He has access to very very cheap money too, people are willing to violently throw it at him with just the hint of a promise of some publicity.
When you have that much cash its not hard to suggest some wild things but reality has a way of bringing many of those things back down to something reasonable. Such as the boring company/hyper loop, which will have continually narrowing goalposts as time goes on, the technical hurdles to achieve the promise are still not within the grasp of even that much money if ROI was even a laughable consideration.
If the he doesn't go bankrupt for other reasons, EM will encounter serious challenges when some big 'unexpected' failure causes some deaths on some scale even small.
So much this. AI is the buzzword for late 2017 and now 2018.
Its easy cheap press to fearmonger when the general populace has no clue about the current state of the Expert Systems we have now as compared to any real sort of AI which is a long ways away.
Its so easy though, disagree with me and i'll just block you, no repercussions at all, just some 'bad' people complain a bit and who cares about them anyways right?!
Its a pathetic lazy way to navigate the world/universe, dont have to think very hard just stay in your bubble and block out as much of the 'bad' stuff as you can, and who cares about any collateral damage, just block that out too.
Yes I admit this is a mild rant, but this leftist censorship becoming quite annoying now. Its very hard to discuss or interact with people who have their heads in the sand and who think reality is inconvenient.
I rtfa and there were no numbers, well they mentioned 4, but 4 doesn't seem like enough to make an 'awash'.
All that being said, I prefer to have a forum where its easier to point out the extremists because they are dumb enough to tell everyone just how well dumb they are and everyone can see it and who associates and or agrees with them too. Rather than hiding it in the shadows and pretending its not there, then being all surprised later when get clubbed over the head by some event and start crying.
But whatever, it appears that the blocking is mostly being used to silence anything deemed disagreeable anyways so the secondary effect of blocking some idiots just has to be accepted.
If there are so many then it ought to be easy to point a few out.
Otherwise, completely wrong again.
Most people want to be free and they only 'care' when outside things intrude upon their life. When the Government mostly stays out and just gets on with keeping things running without too much kerfuffle, then the average citizen probably doesn't have a clue about this policy or that policy or probably 99% of new policies unless they impact them directly.
Every so often some issue rises above the pile and stinks so much that Sally and Joe Citizen speak up and then its heads back to the grindstone of life.
Cryptocurrency is a greater fool bubble nothing more.
Nope, people want reliable things, and inspite of all the problems Governments are far and away more reliable than anonymous untraceable 'things' where you have zero recourse in the event of a problem or outright theft.
This is pretty close to my understanding as well, too bad no one really wants to have an honest discussion about it, pretty much its some shrill 'they destroyed the internets', and lots of downvoting.
Too bad hardly anyone is willing to have an honest discussion about either of those subjects (let alone many others), more interested in 'scoring points' and 'winning' somehow.
Or even just stopping all discussion, that seems to happen alot lately too.
Now this will of course push some activity back towards Bitcoin, but that 'coin' is completely useless for its stated purpose and is doomed to fail long term.
Most things can be explained very simply, this guy takes forever to say simple things, sounds more like a salesperson than a tech talk, I dont find him very convincing on that basis alone but whatever, to your points.
1. Takes him 10 minutes to say increase the blocksize and another 14 minutes to say Lightning network or sidechain. https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/Blo... Sidechains are divorced from the block so require other layers of trust and are therefore not blockchain.
2. complete waste of my time, was a sales pitch more than anything.
3. 51% attack is completely possible, in 2 cases especially.
a. The network has fallen out of favor and everyone has moved on to the new bestest coin ever, and the only people left on the old garbage coin for slow people are just hacking it to get whatever 'value' they think they can steal and its trivial to have enough processing power.
b. New super good coin is 'worth' a bajillion megabucks and now its trivial to spend 1 billion dollars to do an attack.
https://blockchain.info/pools Only 3 of the top 4 pools need to conspire to further their own self interest, less than that is necessary for shorter term control of the network, even if they are able to disrupt the network for their own purposes with 30% of the hash rate.
