"Eggs, specially the yolk, are a major source of dietary cholesterol,"
so? Dietary cholesterol isn't the cause of heart heart desease. It's like saying: ban fire trucks, at every fire we see fire trucks, so they must be responsible for the fires.
The study probably has problems with confounding factors: People who eat many eggs, ignoring dieteay advice, tend ot ignore other advice (like exercise, don't smoke and so on), which is the real reason for their higher/earlier death and disease events. This is just a guess, though. Didn't look.
The dietary heart hypothesis has been debunked. It was fake news by the seed oil industry. Read Nina Teichholz.
> Bitcoin is just one of many users of the technology.
Well, I usually say that blockchain's killer app is money. And bitcoin is the first blockchain-based money. Network effect is really important in money, so if Bitcoin doesn't fuck up (which is a possibility, yes) or get fucked up (which is a possibilty, yes) it will be more than one of many "users of blockchain tech". It'll be the money of the internet or maybe even the "people's money".
How is steamrolling a hard-drive (even if it is the proper original one, which I don't doubt) evidence of destruction of data at all?
There could be copies.
If, as an author or anyone else, want some data to be inaccessible after your death, just strongly encrypt it with a long password you don't write down anywhere. No need to put instructions into wills and trust poeple or anything like that.
There's clearly a need to decentralize these kind of services (social platforms in this case) to make them censorship resistant and privacy-preserving.
I heard this part before... in the early nineties (just with earlier timepoint):
> Ninety percent of coding is taking some business specs and translating them into computer logic. That's really ripe for machine learning and low-end AI.
so who writes "some business specs"?
You might end up with flawless software. The flaws will be in the spec. Or the spec will be insufficient.
Creating software is mostly creating a good spec anyway (and establishing what the customer actually wants).
I hear you (and that's good advice) but if I lose my wallet somehow, no matter what, my money will still be in the bank. Even if someone uses my bankcard I'll still get my money back. Losing a wallet, virtual or otherwise, should never result in a financial disaster or an irrecoverable loss of funds.
Bitcoin is digital cash. You lose it, it's gone. That's part of the design, a feature, not a bug. A feature I happen to like: double spend protection, no replacing of lost/stolen Bitcoins out of thin air.
There are, however, ways to protect funds from loss by stupidity (hd fail and no backup or misplaced pw, involuntary encryption maleware) and/or theft: Multisig can really help here.
> > Doesn't have to be more than a dollar worth, so it's not as bad when you lose them in case something goes bad.
> Well there's a ringing endorsement if I ever heard one.
> What you wrote is exactly why people like me are leery of crypto-currency...the whole "in case something goes bad" thing, which doesn't seem to ever happen when I deposit my money in a bank.
You wouldn't believe the amount of noobs complaining that "the price has dropped since I bought in, this wasn't supposed to happen" or "I forgot my wallet password, can you help me?". That's the most common "bad things" that can happen. That's why I suggest a very small amount to begin with so they can learn.
What "holes" you talk about are there in cryptocurrency? Also: there is no clearinghouse or "bank" repository that can "get cracked"
honestly, I think you should "get your hands dirty" and play with some bitcoin or other crypto. Doesn't have to be more than a dollar worth, so it's not as bad when you lose them in case something goes bad.
An American company really believes they can force Germany to change their laws or allow Facebook to operate outside of the law? Just WOW. What the hell kind of shenanigans are they pulling over here, then?
Oh yeah, right. I forgot that special interest groups never talk to politicians or propose regulation. I also forgot that politicians always act in the best interest of the people and receive such a huge chunk of money from these people that they are incorruptible for all practical purposes.
Not to mention that this seems to actually be a law which serves the people, rather than corporations.
not entirely true. Law is supposed to serve the people, but sadly, there is a form of government failure called "Regulatory Capture": https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Regulatory_capture which implies it doesn't always live up to that standard.
Someone should tell them the "whole internet" has a secret broadcast IP address and if you want to DDOS the whole fucking internet, you just enter "127.0.0.1" into "IP to DDOS" field and click "start attack".
