It's a deflationary system. People will lose wallets (die without clear instructions and such for others to use them, and the like).
And it's hijackable by a single person. When a single person has control of the blockchain long enough, which happens as people drop out of the mining business, a single entity could transfer all coins to themselves, then process the transactions, until they "own" them all. It will happen, and when it does, people will lose faith in all block chain systems, even those without the same limitations.
It's useless at that point anyway,. as if everyone drops out of the network there is no more network to process transactions and the value drops to zero.
Bitcoin as a financial system is made impractical in the long term by the fact that it is limited in the total number that can be issued. After the last one is issued, the intent is for the value of them to simply go up.
A Bitcoin is the solution to a hashing problem for which the ease in calculating a solution goes up with the size of the search space. In a very large search space it's easy to generate a solution, but as the search space becomes smaller you have to spend more time hunting around for a correct solution.
As more solutions are found, the people behind bitcoin validate that 'coin and then shorten the length in bits needed for a valid solution. They have a fixed number in mind that they want to base the currency on, and as the number of solutions found approach that number, they have been shortening the length so that they will eventually have exactly the number they want, and finding new solutions will take an astronomically long time.
There's nothing preventing them from increasing the valid length of solutions and letting people find more. They have explained countless times that this is how they can have actual inflation in their currency.
Countless times of explaining this to the public, and yet people continue to repeat bullshit they've heard "somewhere on the internet" that matches their woldview.
It's no wonder they're having trouble - they're concentrating on their project, but losing the war against propaganda.
That's a totally inaccurate means of explaining this.
The difficulty of finding a solution scales as the network grows, it has nothing to do with the amount of currency in it. Mining continues once the full amount has been released, because mining is about transactions, not block rewards. Once the total amount of the currency exists, then mining is rewarded by transaction fees as there is no more block reward.
The nameless "They" cannot increase the money supply. The entire network would have to vote to fork the code onto a new system to change the monetary limit. There is no "they" that have any control over the network, the only people who control the network are 51%+ of the miners.
Actually both are felonies. Classification of data does not depend on how it is marked. One might be able to make a reasonable argument that they were not aware of some data being classified if it were marked incorrectly or not at all, but with the magnitude of this problem and her position at the time she does not enjoy the ability to make that argument.
So your contention is that if something crosses state lines, the government can seize any computer code related to it in any peripheral way just because they want to?
No, there's actually zero precedent for that. The interstate commerce clause doesn't authorize that.
It's an expert opinion. You can easily go back and look at the editorials in the early bird as I have for a number of years. There's no attempt to mislead there, they put in both sides of the story.
that the Early Bird posted only articles that painted the DOD in a favorable light, has never read the Early Bird. And I say this as one who read the Early Bird for about the last decade and a half.
You don't understand how thoroughly rigged the process is if you think the FBI would ever be required to do that.
There's also the possibility that it isn't possible, because they can't image the drives. At least some of the drives appear to have that particular problem in this case.
If you read the linked court filing, they don't actually have anything.
They found an emule log of downloads (which are pretty sick and if he actually downloaded the files that one would think they are, he's probably guilty -- but they haven't proven that). They can't even prove (only because they're not intelligent enough, but that's to be expected dealing with feds and computers), which drives were connected or that the drive letters in the logs go to. They can't even prove that any of the drives they found were ever actually plugged into the computer.
That's why they want him to decrypt the drives for them. They have essentially zero case against him otherwise.
Which is why they will never be allowed to go mainstream. There is not a single country on Earth that would be ok with allowing its citizens to have the ability to produce weapons.
If that were the case, why do they allow mills and lathes? Anyone can make a functional weapon with a mill and a lathe -- and ironically enough, a 3d printer can make weapon parts but cannot make a complete weapon. You still need the machine tools to make things like barrels that cannot (and never will) be made on a 3d printer.
The evidence presented to the jury (or judge or whatever Finland does) was tampered with, ergo the conviction is invalid. What the police may or may not have had is irrelevant.
How Finnish law deals with the appeal, who knows. But the conviction on tampered evidence is still wrong.
Slashdot Mirror
Can you elaborate a little on the issues with permissionless distributed databases?
It's a deflationary system. People will lose wallets (die without clear instructions and such for others to use them, and the like).
And it's hijackable by a single person. When a single person has control of the blockchain long enough, which happens as people drop out of the mining business, a single entity could transfer all coins to themselves, then process the transactions, until they "own" them all. It will happen, and when it does, people will lose faith in all block chain systems, even those without the same limitations.
It's useless at that point anyway,. as if everyone drops out of the network there is no more network to process transactions and the value drops to zero.
Concur.
