It's not just a matter of clones that are functionally as good as the original and therefor driving down prices, but cheap shitty knockoffs that are barely functional...
I am thinking if you have registered trademarks and done the proper legwork to protect your intellectual property, then anybody making a 'clone' or 'knock off' of your product confusingly described to appear like yours is a person you can potentially file a lawsuit against and recover for loss in court....
Ii.e. events which occur in one reference frame and which do not occur in another because someone stopped them.
Perhaps, you could say that Faster than Light Transmission is instant, because it "Skips" space.
Then the space of potential valid reference frames you can construct becomes discontinuous.
In other words, those "Reference frames that are paradoxes" , are actually invalid reference frames which do not even exist, for transmission of information that "skips" over spacetime directly from sender to recipient without traversing the causal space and time in-between.
The ones screaming and frothing at the mouth, claiming "Obama's gonna take yer guns!" are the ones who probably should not have access to crayons and a pencil sharpener
Bigoted folks like the author of the above comment making Ad-Hominem attacks against large groups of people because of their lawful expression of well-reasoned fears are the reason gun control must never be allowed in a free society founded on the principle of limited government such as the US.
What gun control really means is "Centralized gun ownership"; in the hands of the government and small number of people approved by the government ---- thus gun control is diametrically opposite to the 2nd amendment which is intended to guarantee the states and people the rights to have militia as a defense against enemies both foreign and domestic, and a check against the power of the federal government and its military.
I'd argue more people are dying suddenly now because of inactivity and obesity that technology makes possible
You don't have any data to support that, because you see, that isn't true.
It doesn't matter what the global affect of the cell phone technology is; however,
It is still a form of murder to employee a cellphone jammer: if someone in need of assistance cannot make a timely emergency call due to the jamming, and the person dies because of no assistance, or because of additional time it took responders due to the jamming of the emergency call.
I would say sentence the guy who used the jammer to the electric chair, in this case.
I guess I was just lucky to survive the dark ages before mobiles existed
And more people died back then (unpreventably) due to this, so it is an irrelevent point.
If someone could call for help and get assistance faster (greater chance of surviving), and you interfere with this, then you become liable for their death, and if you did it with knowledge and/or intent, or a legal equivalent (such as reckless negligence), then criminally liable.
I have learned, that when it comes to the media in the post-dot-com social-media era (past 10 years or so).... the pictures, and often portions of the video clips contain stock imagery.
So they mention a buoy, and then they might locate a stock image, or a short clip of stock video featuring a buoy to
edit into their report for visual purposes.
Use of stock media makes it really hard to say anything definitive by looking at pictures from a news report, but the technical reports did say the buoy is a warning buoy.
Which probably makes sense come to think of it, after seeing more info... Because of the velocity cap;
this shouldn't really be a hazard to boats, And the major consideration would be:
don't drop an anchor onto the structure....... Not a hazard unless you dive down to the bottom and
get pretty darn close to the inlet
Diving is inherently dangerous.... not approaching random pipes or unlatching gates around structures
you do not know about; ought to have been covered in safety training.
Also, I think mooring to someone's buoy, and proceeding without researching it, should be seen as a waiver
of all right to pursue any damages in court.
Boaters MUST know how to identify Buoys, Otherwise, they should not have a license to drive a boat or be part of a boating crew, and should not be navigating....
YELLOW BUOYS INDICATE VARIOUS HAZARDS.
The boater must identify what the Buoy is instructing before approaching, let alone mooring to it.
Information and Regulatory Marks
These orange-and-white Aids are used to alert vessel operators to various warnings and
regulations.....
Exclusion:
A diamond shape
with a cross means
boats are prohibited
from the area
The reservoir where the man surfaced does not appear to be within the secure area of the facility. One could jump into the water from a low bridge crossing on S Ocean Dr.
I would suspect that if the diver chose to continue ignoring warning buoys, dove, and walked the bottom of the reservoir he wound up in, he would eventually find yet another intake that would suck him in, and this one would likely be an impeller/pump-driven intake......