The group... reiterated its demands: that a controversial YouTube video mocking the prophet Mohammed "be eliminated from the Internet."
And these idiots think the banks are responsible and/or control the Internet and its content? - sigh
Maybe that's not as far from the truth as you think.
Maybe this measly stupid attack was staged by whoever in order to instill fear and hate of muslims in americans, just like the tube-vid was made to instill fear and hate of americans in muslims.
Here's some more entries for your disadvantages column:
The disadvantages of Bitcoin:
thanks.
* It's anonymous and therefore it is hard to trust
* Transactions are not traceable to real world identities and therefore it is hard to trust, and impossible to trace theft properly
* Transactions and organisations are not regulated as banks are, and therefore it is hard to trust
* It is impossible to insure properly against theft and loss, because there are not traceable transactions and anonymous transactions are allowed
Bitcoin itself (I consider it a scarce commodity, like gold) indeed has these problems. However they could be worked around by an entity setting up a secondary system on top of the Bitcoin network (think: paypal handling bitcoins). That way you'd have traceability, auditability, chargebacks and all the features some desire. Your above criticisms also apply to traditional cash and gold.
* It is not backed by the assets and credibility of a nation, and therefore it is hard to trust
Excuse me, but I find this disturbing. I trust in the value of silver, for example, a lot more than in the value of the EUR, specifically because it is not controlled by any one nation or group of nations who are very likely going to expand the money supply rather than reduce it.
* It is subject to massive speculation, hoarding and other manipulation, and therefore the value fluctuates wildly
True. Bitcoin is still in its infancy. It's already getting a lot better, though: Markets are becoming more liquid and larger every month.
* It's controlled by a cartel of core developers, and the rules could be changed at any time (in this sense it is a fiat currency!)
That's not true. There are various alternative implementations and the thing that would have to be controlled is not the software, but the protocol rules used in the wild. A disagreement on the rules results in a fork of the blockchain. There is then a Bitcoin A and a Bitcoin B and people have to decide which one they use. The users (merchants, individuals, miners,...) decide which ruleset they use, not the developers. Firstly: a fork like that would be bad for both chains and secondly: one chain would likely win (because more people like the ruleset of it better than the one of the other chain and only accept coins from that chain) and we'd have only Bitcoin again after probably quite a short while. So what I'm saying is: the cartel of developers cannot simply change the rules by rolling out an update. For an example look at how hard it was for them to rollout BIP16 (multisignature transactions)... a very positive change, but still it was tremendously hard to achieve consensus of a large enough portion of the rule-setters (all participants, basically)
* Savings are not guaranteed by law as they are in national currencies
Let me paraphrase Alan Greenspan: "We can print as much money as you want, we just cannot guarantee its value". I think this makes guarantees of savings, pensions or whatever a moot point. In addition: saving is in the current scheme greatly discouraged anyway by keeping interest rates artificially low.
Limited supply should go in the disadvantages column.
why?
You also forgot that its lifetime is limited by the security of the underlying cryptographic hash function. That's not expected to be very long, I'd be surprised if SHA-2 isn't broken (preimage attacks) in the next 50 years.
True, I forgot that. I'm sure you're aware that the hash function used can be changed. It'd make a hard-fork necessary (everybody update client with new rules)... but who wouldn't participate if the old one's broken?
Slashdot Mirror
how is this scored "-1". It's the correct answer.
"Eggs, specially the yolk, are a major source of dietary cholesterol,"
so? Dietary cholesterol isn't the cause of heart heart desease. It's like saying: ban fire trucks, at every fire we see fire trucks, so they must be responsible for the fires.
The study probably has problems with confounding factors: People who eat many eggs, ignoring dieteay advice, tend ot ignore other advice (like exercise, don't smoke and so on), which is the real reason for their higher/earlier death and disease events. This is just a guess, though. Didn't look.
The dietary heart hypothesis has been debunked. It was fake news by the seed oil industry. Read Nina Teichholz.