One of the biggest failures of new technology, especially when advocates are vociferously certain that its so perfect and cannot fail is a lack of imagination, this has taken down the most secure certain absolutely guaranteed 'things' time and time again. Someone will find a hole and take advantage of it over and over in ways not originally even considered.
Maybe there is a simply a spam attack possible that delays all transactions for many hours or days. Maybe there is a trust attack where proof appears from multiple sources. When does a classic man in the middle attack become 'worth it', impersonate the work originator. Who knows.
Thats if its not regulated out of use by governments in short order anyways.
4. was a sales pitch again.
In practice Bitcoin is a complete failure, too expensive, too slow, doesn't scale, too much risk, not convenient. Blockchain may be interesting but V2.0 looks useless so far. No reason it can't be looked at some more but my original descriptions stand from where I sit.
Do you want a database with built in 'proof' of integrity (with some generally exploitable caveats), then you can attempt to make blockchain work within its current limitations.
But so far I dont see the point and it appears to have significant problems scaling amongst other glaring problems, 51% attack, or if the database does have a central record like many do for speed and convenience then many of those are just plain stolen or hacked and who cares what the blockchain says.
The most interesting use for blockchain that I have seen so far is 1 time records of voting, which seemed workable but challenging if there are not good public records of who can vote. I'm sure there are other possibilities as well.
If we are just talking about cryptocurrencies: The best description of cryptocurrency at this time is a greater fool bubble. The most charitable view of cryptocurrency at this time is unregulated gambling.
Took a look at the list and three of the categories are so subjective and open to any level of 'offensiveness' as to be useless, or useful depending on how someone feels that second.
I expect the belief that 'its going to be abused or used to push an agenda' will be what we will see, all for our own good of course, we need Google to 'keep us safe' right?
My reading list and I agree with you, it may not be the opposite but its much more complex than the simple representation of 'dont throttle', the set of rules implemented in 2015 to 2017 being repealed didn't break anything, and if it gets reworked in a way that doesn't negatively effect small groups/companies who want big pipes(amongst other problems with NN that are never talked about) like that set of rules was causing then it will work out better in the end.
And in case someone doesn't get it, I am for some version of NN but not the one imposed in 2015, and not some other one imposed because of a shrill 'the internets are dying' panic. It needs to be worked on some more.
(not my list I can figure out where I got it if anyone cares) The last item was a particularly interesting debate with good discussion:
Backed up by real objective (objective means anyone can see them and agree, not mysterious anonymous sources, see the difference there? no of course you dont) facts unlike the trump.russia narrative, which has morphed into the obstruction narrative, and will probably morph next into the hates america narrative or some other nonsense like the previous things.
This is exactly what I was trying to say, include all news sources and objective standards.
This 'study' is pure drivel, and doesn't even suggest alternate interpretations, or reveal what would disprove their assertions, like good studies would.
What if the 'study' suggests that one group looks at more sources in an effort to discern the truth as compared to another group which simply accepts what it is told.
Slashdot Mirror
He has access to very very cheap money too, people are willing to violently throw it at him with just the hint of a promise of some publicity.
When you have that much cash its not hard to suggest some wild things but reality has a way of bringing many of those things back down to something reasonable. Such as the boring company/hyper loop, which will have continually narrowing goalposts as time goes on, the technical hurdles to achieve the promise are still not within the grasp of even that much money if ROI was even a laughable consideration.
If the he doesn't go bankrupt for other reasons, EM will encounter serious challenges when some big 'unexpected' failure causes some deaths on some scale even small.
So much this. AI is the buzzword for late 2017 and now 2018.
Its easy cheap press to fearmonger when the general populace has no clue about the current state of the Expert Systems we have now as compared to any real sort of AI which is a long ways away.
Its so easy though, disagree with me and i'll just block you, no repercussions at all, just some 'bad' people complain a bit and who cares about them anyways right?!
Its a pathetic lazy way to navigate the world/universe, dont have to think very hard just stay in your bubble and block out as much of the 'bad' stuff as you can, and who cares about any collateral damage, just block that out too.
Yes I admit this is a mild rant, but this leftist censorship becoming quite annoying now. Its very hard to discuss or interact with people who have their heads in the sand and who think reality is inconvenient.