That's all this legislation really is, and it is completely legal.
No it's not. Passing a purchasing requirement providing vendors to provide weak or backdoored
encryption to the government purchasers would be constitutional (But stupid); however, passing such
law, and saying it only applies to Apple by name would be unconstitutional.
Legitimate purchasing regulation treats all vendors equally under the law.
You can pass regulations requiring certain activities or prohibiting certain activities from vendors, but you
cannot have a regulation requiring certain activities of vendor X but not vendor Y for the same product or service.
In other words: THE LAW AS WRITTEN would have to require the same conditions for purchases from ANY COMPANY meeting legal criteria that stand up to 14th amendment scrutiny as necessary discrimination; not just Apple.
Presumably they'll do what Google, Apple, FB and the rest of the tech-cartels do when they want to muscle in on something: buy it in.
The autonomous technology does not exist, and you cannot just buy it. Also, hiring more developers than Google does not get you a higher quality AI technology faster. You cannot also get a viable autonomous vehicle AI technology just by developing a bunch of independent pieces by different developers such as "obstacle avoidance" and trying to string them together randomly to make it seem like an intelligence.
The "just Buy an AI" to get it faster does not work for the same reason that if you are unhappy having to wait 9 months to get a new baby: you can't just go get 9 women pregnant and have a baby in 1 month.
Developing the first AI system to do something requires extensive help from employees with a very high level of knowledge and skill in some areas that is quite scarce in the industry, essentially... P.h. D. level of ability computer scientists who have the AI foundation to build the machine learning and mapping systems.
Also, even if you had four times as many contributors as Google does not mean you can halve the development time.
BMW has been making cars since 1916. How long has Google been making them?
Making a car does not require or entail any original research. All the information necessary to make a car has been published and is publicly available for more than 100 years, and 50 years extra experience on a commodity technology such as the Internal Combustion Engine doesn't give you any real advantages over a 24 month timeframe. There are tools that automate much of the development process, and Google has already prototyped vehicles ---- they certainly could be mass producing them for the public, If the self-driving function were ready for primetime.
How hard is it for established manufacturers to get the tens of thousands of parts in a road car 100% correct at design time?
To optimize for an autonomous vehicle; the manufacturers essentially have to start all over with a fundamentally new design.
It's no easier to get all the pieces right, just because their company has designed good products in the past.
The differences are big enough, that their prior work does not consist of reusable pieces. It doesn't help them tackle the self-driving part.
The "Car Part" is just a commodity, and Google could partner with/outsource that to any vehicle manufacturer and have it done in less than a year, if they wanted.
Google is about to get some serious competition in the self-driving car race from none other than BMW
Google has been working on this AI problem since probably 2008 or so and been road-testing self-driving cars since 2011. As far as I know BMW has no development at all on this concept.
What makes BMW think they have some great insight into the artificial intelligence problem, that will make it possible for them to emerge as a serious autonomous vehicle competitor today, if Google is already 5 years ahead in learning and development of the software, data collection, and STILL does not believe their fully autonomous vehicle can be fully productized until 2020?
Even Tesla has a head start on BMW.
Autonomous driving is not a simple solved problem.
It's not like you can just slap a clone together and have it out within a year or something....
Research and development is an extremely long process, there, and as far as I know BMW's R and D is focused on building cars.... they probably don't have people who even know about robotics, let-alone AI for the self-driving problem.
This act would be a flagrant violation of Apple's 14th amendment right to equal protection under the law.
You cannot have an act of congress specifying that fewer rights, or different rules or laws apply to an individual (or corporation)
than everything else, particularly not as a result of exercise of constitutionally protected rights to challenge
unlawful orders...., the constitution prohibits as much.
I can write a hello world program but I can't copyright it because it is too basic to be considered a creative work
False.... you can write a hello world program and copyright it. You might have some trouble enforcing that copyright, particularly if someone else already wrote an identical one.
With some minor tweaks/additions to your Hello world program, then it will be subject to the full protections of copyright.
