I think we all know they don't investigate important issues very well.
I partially agree with you here but you're still generalizing here. Especially when it comes to global warming because the raw data is at our disposal ( https://data.worldbank.org/indicator/en.atm.co2e.pc). There are countless scientific reports indicating that global warming is a direct consequence of the increasing CO 2 emissions. You don't even need to read newspapers to realize that. If they did, they would present both sides of the story, not just that which they prefer.
And what do you think is the other side of the story? What kind of agenda do you think they're trying to push, if any? There are climate scientists and naturalists who claim that their studies demonstrate there's no change in trend for temperature (and that defining what "average temperature" affects the outcome significantly) And I'm not sure what makes the World Bank any more credulous a source of science than journalists. |
|
|
|
I think it's evident that at the current moment there are way too many tonnes of CO2 emitted on a daily basis. And if we continue in this manner an increase of 2 degrees isn't that far fetched. No, that's what newspapers and politicians keep endlessly repeating. If the newspapers repeat "Vietnam is threatening USA" or "Saddam Hussein has WMD", does that make it true? I think we all know they don't investigate important issues very well. If they did, they would present both sides of the story, not just that which they prefer. |
|
|
|
The story of C02 impact is rather simple:The sun has rather wide radiance spectrum but the atmosphere of our planet mostly does not absorb visible light and it is transmitted thru atmosphere , some of the light is scattered and some reaches earth and warms it up, warm bodies (also earth) emits heath radiation which then is absorbed by CO2 molecules in atmosphere . CO2 is a molecule which has a high absorption in range of Infra red wavelength region [1] or in other words it absorbs heat. Without CO2 in atmosphere much of this IR radiation would escape our atmosphere therefore not warming up our climate. This is solid and undeniable proof of negative effect of CO2 on our climate.[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greenhouse_gas#/media/File:Atmospheric_Transmission.png Yep, that's all good science. How much CO 2 is too much? That's where climate scientists disagree. |
|
|
|
|
doesn't matter.
Liberalism is easy to explain. Do what you want, but don't harm other people. That's all there is to it.
|
|
|
|
|
Liberalism (the John Lock/Adam Smith type) is being undermined by Orwellian bullshit, and powerful people in the conservative and socialist contingents are leading the charge
Socialists are in full on brain washing mode:
"So hey, d'you believe we should cooperate in a team to make society greater than the sum of it's parts? Congrats, you're a liberal, just like us!!!"
What they really mean: let's use group pressure to be really intolerant of anything we wouldn't choose for ourselves, and try to force everyone to choose what we think will work, and call it liberalism.
Conservatives are in full on brain washing mode:
"So hey, d'you believe individuals should make their own choices, and that the good deserve good things and the bad deserve bad things? Congrats, you're a (classical) liberal, just like us!!!"
What they really mean: let's keep powerful liars in the same place they are now (because being the best liar means you deserve good things), use power to stop competition because "responsible freedom", then call it liberalism
Whatever happened to the actual idea of liberalism? Powerful people do not like it, hence why they try so hard to distort what it is.
|
|
|
|
|
did you delete the old database folders for Bitcoin & for Armory?
|
|
|
|
|
It's worth pointing out that climate scientists don't even agree that CO2 emissions are a problem.
|
|
|
|
While bitcoin isn't responsible for as many emissions as pollution-heavy industries in the US, such as agriculture and transportation, the industry is releasing carbon dioxide at an alarming rate.
Not true. Bitcoin uses renewables, because that's where the cheapest energy prices are. China used to be the problem with that (most Chinsese power plants are coal), but the Chinese government is stopping everything Bitcoin related these days (you'd think businessinsider.com would know that) |
|
|
|
What I don't get is the fiat bit. Where and how do they realise these gains? Presumably their number one reason for crypto interest is their problems with foreign banking but doing stuff like this just creates more need for it.
You're right, this story makes very little sense. Any unofficial business dealings the North Korean government does will be very limited anyway, and the arrangements for that have likely existed for a long time already. Governments don't need cryptocurrency to do under the counter deals, never have and never will. If one assumes the North Korean government are just making small amounts of money using ETH for the fundraising (which they could sell, unlike any ICO token), then it's a mystery how this story even got out (bearing in mind the small amount of people the North Korean government can trade with). If they traded some ETH over the internet for fiat, how did the leaker of this story discover that the fake ID they used was a front for the North Korean government? Very bad journalism. Why are you posting poor quality journalism that even you think is questionable? |
|
|
|
Does anyone have an overview of how many exchanges, wallets and services have fully taken on Segwit and batching compared to the previous fee squeeze? If we were to have similar transaction demands, is BTC now considerably better placed to cope with them? Somewhere between half and 2 thirds of larger bitcoin services allow segwit depositing, and all support sending (as all support any P2SH address). Which is not ideal, but at least most of the way there. Segwit isn't going to help if someone is determined to spam the network, but it will push up the price: the price of the attack increases (as there is more space to fill in a block), and the BTC price may get pushed up too, as the spammer might run out of BTC if they overestimate natural demand. Defining spam is hypothetical to some extent; a sophisticated spammer will craft their spam to be indistinguishable from regular use by individuals (although there were cases in the past where a BTC output was repeatedly spent to the same address in a chain of dependent transactions, which would be a very simple way of scripting some spam, and of no other conceivable purpose) It's hard to tell of course how much of that was Bitmain and others spamming to make a point, but by the time another bubble comes around demand will be that much larger again. What would be the likely outcome if there was a stampede right now? Lightning can take some of the load now, but not that much (there's about 100 BTC on the LN as of today, October 28th). There's probably a small amount of people using lightning for which a big spike in on-chain transactions would be unnoticeable; they've already got as much money as they need into channels already, enough to ride out the spike until it dies off. In the end, Lightning will help to relieve the impact of on-chain transactions queues far more effectively, but not yet. |
|
|
|
So 300 and something people paid taxes on crypto profits of over $1 million in Japan yet no one believes it's that low.
