wildbunny

18 ms·

1.
by wildbunny 6y ago
You don't need to 'claim' anything. It's written into the rules of the blockchain. You cannot change the rules like that and expect to have your blocks appended to the canonical chain.
2.
by wildbunny 6y ago
I suppose you might argue that the amiga paved the way for the architecture of the PS2 - the copper chip ran a rudimentary display list, the blitter hardware accelerated graphics operations. But I wouldn't say there is a direct relatio
3.
by wildbunny 6y ago
The GS (graphics chip) in the PS2 had a great hardware bug whereby if you turned off the z-test, it would never come back on again. You had to change the z mode to always pass to get around it.
4.
by wildbunny 6y ago
It's gone down
5.
by wildbunny 6y ago
404
6.
by wildbunny 8y ago
Some more discussion on the topic over here: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=4459113.0
7.
by wildbunny 8y ago
Agree completely. Nice paper, utterly useless in practice due to sybil attack. edit: not only that, but it will be vulnerable to all kinds of history attacks for bootstrapping nodes
8.
by wildbunny 9y ago
Can't read it due to their pay-wall, anyone post the copy?
9.
by wildbunny 9y ago
It requires a majority of trustworthy nodes to be online - it cannot deal with a force majeure, such as a massive power cut.
10.
by wildbunny 9y ago
Sorry, no it is not. There is no nash equilibrium in PoS at all. The only thing preventing it from collapsing completely is hidden centralisation in all the PoS protocols.
11.
by wildbunny 9y ago
Not to mention that the central consensus mechanism is completely broken. You cannot have a trustless consensus without a mining incentive: Quoted from my post linked below: o) Network hashrate is the overall power of the network - in bitco
12.
by wildbunny 9y ago
Isn't stellar's consensus still the 'consensus' of one node owned by the company due to the fact that the design is totally broken?
13.
by wildbunny 9y ago
I found that proof of burn actually was exactly equivalent to proof of stake in terms of overall security. I.e. not good enough.
14.
by wildbunny 9y ago
I did a bunch of analysis on proof of burn, and came to the conclusion that it cannot work in practice because it relies on transactions in order to burn, which themselves are subject to consensus. You can read my detailed analysis here: h
15.
by wildbunny 9y ago
The easy way to express this is: cryptocurrencies are true, digital cash
16.
by wildbunny 9y ago
Very narrow minded. Tens of thousands of games rely on flash, along with many movies and general history of the internet. Open souring it will preserve countless hours of lost work.
17.
by wildbunny 9y ago
Bitcoin hasn't solved the scaling problem. All these BIPs are just short term fixes which don't address the core problem. I opened a discussion thread on bitcointalk hoping to catch the attention of the core developers, but it see
18.
by wildbunny 9y ago
It has no countermeasures for Sybil attack. Therefore, the only trusted nodes in the Ripple network are owned by Ripple labs, making the entire currency much more like Visa than a real blockchain.
19.
by wildbunny 9y ago
That's fair enough.
20.
by wildbunny 9y ago
You are correct. However, this field is so new and so potentially disruptive that there are a lot of so called 'blockchain developers' inventing new cryptocurrecies which are unworkable, or essentially no different to VISA in term
21.
by wildbunny 9y ago
Indeed. But there is a lot of talk about bitcoin and blockchain in general lately, and a lot of existing cryptocurrencies which are unworkable, created by people who want to get rich quick.
22.
by wildbunny 9y ago
When you're talking about people's money, just following tutorials and piecing something together does not cut it.
23.
by wildbunny 9y ago
In a p2p environment, timestamps are totally useless at proving when I sent you bitcoins. However, when I sent you bitcoins is fundamentally important when it comes to ordering transactions, because I can send you bitcoins, but also send th
24.
by wildbunny 9y ago
Again, that's how it works, but not why it works. It bitcoin it is used as an unforgeable proxy for elapsed time.
25.
by wildbunny 9y ago
This worries me. Bitcoin solved the double spend problem by using the LCR with PoW. That is the novel aspect which allowed cryptocurrencies to come into existence. If you remove the LCR and PoW, all you are left with is a toy example which
26.
by wildbunny 9y ago
I'd like to direct interested readers to a thread containing a link to a draft paper I wrote about addressing these issues in a blockless DAG based cryptocurrency: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1992827.0 Chee
27.
by wildbunny 9y ago
On the contrary, this is the major strength of the system.
28.
by wildbunny 9y ago
If miners chose to mine on a chain that no-one wants, then everybody has to grudgingly go along with it, or cease to transact. The longest chain is always the most valuable.
29.
by wildbunny 9y ago
He misses the point that the developers do not control bitcoin; the miners control bitcoin. The developers suggest improvements which will only be adopted if the miners support those improvements. The miner's interests are purely profi
30.
by wildbunny 9y ago
This is interesting - but how can a browser serve incoming connection requests?

More ›