I don't think the EFF is being inconsistent at all in their stance on these issues.
The EFF doesn't even have to have a 100% consistent sequence of arguments for everything. There are multiple people in the EFF.
They can make arguments for EFF positions where the argument conflict with the arguments for other EFF positions.
And that's OK; it does not mean they are inconsistent. It means that either some of those arguments will turn out to not apply in the same situations, or to the extent people imagine.
Bind their hands and legs and toss them in Lake Guerlédan.
The ones that drown were innocent..... those that manage to float or get to the surface
are guilty, so lock them in prison for life and throw away the key.
Nobody would stop to ask for consent. A nuclear attack means instant retaliation.
Not necessarily. An "instant retaliation" requires presidential authorization to launch missiles in response, and President Obama's character is such that he will never approve of launching the nukes, not even in retaliation after a first strike from NK turns San Francisco or New York City into a glowing pile of ash.
Beyond beefier network nodes, there are a number of approaches to offloading transactions off the main Bitcoin blockchain. Most of these are not ready for use yet
A good reason to not change block sizes, at least not yet.
If you shorten the interval, you either have to halve the generation amount, or change the total number of coins which will be generated.
Obviously: adjust the generation amount to correct the discrepancy.
This also helps with the problem that Confirmations take too long.
The 1 MB limit was only supposed to be temporary.
The protocol has this arbitrary limit. Who is to say that this is only going to be a temporary limit?
Consider that changing the size of a block may not be the best way of ultimately achieving the desired objectives,
even if someone had suggested it before.
If you comply once, then you greatly weaken any objections to complying again.
If Apple wants to strengthen their objections; they should probably initiate a process of rotating/replacing their code signing keys on new/existing devices with an emergency software update.
Then once the vast majority of devices have updated, initiate the process of expeditiously destroying the previous key material.
At that point, they will be incapable of signing a custom firmware which the old device will recognize, because the required secret keys no longer exist.
and is withholding submits so it can privately mine them before distributing them.
Methinks the Bitcoin network should add a secondary Blockchain to get rid of this "witholding" nonsense...
After someone mines a block on the primary chain, they have to submit it to other miners who will immediately
start working on mining a block on the secondary chain. If someone else gets their mined block included on the secondary chain first,
then all the first miner's with-held submissions are essentially invalidated.
If there are conflicting versions of the primary blockchain, then only versions consistent with the secondary chain can be accepted.
If there are conflicting versions of the secondary blockchain, then only versions consistent with the primary chain can be accepted.
Also, the next block on the primary chain has to include a unique hash from the secondary chain and vice versa,
and the next block on the primary chain includes a fixed 5 BTC award for whichever address mined the previous block on the secondary chain.
Finally, the secondary chain should use a fundamentally different hashing algorithm from the primary chain, AND thus the Primary chain is doubly secured using two different hashes.
I would suggest the secondary chain use a combination of Block Cipher and Hash algorithms that is very strong, requires a ton of space (e.g. 4 Gigabytes of memory per Hash computation), and cannot be parallelized, and of course, the difficulty should adjust mining the secondary just as with the primary blockchain.