Tax is a fact, it doesn't have to be flat out robbery.
Tax is a bit of a contradictory fact in Japan, huh? I understand the US IRS had similar success in reporting & collecting taxes from cryptocurrency holders. The tax burden is set to continue to rise in developing countries, in no small part to service the rising public debt (but also to support a growing proportion of populations dependent on the welfare state). While powerful corporations and individuals continue to "avoid" taxes, expect regular people to increasingly do the same. Fact. |
|
|
|
And just recently it was Danske Bank which previously told clients and employees to stay away from Bitcoin "due to money laundering implications" and then was penalized for laundering $243 billion. Next time I hear some people talking about Bitcoin's connection to money laundering, I will know, they are engaged in money laundering.
It's (apparently) too easy to forget that the debt-based currencies that banks use are the most serious unethical and corrupt institutions on the planet, not to mention the financial markets. These gangsters are printing money, then adding the same amount of money they print to due taxes, then charging interest on that. That's an epic scam If we complain that Danske or HSBC are laundering money, we may as well complain about Las Vegas being corrupt even though we know that bigger fish in DC are enabling it. The headline should be: MULTI LAYER SCAM: SCAM TOKEN BANK RUNNING ANOTHER SCAM ON TOP |
|
|
|
Right. If you don't understand that Bitcoin just being Bitcoin is a useful result of mining, then you have stuff to learn about. |
|
|
|
Because of the difficulty adjustment and the economic incentives, the equilibrium cost of PoW approaches the value of the block reward. Even if the result of PoW is useful, then the cost of the "wasted" PoW will still approach the value of the block reward. So, nothing is accomplished by making the PoW generate something useful.
Right. Is using Bitcoin useful? If you agree, then mining a Bitcoin is useful. If it's useful, and uses resources (all useful things do), then you can put a price on it. It just so happens to put a price on itself, and pretty efficiently too. If you don't understand Bitcoin's usefulness, you're not likely to appreciate how or why the network functions. If you've got criticisms, but don't understand what it's for or why it works the way it does, it's difficult to know how to help the person who feels that way. Climate change is very real and we need to cut our energy use wherever we can. Climate change is real, but energy use doesn't affect climate change significantly, there's no evidence for it. The energy = security thing makes sense until you calculate how much energy one transaction consumes at which point it becomes gross however you want to frame it. That's thoroughly idiotic. The energy consumed to mine a block is only used to create new BTC supply, it has nothing to do with the transactions in the block. A miner uses the same amount of energy irrespective of how many transactions they include in the block. A block with 0 transactions uses the same amount of electricity as a block with 3000 transactions. To put it another way: if energy used = amount of transactions, why is it that the more energy the Bitcoin miners use, that the maximum amount of transactions stays exactly the same? There is no relationship between transactions and energy, that's why |
|
|
|
But, can you explain why BIP 151 don't provide anonymity to nodes? Excluding de-anonymization method which require full nodes, AFAIK ISP/government/spy at most only can know that it's Bitcoin full nodes traffic without knowing which transaction/block is being transferred.
Traffic encryption (as used in BIP151) only makes your Bitcoin use private, not anonymous. Encryption makes what you send private, not who you are (your identity). Your IP is the most significant identity information that exists on the Bitcoin network. Tor masks your IP from other Bitcoin nodes, dandelion masks which IP a transaction was sent from first. |
|
|
|
The research on the paper happens somewhere in 2014, where BIP 151 about E2EE (end to end encryption) protocol hasn't used by Bitcoin Core or other client
BIP 151/end-to-end encryption aren't used in Bitcoin yet, and they also don't provide anonymity to Bitcoin nodes anyway, so there would be no difference in Bitcoin's anonymity even if they were in use. |
|
|
|
|
It's always interested me to know how well a mobile device handles the satoshi bitcoin client, it's obviously always been possible (and now that people are using Arm A53 class SoC machines like Raspis for full nodes + lightning, it's obviously practical).
I'd recommend supplying the -blocksonly parameter to bitcoind as well as -prune (assuming the app lets you do that easily enough). Your data plan will get crushed if you re-sync the blockchain over your cell connection too regularly, relaying transactions and all the other network messages will make that something like twice as data-hungry.
You want this in your image tags to change image size:
[img height=numberOfPixels][/img]
|
|
|
|
Just the fact that it is owned by Google means that you are probably correct.
I was thinking of it as a convenient communication medium where privacy wasn't an issue.
It helps other people using privacy tech if you use privacy tech even when you don't "need" it (anything mixing traffic together like tor or i2p is more difficult to analyse if the amount to analyse is larger). It helps you too: anyone spying on you knows when you're doing something you want to be private, that makes the job of detecting what you were doing easier.
If google don't remove the ability to use the Linux based parts of Android, then maybe this might be a good thing, but only as a stepping stone to making real Linux more popular. Something tells me google will remove the Linux base one day, as they would more likely perceive my point as a threat to their market position. Dunno though, Apple stuck with using BSD for maybe 20 years, and they've definitely got the resources (and the inclination) to turn macOS into a "Nintendo LockDown" platform, but still haven't done it. Microsoft actually look closer to that than anyone (apparently, Windows 11 or 12 will remove all access to the actual computer, unless you pay alot of extra cash for a "Windows Developer Edition") |
|
|
|
|
Play Services framework is almost certainly a privacy hole in Android. And probably a security hole too.
I say "almost certainly" and "probably" because it's closed source; only Google know what Play Services is actually doing, as only they have the source. I do not recommend Android if you want privacy or security.
|
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