> Bitcoin is just one of many users of the technology.
Well, I usually say that blockchain's killer app is money. And bitcoin is the first blockchain-based money. Network effect is really important in money, so if Bitcoin doesn't fuck up (which is a possibility, yes) or get fucked up (which is a possibilty, yes) it will be more than one of many "users of blockchain tech". It'll be the money of the internet or maybe even the "people's money".
How is steamrolling a hard-drive (even if it is the proper original one, which I don't doubt) evidence of destruction of data at all?
There could be copies.
If, as an author or anyone else, want some data to be inaccessible after your death, just strongly encrypt it with a long password you don't write down anywhere. No need to put instructions into wills and trust poeple or anything like that.
There's clearly a need to decentralize these kind of services (social platforms in this case) to make them censorship resistant and privacy-preserving.
What are the efforts being worked on?
...then it's *your* speech.
I heard this part before... in the early nineties (just with earlier timepoint):
> Ninety percent of coding is taking some business specs and translating them into computer logic. That's really ripe for machine learning and low-end AI.
so who writes "some business specs"?
You might end up with flawless software. The flaws will be in the spec. Or the spec will be insufficient.
Creating software is mostly creating a good spec anyway (and establishing what the customer actually wants).
I hear you (and that's good advice) but if I lose my wallet somehow, no matter what, my money will still be in the bank. Even if someone uses my bankcard I'll still get my money back. Losing a wallet, virtual or otherwise, should never result in a financial disaster or an irrecoverable loss of funds.
Bitcoin is digital cash. You lose it, it's gone. That's part of the design, a feature, not a bug. A feature I happen to like: double spend protection, no replacing of lost/stolen Bitcoins out of thin air.
There are, however, ways to protect funds from loss by stupidity (hd fail and no backup or misplaced pw, involuntary encryption maleware) and/or theft: Multisig can really help here.
> > Doesn't have to be more than a dollar worth, so it's not as bad when you lose them in case something goes bad.
> Well there's a ringing endorsement if I ever heard one.
> What you wrote is exactly why people like me are leery of crypto-currency...the whole "in case something goes bad" thing, which doesn't seem to ever happen when I deposit my money in a bank.
You wouldn't believe the amount of noobs complaining that "the price has dropped since I bought in, this wasn't supposed to happen" or "I forgot my wallet password, can you help me?". That's the most common "bad things" that can happen. That's why I suggest a very small amount to begin with so they can learn.
What "holes" you talk about are there in cryptocurrency?
Also: there is no clearinghouse or "bank" repository that can "get cracked"
honestly, I think you should "get your hands dirty" and play with some bitcoin or other crypto. Doesn't have to be more than a dollar worth, so it's not as bad when you lose them in case something goes bad.
Failed? What collapse? You must have be reading too much Mike Hearn or journalists who don't fact-check any more.
The ponzi is the fiat debt bubble.
Bitcoin is sound money.
I know this will get some of them hurt, killed or into worse drugs but they can buy them "on the street" like their parents have.
> just last week some guys were claiming that they're selling faster than they can produce them...
that's because they already had a huge stockpile and stopped production. Even 1 sale would mean "they sell faster than we produce them", then.
Additionally, there is some controversy over whether or not game demos hurt game sales.
That depends largely on the quality of the game.
For a crap game you better give no demo out, for a good one you should.
An American company really believes they can force Germany to change their laws or allow Facebook to operate outside of the law? Just WOW. What the hell kind of shenanigans are they pulling over here, then?
Oh yeah, right. I forgot that special interest groups never talk to politicians or propose regulation. I also forgot that politicians always act in the best interest of the people and receive such a huge chunk of money from these people that they are incorruptible for all practical purposes.
Not to mention that this seems to actually be a law which serves the people, rather than corporations .
not entirely true. Law is supposed to serve the people, but sadly, there is a form of government failure called "Regulatory Capture": https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Regulatory_capture which implies it doesn't always live up to that standard.
lol! someone upvote parent.