For example, something such as some hash suite combination;
INPUT = Data being hashed
INSALT = Input Salt Hash of the previous block
a = AES256Encrypt on key=SHA256 of INPUT,iv=SHA256 of INPUT)[0..n], text=INPUT
b = randomsalt miner's choice
c = randomkey miner's choice
d = randomstring miner's choice, Padded with NULs to N Gigabytes
d1 = SHA256(INSALT+INPUT) + SHA256(INSALT+SHA256(INPUT)) + SHA256(INSALT+SHA256(SHA256(INPUT))) +.... +
continue to concatenate until length reaches N Gigabytes
d2 = MD5(INSALT+INPUT) + MD5(INSALT+SHA256(INPUT)) + MD5(INSALT+SHA256(SHA256(INPUT))) +.... + continue to concatenate until length reaches N Gigabytes
d3 = Keccac(b+INSALT+INPUT) + Keccak(INSALT+b+SHA256(INPUT)) + Keccakc(INSALT+b+Keccac(b+Keccac(b+SHA512(INPUT)))) +.... +
e = (d + d2) XOR REVERSE(d1 + d3) XOR REVERSE(d2 + d) XOR AES256Encrypt(b XOR d3,d+d2) XOR AES256Encrypt(b XOR d2,d2+d3)
f = BCRYPT(workfactor=20, salt=b, text= a + e )
g = Keccak512(b, f + e + WPA2Hash(d XOR d2 XOR d3) + MD5(d1 XOR d2) + SHA256(d2 XOR d3) + SHA-3(d1 XOR d3) )
h = MD5(g)
i = AES256Encrypt(key=SHA256(randomkey), iv=[0...2], INPUT + randomstring + h + g + f)
j = AES256Encrypt( key = SHA256(i), iv = SHA256(i)[0...n], i + e + d + c )
k = AES256Encrypt( key = SHA256(k), iv = SHA256(k)[0...n], b + a + c )
OUTPUT = SHAKE256(i + j + MD5(j) + k +j)
Besides this issue, I recently read that the block size debate between 1 or 2 MB is heated. Is it just a small hiccup the the sign the Bitcoin is reaching it limits?
I think they want a bigger block, so placement within a block is less scarce, And the network as a whole can do more transactions per second.
Why not reduce the target from 10 minutes per block to 5 minutes per block, instead, however?
Slashdot Mirror
It's not just a matter of clones that are functionally as good as the original and therefor driving down prices, but cheap shitty knockoffs that are barely functional ...
I am thinking if you have registered trademarks and done the proper legwork to protect your intellectual property, then anybody making a 'clone' or 'knock off' of your product confusingly described to appear like yours is a person you can potentially file a lawsuit against and recover for loss in court....
Ii.e. events which occur in one reference frame and which do not occur in another because someone stopped them.
Perhaps, you could say that Faster than Light Transmission is instant, because it "Skips" space.
Then the space of potential valid reference frames you can construct becomes discontinuous.
In other words, those "Reference frames that are paradoxes" , are actually invalid reference frames which do not even exist, for transmission of information that "skips" over spacetime directly from sender to recipient without traversing the causal space and time in-between.
The ones screaming and frothing at the mouth, claiming "Obama's gonna take yer guns!" are the ones who probably should not have access to crayons and a pencil sharpener
Bigoted folks like the author of the above comment making Ad-Hominem attacks against large groups of people because of their lawful expression of well-reasoned fears are the reason gun control must never be allowed in a free society founded on the principle of limited government such as the US.
What gun control really means is "Centralized gun ownership"; in the hands of the government and small number of people approved by the government ---- thus gun control is diametrically opposite to the 2nd amendment which is intended to guarantee the states and people the rights to have militia as a defense against enemies both foreign and domestic, and a check against the power of the federal government and its military.
I'd argue more people are dying suddenly now because of inactivity and obesity that technology makes possible
You don't have any data to support that, because you see, that isn't true.
It doesn't matter what the global affect of the cell phone technology is; however, It is still a form of murder to employee a cellphone jammer: if someone in need of assistance cannot make a timely emergency call due to the jamming, and the person dies because of no assistance, or because of additional time it took responders due to the jamming of the emergency call.
I would say sentence the guy who used the jammer to the electric chair, in this case.
What next?
Why don't we just have the vendor self-generate a GUID to use to refer to the security vulnerability?
Whoever notes the vulnerability first generates a GUID, and MITRE's only Job becomes to provide a database of the GUIDs.
I guess I was just lucky to survive the dark ages before mobiles existed
And more people died back then (unpreventably) due to this, so it is an irrelevent point.
If someone could call for help and get assistance faster (greater chance of surviving), and you interfere with this, then you become liable for their death, and if you did it with knowledge and/or intent, or a legal equivalent (such as reckless negligence), then criminally liable.
the Daily Mail article has a picture of the buoy.
