault and coda.
30.
by throwaway415415 8y ago
Is that really a good question to ask someone who is pushing the state of the art in this domain?

More ›