Someone should tell them the "whole internet" has a secret broadcast IP address and if you want to DDOS the whole fucking internet, you just enter "127.0.0.1" into "IP to DDOS" field and click "start attack".
The group ... reiterated its demands: that a controversial YouTube video mocking the prophet Mohammed "be eliminated from the Internet."
And these idiots think the banks are responsible and/or control the Internet and its content? - sigh
Maybe that's not as far from the truth as you think.
Maybe this measly stupid attack was staged by whoever in order to instill fear and hate of muslims in americans, just like the tube-vid was made to instill fear and hate of americans in muslims.
The group ... reiterated its demands: that a controversial YouTube video mocking the prophet Mohammed "be eliminated from the Internet."
And these idiots think the banks are responsible and/or control the Internet and its content? - sigh
Maybe that's not as far from the truth as you think.
Mujahackeen!
I've had good results with piping to /dev/null
lol. disconnecting from the network usually brings system load back to 0.01, too.
Here's some more entries for your disadvantages column:
The disadvantages of Bitcoin:
thanks.
* It's anonymous and therefore it is hard to trust
* Transactions are not traceable to real world identities and therefore it is hard to trust, and impossible to trace theft properly
* Transactions and organisations are not regulated as banks are, and therefore it is hard to trust
* It is impossible to insure properly against theft and loss, because there are not traceable transactions and anonymous transactions are allowed
Bitcoin itself (I consider it a scarce commodity, like gold) indeed has these problems. However they could be worked around by an entity setting up a secondary system on top of the Bitcoin network (think: paypal handling bitcoins). That way you'd have traceability, auditability, chargebacks and all the features some desire.
Your above criticisms also apply to traditional cash and gold.
* It is not backed by the assets and credibility of a nation, and therefore it is hard to trust
Excuse me, but I find this disturbing. I trust in the value of silver, for example, a lot more than in the value of the EUR, specifically because it is not controlled by any one nation or group of nations who are very likely going to expand the money supply rather than reduce it.
* It is subject to massive speculation, hoarding and other manipulation, and therefore the value fluctuates wildly
True. Bitcoin is still in its infancy. It's already getting a lot better, though: Markets are becoming more liquid and larger every month.
* It's controlled by a cartel of core developers, and the rules could be changed at any time (in this sense it is a fiat currency!)
That's not true. There are various alternative implementations and the thing that would have to be controlled is not the software, but the protocol rules used in the wild. A disagreement on the rules results in a fork of the blockchain. There is then a Bitcoin A and a Bitcoin B and people have to decide which one they use. The users (merchants, individuals, miners,...) decide which ruleset they use, not the developers. Firstly: a fork like that would be bad for both chains and secondly: one chain would likely win (because more people like the ruleset of it better than the one of the other chain and only accept coins from that chain) and we'd have only Bitcoin again after probably quite a short while. So what I'm saying is: the cartel of developers cannot simply change the rules by rolling out an update. For an example look at how hard it was for them to rollout BIP16 (multisignature transactions)... a very positive change, but still it was tremendously hard to achieve consensus of a large enough portion of the rule-setters (all participants, basically)
* Savings are not guaranteed by law as they are in national currencies
Let me paraphrase Alan Greenspan: "We can print as much money as you want, we just cannot guarantee its value". I think this makes guarantees of savings, pensions or whatever a moot point. In addition: saving is in the current scheme greatly discouraged anyway by keeping interest rates artificially low.
Limited supply should go in the disadvantages column.
why?
You also forgot that its lifetime is limited by the security of the underlying cryptographic hash function. That's not expected to be very long, I'd be surprised if SHA-2 isn't broken (preimage attacks) in the next 50 years.
True, I forgot that. I'm sure you're aware that the hash function used can be changed. It'd make a hard-fork necessary (everybody update client with new rules)... but who wouldn't participate if the old one's broken?
ah, noone uses email anyway, why bother? *types letter on typewriter*