Are you sure this is the actual Buoy?
I have learned, that when it comes to the media in the post-dot-com social-media era (past 10 years or so).... the pictures, and often portions of the video clips contain stock imagery.
So they mention a buoy, and then they might locate a stock image, or a short clip of stock video featuring a buoy to edit into their report for visual purposes.
Use of stock media makes it really hard to say anything definitive by looking at pictures from a news report, but the technical reports did say the buoy is a warning buoy.
There is no reason that couldn't happen automatically.
Hasn't that literally been done thousands of times? Remember Pagecloud?
Static HTML generators.... I imagine eventually any mass-market hosting provider left will have one.
Except the buoy is yellow, which is special aids.
Which probably makes sense come to think of it, after seeing more info... Because of the velocity cap; this shouldn't really be a hazard to boats, And the major consideration would be: don't drop an anchor onto the structure....... Not a hazard unless you dive down to the bottom and get pretty darn close to the inlet
Diving is inherently dangerous.... not approaching random pipes or unlatching gates around structures you do not know about; ought to have been covered in safety training.
Also, I think mooring to someone's buoy, and proceeding without researching it, should be seen as a waiver of all right to pursue any damages in court.
said he saw it but didn't know what it meant.
Boaters MUST know how to identify Buoys, Otherwise, they should not have a license to drive a boat or be part of a boating crew, and should not be navigating....
YELLOW BUOYS INDICATE VARIOUS HAZARDS.
The boater must identify what the Buoy is instructing before approaching, let alone mooring to it.
Information and Regulatory Marks These orange-and-white Aids are used to alert vessel operators to various warnings and regulations. ....
Exclusion:
A diamond shape
with a cross means
boats are prohibited
from the area
The reservoir where the man surfaced does not appear to be within the secure area of the facility. One could jump into the water from a low bridge crossing on S Ocean Dr.
I would suspect that if the diver chose to continue ignoring warning buoys, dove, and walked the bottom of the reservoir he wound up in, he would eventually find yet another intake that would suck him in, and this one would likely be an impeller/pump-driven intake......
That's all this legislation really is, and it is completely legal.
No it's not. Passing a purchasing requirement providing vendors to provide weak or backdoored encryption to the government purchasers would be constitutional (But stupid); however, passing such law, and saying it only applies to Apple by name would be unconstitutional.
Legitimate purchasing regulation treats all vendors equally under the law.
You can pass regulations requiring certain activities or prohibiting certain activities from vendors, but you cannot have a regulation requiring certain activities of vendor X but not vendor Y for the same product or service.
In other words: THE LAW AS WRITTEN would have to require the same conditions for purchases from ANY COMPANY meeting legal criteria that stand up to 14th amendment scrutiny as necessary discrimination; not just Apple.
Presumably they'll do what Google, Apple, FB and the rest of the tech-cartels do when they want to muscle in on something: buy it in.
The autonomous technology does not exist, and you cannot just buy it. Also, hiring more developers than Google does not get you a higher quality AI technology faster. You cannot also get a viable autonomous vehicle AI technology just by developing a bunch of independent pieces by different developers such as "obstacle avoidance" and trying to string them together randomly to make it seem like an intelligence.
The "just Buy an AI" to get it faster does not work for the same reason that if you are unhappy having to wait 9 months to get a new baby: you can't just go get 9 women pregnant and have a baby in 1 month.
Developing the first AI system to do something requires extensive help from employees with a very high level of knowledge and skill in some areas that is quite scarce in the industry, essentially... P.h. D. level of ability computer scientists who have the AI foundation to build the machine learning and mapping systems.
Also, even if you had four times as many contributors as Google does not mean you can halve the development time.
BMW has been making cars since 1916. How long has Google been making them?
Making a car does not require or entail any original research. All the information necessary to make a car has been published and is publicly available for more than 100 years, and 50 years extra experience on a commodity technology such as the Internal Combustion Engine doesn't give you any real advantages over a 24 month timeframe. There are tools that automate much of the development process, and Google has already prototyped vehicles ---- they certainly could be mass producing them for the public, If the self-driving function were ready for primetime.