AI is the buzzword for late 2017 and 2018 now.
Previously Cloud was the buzzword, maybe in some areas crypto or blockchain is the thing but AI has more traction with the general populace I think.
Now we just need a beowulf cluster of blockchain based AI clouds and we win the game right?
I rtfa and there were no numbers, well they mentioned 4, but 4 doesn't seem like enough to make an 'awash'.
All that being said, I prefer to have a forum where its easier to point out the extremists because they are dumb enough to tell everyone just how well dumb they are and everyone can see it and who associates and or agrees with them too. Rather than hiding it in the shadows and pretending its not there, then being all surprised later when get clubbed over the head by some event and start crying.
But whatever, it appears that the blocking is mostly being used to silence anything deemed disagreeable anyways so the secondary effect of blocking some idiots just has to be accepted.
If there are so many then it ought to be easy to point a few out.
Otherwise, completely wrong again.
Most people want to be free and they only 'care' when outside things intrude upon their life. When the Government mostly stays out and just gets on with keeping things running without too much kerfuffle, then the average citizen probably doesn't have a clue about this policy or that policy or probably 99% of new policies unless they impact them directly.
Every so often some issue rises above the pile and stinks so much that Sally and Joe Citizen speak up and then its heads back to the grindstone of life.
Cryptocurrency is a greater fool bubble nothing more.
Nope, people want reliable things, and inspite of all the problems Governments are far and away more reliable than anonymous untraceable 'things' where you have zero recourse in the event of a problem or outright theft.
https://thebitcoinnews.com/201...
This is pretty close to my understanding as well, too bad no one really wants to have an honest discussion about it, pretty much its some shrill 'they destroyed the internets', and lots of downvoting.
http://www.coinoshi.com/52-ico...
https://www.theverge.com/2018/...
Anonymous reliable and trustworthy real soon now right, just need the right kind of faith?
Get to demonize both things in 1 shot!
Too bad hardly anyone is willing to have an honest discussion about either of those subjects (let alone many others), more interested in 'scoring points' and 'winning' somehow.
Or even just stopping all discussion, that seems to happen alot lately too.
You just need the faith that completely unregulated gambling is going to work out great for 'everyone'.
Stop being an unbeliever.
I keep trying to tell people the same thing but its like talking to a wall.
As if we dont know how this will turn out. 'whats your is mine'.
http://www.laht.com/article.as...
https://www.washingtonpost.com...
http://www.bbc.com/news/world-...
http://www.miamiherald.com/new...
https://www.nytimes.com/2009/0...
http://www.scmp.com/news/world...
http://news.abs-cbn.com/overse...
Dont worry i'm sure lots and lots of regulations are on the way.
Now this will of course push some activity back towards Bitcoin, but that 'coin' is completely useless for its stated purpose and is doomed to fail long term.
Most things can be explained very simply, this guy takes forever to say simple things, sounds more like a salesperson than a tech talk, I dont find him very convincing on that basis alone but whatever, to your points.
1. Takes him 10 minutes to say increase the blocksize and another 14 minutes to say Lightning network or sidechain.
https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/Blo...
Sidechains are divorced from the block so require other layers of trust and are therefore not blockchain.
2. complete waste of my time, was a sales pitch more than anything.
3. 51% attack is completely possible, in 2 cases especially.
a. The network has fallen out of favor and everyone has moved on to the new bestest coin ever, and the only people left on the old garbage coin for slow people are just hacking it to get whatever 'value' they think they can steal and its trivial to have enough processing power.
b. New super good coin is 'worth' a bajillion megabucks and now its trivial to spend 1 billion dollars to do an attack.
https://blockchain.info/pools
Only 3 of the top 4 pools need to conspire to further their own self interest, less than that is necessary for shorter term control of the network, even if they are able to disrupt the network for their own purposes with 30% of the hash rate.
One of the biggest failures of new technology, especially when advocates are vociferously certain that its so perfect and cannot fail is a lack of imagination, this has taken down the most secure certain absolutely guaranteed 'things' time and time again. Someone will find a hole and take advantage of it over and over in ways not originally even considered.