Bitcoin as a financial system is made impractical in the long term by the fact that it is limited in the total number that can be issued. After the last one is issued, the intent is for the value of them to simply go up.
A Bitcoin is the solution to a hashing problem for which the ease in calculating a solution goes up with the size of the search space. In a very large search space it's easy to generate a solution, but as the search space becomes smaller you have to spend more time hunting around for a correct solution.
As more solutions are found, the people behind bitcoin validate that 'coin and then shorten the length in bits needed for a valid solution. They have a fixed number in mind that they want to base the currency on, and as the number of solutions found approach that number, they have been shortening the length so that they will eventually have exactly the number they want, and finding new solutions will take an astronomically long time.
There's nothing preventing them from increasing the valid length of solutions and letting people find more. They have explained countless times that this is how they can have actual inflation in their currency.
Countless times of explaining this to the public, and yet people continue to repeat bullshit they've heard "somewhere on the internet" that matches their woldview.
It's no wonder they're having trouble - they're concentrating on their project, but losing the war against propaganda.
That's a totally inaccurate means of explaining this.
The difficulty of finding a solution scales as the network grows, it has nothing to do with the amount of currency in it. Mining continues once the full amount has been released, because mining is about transactions, not block rewards. Once the total amount of the currency exists, then mining is rewarded by transaction fees as there is no more block reward.
The nameless "They" cannot increase the money supply. The entire network would have to vote to fork the code onto a new system to change the monetary limit. There is no "they" that have any control over the network, the only people who control the network are 51%+ of the miners.
The US is a representative republic. It is not now and never has been a democracy.
There is no middle ground. Strong crypto does not allow for the possibility you suggest.
OSX doesn't have any drivers for any common hardware, does it?
Why would anyone use Linux to do that when there's perfectly good BSD?
She absolutely could not authorize any private internet facing server to process the information under discussion.
https://www.whitehouse.gov/the...
Note especially Section 3, part c.
https://www.law.cornell.edu/us...
https://www.law.cornell.edu/us...
This is correct.
Actually both are felonies. Classification of data does not depend on how it is marked. One might be able to make a reasonable argument that they were not aware of some data being classified if it were marked incorrectly or not at all, but with the magnitude of this problem and her position at the time she does not enjoy the ability to make that argument.
No, they can't. That's called "taking" and specifically violates the fifth amendment.
So your contention is that if something crosses state lines, the government can seize any computer code related to it in any peripheral way just because they want to?
No, there's actually zero precedent for that. The interstate commerce clause doesn't authorize that.
Find it in the Constitution. If it's not there (I'll help you out -- it's not), then the authority does not exist.
posting to undo accidental moderation.
Humanities students aren't necessarily computer stupid. A true liberal arts education includes study of the humanities...
There are lots of people in those fields who have good analytical minds.
No you don't.
C++ and Java are both great beginner's languages.
Computer Science is a discipline of mathematics. It has little to do with coding.
I'm pretty sure that's exactly what they did.
It's an expert opinion. You can easily go back and look at the editorials in the early bird as I have for a number of years. There's no attempt to mislead there, they put in both sides of the story.
that the Early Bird posted only articles that painted the DOD in a favorable light, has never read the Early Bird. And I say this as one who read the Early Bird for about the last decade and a half.
You don't understand how thoroughly rigged the process is if you think the FBI would ever be required to do that.
There's also the possibility that it isn't possible, because they can't image the drives. At least some of the drives appear to have that particular problem in this case.
If you read the linked court filing, they don't actually have anything.
They found an emule log of downloads (which are pretty sick and if he actually downloaded the files that one would think they are, he's probably guilty -- but they haven't proven that). They can't even prove (only because they're not intelligent enough, but that's to be expected dealing with feds and computers), which drives were connected or that the drive letters in the logs go to. They can't even prove that any of the drives they found were ever actually plugged into the computer.
That's why they want him to decrypt the drives for them. They have essentially zero case against him otherwise.
Which is why they will never be allowed to go mainstream. There is not a single country on Earth that would be ok with allowing its citizens to have the ability to produce weapons.
If that were the case, why do they allow mills and lathes? Anyone can make a functional weapon with a mill and a lathe -- and ironically enough, a 3d printer can make weapon parts but cannot make a complete weapon. You still need the machine tools to make things like barrels that cannot (and never will) be made on a 3d printer.
The evidence presented to the jury (or judge or whatever Finland does) was tampered with, ergo the conviction is invalid. What the police may or may not have had is irrelevant.
How Finnish law deals with the appeal, who knows. But the conviction on tampered evidence is still wrong.
emacs is an editor? On what planet?
As far as I recall, emacs is a conglomeration of a lot of things, one of which happens to be an editor...