How hard is it for established manufacturers to get the tens of thousands of parts in a road car 100% correct at design time?
To optimize for an autonomous vehicle; the manufacturers essentially have to start all over with a fundamentally new design. It's no easier to get all the pieces right, just because their company has designed good products in the past. The differences are big enough, that their prior work does not consist of reusable pieces. It doesn't help them tackle the self-driving part.
The "Car Part" is just a commodity, and Google could partner with/outsource that to any vehicle manufacturer and have it done in less than a year, if they wanted.
I can hear them typing away furiously on their Macbooks from here.
Dear Macbook users; please send your complaints to Apple, and also go to their stores to complain.
Demand a product that has a VR-suitable GPU.... that's the only way to make progress.
Google is about to get some serious competition in the self-driving car race from none other than BMW
Google has been working on this AI problem since probably 2008 or so and been road-testing self-driving cars since 2011. As far as I know BMW has no development at all on this concept.
What makes BMW think they have some great insight into the artificial intelligence problem, that will make it possible for them to emerge as a serious autonomous vehicle competitor today, if Google is already 5 years ahead in learning and development of the software, data collection, and STILL does not believe their fully autonomous vehicle can be fully productized until 2020?
Even Tesla has a head start on BMW.
Autonomous driving is not a simple solved problem. It's not like you can just slap a clone together and have it out within a year or something....
Research and development is an extremely long process, there, and as far as I know BMW's R and D is focused on building cars.... they probably don't have people who even know about robotics, let-alone AI for the self-driving problem.
This act would be a flagrant violation of Apple's 14th amendment right to equal protection under the law.
You cannot have an act of congress specifying that fewer rights, or different rules or laws apply to an individual (or corporation) than everything else, particularly not as a result of exercise of constitutionally protected rights to challenge unlawful orders...., the constitution prohibits as much.
"minimal pushback from civil liberty advocates and companies"
Pre-Pushback was version 1.0. They've already mastered stopping liberty advocates before they can push back.... Pre-Crime is version 2.0.
If Code and software are speech, then such "law" would be a prior restraint on free speech. Highly unconstitutional.
I can write a hello world program but I can't copyright it because it is too basic to be considered a creative work
False.... you can write a hello world program and copyright it. You might have some trouble enforcing that copyright, particularly if someone else already wrote an identical one.
With some minor tweaks/additions to your Hello world program, then it will be subject to the full protections of copyright.
I don't think the EFF is being inconsistent at all in their stance on these issues.
The EFF doesn't even have to have a 100% consistent sequence of arguments for everything. There are multiple people in the EFF.
They can make arguments for EFF positions where the argument conflict with the arguments for other EFF positions.
And that's OK; it does not mean they are inconsistent. It means that either some of those arguments will turn out to not apply in the same situations, or to the extent people imagine.
Jail em all and let God sort it out
Bind their hands and legs and toss them in Lake Guerlédan.
The ones that drown were innocent..... those that manage to float or get to the surface are guilty, so lock them in prison for life and throw away the key.
Nobody would stop to ask for consent. A nuclear attack means instant retaliation.
Not necessarily. An "instant retaliation" requires presidential authorization to launch missiles in response, and President Obama's character is such that he will never approve of launching the nukes, not even in retaliation after a first strike from NK turns San Francisco or New York City into a glowing pile of ash.
Beyond beefier network nodes, there are a number of approaches to offloading transactions off the main Bitcoin blockchain. Most of these are not ready for use yet
A good reason to not change block sizes, at least not yet.
If you shorten the interval, you either have to halve the generation amount, or change the total number of coins which will be generated.
Obviously: adjust the generation amount to correct the discrepancy. This also helps with the problem that Confirmations take too long.
The 1 MB limit was only supposed to be temporary.
The protocol has this arbitrary limit. Who is to say that this is only going to be a temporary limit? Consider that changing the size of a block may not be the best way of ultimately achieving the desired objectives, even if someone had suggested it before.
