Using a light wallet or a mobile wallet does defeat the decentralization of Bitcoin. If you aren't a full participant, then you're dependent on some locally centralized entity to provide you with the information you don't have, but would have if you were a full, proper participant.... There is no middle ground in this case.
No, Bitcoin was designed that way, on purpose. Mining wasn't supposed to be "free" if you have the hardware. The majority of the computing cost of verifying the blockchain was supposed to be on the miners with the hefty hardware, with remote nodes being a lot more "lightweight".
The whole system and process have been corrupted now by centralized exchanges, which is a corruption of the way Bitcoin was supposed to work.
You can call that a "flaw" in Bitcoin, if you want, since there was no in-built way to prevent that kind of usurpation of intended roles. Nevertheless, it was intended to be used the way GP described: with most end-users having only a "thin client" as it were, and the miners carrying the heavy load.
I think you're the one who's overcomplicating things.
A "robot" is a machine under the control of a human being, and stands in the stead of that human being. Rational liability laws would hold the operator liable if the robot did damage, just like any other machine, because the robot is simply an extension of its controller.
Reasonable laws, then, would also attribute "findings" and good deeds to the robot operator, since the robot, in exactly the same way, is standing in the stead of that human. A representative, as it were.
It would be no different if a corporation hired an explorer to haul up a wreck. Almost invariably the contracts say the find belongs to the corporation, even though the hired explorer actually, physically "made the find".
In Suits at common law, where the value in controversy shall exceed twenty dollars, the right of trial by jury shall be preserved, and no fact tried by a jury, shall be otherwise reexamined in any Court of the United States, than according to the rules of the common law.
Now I'm not going to say the TPP is good, because like every good intentioned policy, there will be overreach
The assumption of good intentions is utterly drowned out by the plethora of blatant evidence of special-interest greed. Check the EFF website if you don't believe.
most child-porn related laws overreach into comics/drawings and video game characters, hence why there are no children in ANY R-rated content in America
Nonsense. In 1996 the U.S. Supreme Court effectively ruled (paraphrased summary): in order for material to be child pornography, it has to (A) be actual pornography, and (B) involve actual children.
The exact wording of the Federal law Congress passed (the CPPA) is pretty much irrelevant, because SCOTUS limited its reach.
That is not to say animated content wouldn't be considered obscene. In many cases it might be. But in this context obscenity and child pornography law are pretty much separate issues.
It's pretty common knowledge what the penalties are for various crimes, such as 1st and 2nd degree murder, etc - anyone who reads the news will know this, with all the shootings going on.
No, it's not.
As another person already pointed out, penalties vary a lot from state to state, and even municipality to municipality in some cases, depending on the charge.
A lot of people in this thread today seem to think there is some kind of universal criminal code in the United States, but it just isn't so. Most criminal laws -- including rape and murder -- are State matters, and not just the sentencing but the actual laws vary from state to state. Similar? Yes, in most cases. The same? No.
There is a body of Federal criminal laws, to be sure, but those are mostly concerned with other things, unless someone who is otherwise a criminal crosses state lines.
That's pretty much what I meant. Crypto can be compromised without being broken. Or maybe "bypassed" is a better word. I don't know.
There are lots of physical examples. Some makers of safes were so enamored with their high-tech electronic locks they neglected good physical design. One security researcher has posted YouTube videos of his 4-year-old opening some.
iOS... you mean the one in which many useful apps aren't even possible because of the sandboxing.
It really is a tradeoff. If you want a perfectly safe world, be prepared to give up a lot of freedom. Personally, I don't want a nanny OS. But that's just my preference.
Since you refuse to provide evidence to back up your accusation,
Wrong again. Why do you have such problems with plain, un-nuanced English? Or even remembering what you're arguing about?
It wasn't an "accusation" you asked me for a link to, it was a comment that Layzej posted in other forums under the same name.
As I have already pointed out, the only evidence I need is that the site in question requires the username and password of the WordPress account, and that the same WordPress account has posted all over the internet about "climate change", before and since. And so has the same Blogger account. Anybody can look them up for themselves, and prove it to their own satisfactions.
Nothing else is required. And no retraction is warranted. Even if I were wrong about the comment I made (I wasn't), the other evidence is plenty sufficient.
Now get lost. Replying to your seemingly incessant trolling and illogic is tedious in the extreme.
Do you see how "a little more direct" is a Jane-ism for "escalation"?
There was no escalation. It was a reply in kind. The fact that the original insult was in politer words doesn't make it any less an insult. Any more than a person who says polite words when they shoot you isn't shooting you. The very notion is ridiculous. But then, that's what I've come to expect from you.
No, you haven't. You keep claiming you have, but that's just a delusional fantasy. Seriously, try to provide a single link as an example.
I really don't give a damn if you don't remember. I do. And I have records to back it up. That's all I care about.
Other than that, and a short reply to your other comment, as I said before I have nothing further to say. Your false claims that I have "never" done this or that are just bait to try to get me to continue responding to your tedious trolling.
Fascinating. If Jane/Lonny weren't a psychopath, he might be able to recognize that not logging when debating someone who desperately tries to suppress speech he doesn't like is (at least) less dishonest than a man logging in as a woman and trying to convince everyone that he's a woman. But Jane/Lonny can't recognize that, can he?
Wow. That comment above is one of your biggest collections of libel yet. I'll be sure to make a record of it.
Where? Link?
It really doesn't matter, since as I already pointed out, whoever made that comment had access to the username and password for the "Layej" account. An account that was used to post about "climate change" all over the internet, and which in fact was used again recently.
Nope. "It's what you want to hear" is a gross insult. The clear insinuation is that Lonny did not use logic or evidence, but made the comment out of emotion or stupidity.
"Dumbass" was simply a reply in like kind. It is a little more direct, but it was no more of an insult than his.
Once again: it takes either provocation (which was given in this case), or a statement of such sheer stupidity that it's clearly called for. Generally, that's something pretty darned stupid.
I've done it many times. Not much point in doing it yet again. I have records of them if needed.
Again, do you really believe that? Lonny, you recently insisted that you don't need to correct yourself even though you gave your word that you would.
I told you very clearly I would *IF* you stopped behaving like an arrogant, lying asshole, as is your usual bent. That hasn't happened yet, and it's beginning to look like it never will. So you'll just have to wait.
I will remind you, just in the way of illustration, that this whole conversational thread began with YOU trolling ME in a discussion which had nothing to do with you or any of this. You made no attempt at all to be on-topic, and just gratuitously trolled clearly off-topic.
That is a form of harassment I asked you to stop years ago.
If you can't bring yourself to stop attempting to harass and bully, you don't deserve my consideration. It's that simple.
According to Lonny Eachus, that's dishonest. You don't want Lonny Eachus to think you're a dishonest woman, do you?
Nonsense. Now you're just plain making shit up. And man... you sure do like to link to your own old statements, no matter how ridiculous they are. You make Narcissus look like a heavyweight.
While still not having the cojones to post under your own name. Guess what... that's dishonest. When you have an account but hide behind Anonymous Coward.
The opportunity to show that your accusations are just blatant psychological projection?
Nice try. "Turnabout" may be "fair play", but you have to actually make it work. That, on the other hand, was just lame.
Fascinating! Jane accuses Layzej of lying by quote-mining out of context and claims "no doubt" that was Layzej's comment because others referred to his account here on Slashdot by name. And yet Jane can't bring himself to quote the comment which referred to Layzej's account and led Jane to his "no doubt" conclusion. Odd, isn't it? Especially since Jane's entire accusation revolves around quote-mining out of context. Let's see that comment:
That's not what I referred to. The comment I referred to was on a different site. But that's really immaterial. There's a big problem with your idea: that site requires (and has required) a login with a WordPress account in order to post a comment. For someone to have posted that comment, they would have had to have access to the same email account(s) and password(s) as the real Layzej. The site does not allow you to post under a different name.
While it's remotely possible someone else had access, it's hardly likely. "Layzej" has posted all over the internet on sites related to climate change, using the same Blogger and WordPress accounts. Anybody who wants to can spend a few minutes on google and easily see for themselves they were obviously made by the same person.
So... sorry, your misdirection isn't going to fly.
Why, by the way, are you trying so hard to defend against people knowing plain, clear facts about this Layzej person? Enough to be willing to attack other people over it? I find that very interesting.
How fascinating that Lonny Eachus projects his own sociopathy onto others. Lonny, you cuss at many people at the drop of a hat. The only common element in all those exchanges is a sociopath named Jane/Lonny Eachus.
What I find fascinating is that your link is to an entire collection of tweets which are, just like nearly all of your other links, taken completely out of context.
It doesn't show the prior trolling or harassment over time, or in a few cases yes, just plain "dumbass" things people say. Again, you are personally one of the worst offenders.
And simultaneously too cowardly to show us who you are. Even though I already know.