If you comply once, then you greatly weaken any objections to complying again.
If Apple wants to strengthen their objections; they should probably initiate a process of rotating/replacing their code signing keys on new/existing devices with an emergency software update.
Then once the vast majority of devices have updated, initiate the process of expeditiously destroying the previous key material.
At that point, they will be incapable of signing a custom firmware which the old device will recognize, because the required secret keys no longer exist.
and is withholding submits so it can privately mine them before distributing them.
Methinks the Bitcoin network should add a secondary Blockchain to get rid of this "witholding" nonsense...
After someone mines a block on the primary chain, they have to submit it to other miners who will immediately start working on mining a block on the secondary chain. If someone else gets their mined block included on the secondary chain first, then all the first miner's with-held submissions are essentially invalidated.
If there are conflicting versions of the primary blockchain, then only versions consistent with the secondary chain can be accepted.
If there are conflicting versions of the secondary blockchain, then only versions consistent with the primary chain can be accepted.
Also, the next block on the primary chain has to include a unique hash from the secondary chain and vice versa, and the next block on the primary chain includes a fixed 5 BTC award for whichever address mined the previous block on the secondary chain.
Finally, the secondary chain should use a fundamentally different hashing algorithm from the primary chain, AND thus the Primary chain is doubly secured using two different hashes.
I would suggest the secondary chain use a combination of Block Cipher and Hash algorithms that is very strong, requires a ton of space (e.g. 4 Gigabytes of memory per Hash computation), and cannot be parallelized, and of course, the difficulty should adjust mining the secondary just as with the primary blockchain.
For example, something such as some hash suite combination; .... + .... + .... +
INPUT = Data being hashed
INSALT = Input Salt Hash of the previous block
a = AES256Encrypt on key=SHA256 of INPUT,iv=SHA256 of INPUT)[0..n], text=INPUT
b = randomsalt miner's choice
c = randomkey miner's choice
d = randomstring miner's choice, Padded with NULs to N Gigabytes
d1 = SHA256(INSALT+INPUT) + SHA256(INSALT+SHA256(INPUT)) + SHA256(INSALT+SHA256(SHA256(INPUT))) +
continue to concatenate until length reaches N Gigabytes
d2 = MD5(INSALT+INPUT) + MD5(INSALT+SHA256(INPUT)) + MD5(INSALT+SHA256(SHA256(INPUT))) +
continue to concatenate until length reaches N Gigabytes
d3 = Keccac(b+INSALT+INPUT) + Keccak(INSALT+b+SHA256(INPUT)) + Keccakc(INSALT+b+Keccac(b+Keccac(b+SHA512(INPUT)))) +
e = (d + d2) XOR REVERSE(d1 + d3) XOR REVERSE(d2 + d) XOR AES256Encrypt(b XOR d3,d+d2) XOR AES256Encrypt(b XOR d2,d2+d3)
f = BCRYPT(workfactor=20, salt=b, text= a + e )
g = Keccak512(b, f + e + WPA2Hash(d XOR d2 XOR d3) + MD5(d1 XOR d2) + SHA256(d2 XOR d3) + SHA-3(d1 XOR d3) )
h = MD5(g)
i = AES256Encrypt(key=SHA256(randomkey), iv=[0...2], INPUT + randomstring + h + g + f) j = AES256Encrypt( key = SHA256(i), iv = SHA256(i)[0...n], i + e + d + c )
k = AES256Encrypt( key = SHA256(k), iv = SHA256(k)[0...n], b + a + c )
OUTPUT = SHAKE256(i + j + MD5(j) + k +j)
Besides this issue, I recently read that the block size debate between 1 or 2 MB is heated. Is it just a small hiccup the the sign the Bitcoin is reaching it limits?
I think they want a bigger block, so placement within a block is less scarce, And the network as a whole can do more transactions per second.
Why not reduce the target from 10 minutes per block to 5 minutes per block, instead, however?