How fascinating that Lonny Eachus projects his own sociopathy onto others. Lonny, you cuss at many people at the drop of a hat. The only common element in all those exchanges is a sociopath named Jane/Lonny Eachus.
Nice try, but no. There is no "drop of a hat". It takes trolling and harassment before I swear at people. You have been one of the worst offenders, as this latest lie of yours demonstrates.
Fascinating. Jane/Lonny's neverending libelous harassment of many scientists is apparently "civilized" in Janeland. But asking Jane simple questions and debunking Lonny Eachus's baseless accusations is apparently not "civilized" in Janeland.
What you SEEM to fail to understand is that there is a difference between criticizing someone, and libel. Libel is a deliberate untruth. I have demonstrated many times that you intentionally post public lies about people. I don't. As much as reasonably possible I tell fact- and evidence-based truth.
Am I wrong sometimes? It happens. But not intentionally, and when I've found that it has, I correct myself. You don't.
The reason I wrote "seem" is that you really do understand it. You just use pretend ignorance as an excuse to continue your libel.
Even more fascinating, in Janeland Lonny Eachus isn't responsible for all his cussing. That's totally out of his control, and is prompted by other people. Is Lonny responsible for anything Lonny does, or is that all someone else's fault?
Yet again, a claim that has no basis in reality. I wrote nothing of the sort. I take responsibility for my cussing. But that doesn't change the fact that it's prompted by reprehensible behavior on the part of others.
Things like this are why I don't subscribe to Scribd or its ilk.
They neglect to mention that while only 3% of the users were downloading lots of media, everyone else was also paying for "unlimited" service they didn't really use.
Scribd's stance seems to be: "It's just too expensive to offer the service we actually promised. So everyone is now going to pay for our screwup."
I will repeat something I have stated before (and linked to sources): trolling of the sort you do is generally regarded by psychologists to be a form of sociopathic behavior.
I will not apologize for cussing at sociopathic behavior.
Slashdot Mirror
Using a light wallet or a mobile wallet does defeat the decentralization of Bitcoin. If you aren't a full participant, then you're dependent on some locally centralized entity to provide you with the information you don't have, but would have if you were a full, proper participant. ... There is no middle ground in this case.
No, Bitcoin was designed that way, on purpose. Mining wasn't supposed to be "free" if you have the hardware. The majority of the computing cost of verifying the blockchain was supposed to be on the miners with the hefty hardware, with remote nodes being a lot more "lightweight".
The whole system and process have been corrupted now by centralized exchanges, which is a corruption of the way Bitcoin was supposed to work.
You can call that a "flaw" in Bitcoin, if you want, since there was no in-built way to prevent that kind of usurpation of intended roles. Nevertheless, it was intended to be used the way GP described: with most end-users having only a "thin client" as it were, and the miners carrying the heavy load.
I think you're the one who's overcomplicating things.
A "robot" is a machine under the control of a human being, and stands in the stead of that human being. Rational liability laws would hold the operator liable if the robot did damage, just like any other machine, because the robot is simply an extension of its controller.
Reasonable laws, then, would also attribute "findings" and good deeds to the robot operator, since the robot, in exactly the same way, is standing in the stead of that human. A representative, as it were.
It would be no different if a corporation hired an explorer to haul up a wreck. Almost invariably the contracts say the find belongs to the corporation, even though the hired explorer actually, physically "made the find".
In Suits at common law, where the value in controversy shall exceed twenty dollars, the right of trial by jury shall be preserved, and no fact tried by a jury, shall be otherwise reexamined in any Court of the United States, than according to the rules of the common law.
Now I'm not going to say the TPP is good, because like every good intentioned policy, there will be overreach
The assumption of good intentions is utterly drowned out by the plethora of blatant evidence of special-interest greed. Check the EFF website if you don't believe.
most child-porn related laws overreach into comics/drawings and video game characters, hence why there are no children in ANY R-rated content in America
Nonsense. In 1996 the U.S. Supreme Court effectively ruled (paraphrased summary): in order for material to be child pornography, it has to (A) be actual pornography, and (B) involve actual children.
The exact wording of the Federal law Congress passed (the CPPA) is pretty much irrelevant, because SCOTUS limited its reach.
That is not to say animated content wouldn't be considered obscene. In many cases it might be. But in this context obscenity and child pornography law are pretty much separate issues.
It's pretty common knowledge what the penalties are for various crimes, such as 1st and 2nd degree murder, etc - anyone who reads the news will know this, with all the shootings going on.
No, it's not.
As another person already pointed out, penalties vary a lot from state to state, and even municipality to municipality in some cases, depending on the charge.
A lot of people in this thread today seem to think there is some kind of universal criminal code in the United States, but it just isn't so. Most criminal laws -- including rape and murder -- are State matters, and not just the sentencing but the actual laws vary from state to state. Similar? Yes, in most cases. The same? No.
There is a body of Federal criminal laws, to be sure, but those are mostly concerned with other things, unless someone who is otherwise a criminal crosses state lines.
That's pretty much what I meant. Crypto can be compromised without being broken. Or maybe "bypassed" is a better word. I don't know.
There are lots of physical examples. Some makers of safes were so enamored with their high-tech electronic locks they neglected good physical design. One security researcher has posted YouTube videos of his 4-year-old opening some.
Sure. Now explain how to get that firmware onto a locked phone.
If Apple can do that, then indeed the crypto is compromised. If they can't, it's not.
Android requires user intervention (therefore, unlocked phone) before an OS update.
You are in serious need of a better blocker. Try NoScript.
iOS... you mean the one in which many useful apps aren't even possible because of the sandboxing.
It really is a tradeoff. If you want a perfectly safe world, be prepared to give up a lot of freedom. Personally, I don't want a nanny OS. But that's just my preference.
Since you refuse to provide evidence to back up your accusation,
Wrong again. Why do you have such problems with plain, un-nuanced English? Or even remembering what you're arguing about?
It wasn't an "accusation" you asked me for a link to, it was a comment that Layzej posted in other forums under the same name.
As I have already pointed out, the only evidence I need is that the site in question requires the username and password of the WordPress account, and that the same WordPress account has posted all over the internet about "climate change", before and since. And so has the same Blogger account. Anybody can look them up for themselves, and prove it to their own satisfactions.
Nothing else is required. And no retraction is warranted. Even if I were wrong about the comment I made (I wasn't), the other evidence is plenty sufficient.
Now get lost. Replying to your seemingly incessant trolling and illogic is tedious in the extreme.
Do you see how "a little more direct" is a Jane-ism for "escalation"?
There was no escalation. It was a reply in kind. The fact that the original insult was in politer words doesn't make it any less an insult. Any more than a person who says polite words when they shoot you isn't shooting you. The very notion is ridiculous. But then, that's what I've come to expect from you.
No, you haven't. You keep claiming you have, but that's just a delusional fantasy. Seriously, try to provide a single link as an example.
I really don't give a damn if you don't remember. I do. And I have records to back it up. That's all I care about.
Other than that, and a short reply to your other comment, as I said before I have nothing further to say. Your false claims that I have "never" done this or that are just bait to try to get me to continue responding to your tedious trolling.
Fascinating. If Jane/Lonny weren't a psychopath, he might be able to recognize that not logging when debating someone who desperately tries to suppress speech he doesn't like is (at least) less dishonest than a man logging in as a woman and trying to convince everyone that he's a woman. But Jane/Lonny can't recognize that, can he?
Wow. That comment above is one of your biggest collections of libel yet. I'll be sure to make a record of it.
Where? Link?
It really doesn't matter, since as I already pointed out, whoever made that comment had access to the username and password for the "Layej" account. An account that was used to post about "climate change" all over the internet, and which in fact was used again recently.
I am not going to reply to you in this thread anymore. It's just tedious replies to your made-up BS. I have better things to do.
So this cussing was totally justified in Janeland?
Yes. See the explanation in my reply to your other comment about the same thing.
At the drop of a hat, Lonny.
Nope. "It's what you want to hear" is a gross insult. The clear insinuation is that Lonny did not use logic or evidence, but made the comment out of emotion or stupidity.
"Dumbass" was simply a reply in like kind. It is a little more direct, but it was no more of an insult than his.
Once again: it takes either provocation (which was given in this case), or a statement of such sheer stupidity that it's clearly called for. Generally, that's something pretty darned stupid.
Try to provide a link to back up your accusation.
I've done it many times. Not much point in doing it yet again. I have records of them if needed.
Again, do you really believe that? Lonny, you recently insisted that you don't need to correct yourself even though you gave your word that you would.
I told you very clearly I would *IF* you stopped behaving like an arrogant, lying asshole, as is your usual bent. That hasn't happened yet, and it's beginning to look like it never will. So you'll just have to wait.
I will remind you, just in the way of illustration, that this whole conversational thread began with YOU trolling ME in a discussion which had nothing to do with you or any of this. You made no attempt at all to be on-topic, and just gratuitously trolled clearly off-topic.
That is a form of harassment I asked you to stop years ago.
If you can't bring yourself to stop attempting to harass and bully, you don't deserve my consideration. It's that simple.
According to Lonny Eachus, that's dishonest. You don't want Lonny Eachus to think you're a dishonest woman, do you?
Nonsense. Now you're just plain making shit up. And man... you sure do like to link to your own old statements, no matter how ridiculous they are. You make Narcissus look like a heavyweight.
While still not having the cojones to post under your own name. Guess what... that's dishonest. When you have an account but hide behind Anonymous Coward.
The opportunity to show that your accusations are just blatant psychological projection?
Nice try. "Turnabout" may be "fair play", but you have to actually make it work. That, on the other hand, was just lame.
Fascinating! Jane accuses Layzej of lying by quote-mining out of context and claims "no doubt" that was Layzej's comment because others referred to his account here on Slashdot by name. And yet Jane can't bring himself to quote the comment which referred to Layzej's account and led Jane to his "no doubt" conclusion. Odd, isn't it? Especially since Jane's entire accusation revolves around quote-mining out of context. Let's see that comment:
That's not what I referred to. The comment I referred to was on a different site. But that's really immaterial. There's a big problem with your idea: that site requires (and has required) a login with a WordPress account in order to post a comment. For someone to have posted that comment, they would have had to have access to the same email account(s) and password(s) as the real Layzej. The site does not allow you to post under a different name.
While it's remotely possible someone else had access, it's hardly likely. "Layzej" has posted all over the internet on sites related to climate change, using the same Blogger and WordPress accounts. Anybody who wants to can spend a few minutes on google and easily see for themselves they were obviously made by the same person.
So... sorry, your misdirection isn't going to fly.
Why, by the way, are you trying so hard to defend against people knowing plain, clear facts about this Layzej person? Enough to be willing to attack other people over it? I find that very interesting.
How fascinating that Lonny Eachus projects his own sociopathy onto others. Lonny, you cuss at many people at the drop of a hat. The only common element in all those exchanges is a sociopath named Jane/Lonny Eachus.
What I find fascinating is that your link is to an entire collection of tweets which are, just like nearly all of your other links, taken completely out of context.
It doesn't show the prior trolling or harassment over time, or in a few cases yes, just plain "dumbass" things people say. Again, you are personally one of the worst offenders.
And simultaneously too cowardly to show us who you are. Even though I already know.
How fascinating that Lonny Eachus projects his own sociopathy onto others. Lonny, you cuss at many people at the drop of a hat. The only common element in all those exchanges is a sociopath named Jane/Lonny Eachus.
Nice try, but no. There is no "drop of a hat". It takes trolling and harassment before I swear at people. You have been one of the worst offenders, as this latest lie of yours demonstrates.
Fascinating. Jane/Lonny's neverending libelous harassment of many scientists is apparently "civilized" in Janeland. But asking Jane simple questions and debunking Lonny Eachus's baseless accusations is apparently not "civilized" in Janeland.
What you SEEM to fail to understand is that there is a difference between criticizing someone, and libel. Libel is a deliberate untruth. I have demonstrated many times that you intentionally post public lies about people. I don't. As much as reasonably possible I tell fact- and evidence-based truth.
Am I wrong sometimes? It happens. But not intentionally, and when I've found that it has, I correct myself. You don't.
The reason I wrote "seem" is that you really do understand it. You just use pretend ignorance as an excuse to continue your libel.
Even more fascinating, in Janeland Lonny Eachus isn't responsible for all his cussing. That's totally out of his control, and is prompted by other people. Is Lonny responsible for anything Lonny does, or is that all someone else's fault?
Yet again, a claim that has no basis in reality. I wrote nothing of the sort. I take responsibility for my cussing. But that doesn't change the fact that it's prompted by reprehensible behavior on the part of others.
Things like this are why I don't subscribe to Scribd or its ilk.
They neglect to mention that while only 3% of the users were downloading lots of media, everyone else was also paying for "unlimited" service they didn't really use.
Scribd's stance seems to be: "It's just too expensive to offer the service we actually promised. So everyone is now going to pay for our screwup."
$300 Million a year is about $2.40 per household per year.
This is the kind of BS our Federal government makes regulations about. Time to kick them out and re-establish Constitutional government.
I will repeat something I have stated before (and linked to sources): trolling of the sort you do is generally regarded by psychologists to be a form of sociopathic behavior.
I will not apologize for cussing at sociopathic behavior.
If you stopped the harassment and trolling behavior, which prompt the cussing, THAT might qualify as civilized.