Maybe there is a simply a spam attack possible that delays all transactions for many hours or days.
Maybe there is a trust attack where proof appears from multiple sources.
When does a classic man in the middle attack become 'worth it', impersonate the work originator.
Who knows.
Thats if its not regulated out of use by governments in short order anyways.
4. was a sales pitch again.
In practice Bitcoin is a complete failure, too expensive, too slow, doesn't scale, too much risk, not convenient.
Blockchain may be interesting but V2.0 looks useless so far. No reason it can't be looked at some more but my original descriptions stand from where I sit.
Nothing special to understand.
Do you want a database with built in 'proof' of integrity (with some generally exploitable caveats), then you can attempt to make blockchain work within its current limitations.
But so far I dont see the point and it appears to have significant problems scaling amongst other glaring problems, 51% attack, or if the database does have a central record like many do for speed and convenience then many of those are just plain stolen or hacked and who cares what the blockchain says.
The most interesting use for blockchain that I have seen so far is 1 time records of voting, which seemed workable but challenging if there are not good public records of who can vote. I'm sure there are other possibilities as well.
If we are just talking about cryptocurrencies:
The best description of cryptocurrency at this time is a greater fool bubble.
The most charitable view of cryptocurrency at this time is unregulated gambling.
Took a look at the list and three of the categories are so subjective and open to any level of 'offensiveness' as to be useless, or useful depending on how someone feels that second.
I expect the belief that 'its going to be abused or used to push an agenda' will be what we will see, all for our own good of course, we need Google to 'keep us safe' right?
Subjective criterion will no be abused right?!
My reading list and I agree with you, it may not be the opposite but its much more complex than the simple representation of 'dont throttle', the set of rules implemented in 2015 to 2017 being repealed didn't break anything, and if it gets reworked in a way that doesn't negatively effect small groups/companies who want big pipes(amongst other problems with NN that are never talked about) like that set of rules was causing then it will work out better in the end.
And in case someone doesn't get it, I am for some version of NN but not the one imposed in 2015, and not some other one imposed because of a shrill 'the internets are dying' panic. It needs to be worked on some more.
(not my list I can figure out where I got it if anyone cares) The last item was a particularly interesting debate with good discussion:
Robert Kahn, the most senior figure in the development of the internet, delivers strong warning against Net "Neutrality"
https://goo.gl/5SUZ9Z
Dr. David Clark - Internet's Chief Protocol Architect talks Net "Neutrality"
https://goo.gl/iYZH5o
Vonage Co-Founder Jeff Pulver rejects Tim Wu's idea for Net "Neutrality"
https://goo.gl/P7Kxdm
Why Net "Neutrality" is a misnomer
https://goo.gl/o1ZJAG https://goo.gl/tcpQCJ
Former FCC Chief Technologist talks Net "Neutrality"
https://goo.gl/sRYNNo https://goo.gl/uD91hc
Economics used to justify Net "Neutrality" wrong, unsupported, or irrelevant
https://goo.gl/K1RBfm
Internet prices continue to fall
https://goo.gl/JiZJgm https://goo.gl/JLvFRw
Dan Rayburn presents CDN Data
https://goo.gl/bFQWfP
Interview with The Verge on Apple CDN
https://goo.gl/Rvnfcd
Interview with TechCrunch on Microsoft CDN
https://goo.gl/DXANKZ
How President Obama thwarted FCC Chairman Wheeler / Schmidt urges Obama not to pursue Net "Neutrality"
https://goo.gl/dhGHtn
Schmidt tries to bridge "hard-core Net 'Neutrality'" divide
https://goo.gl/FkjzHq
BitTorrent Former CTO statement on Comcast's network management
https://goo.gl/7arhib
BitTorrent Co-Founder rejects heavy legislative approach to solving "non-neutral" internet. Comcast BitTorrent collab "win, win, win." https://goo.gl/7kPBH3
BitTorrent Former CEO claims internet neutrality was achieved with a light regulatory touch, believes the best way to achieve this principle is very much an open debate.
https://goo.gl/aVvwLD
Tim Wu acknowledges Net Neutrality ultimate goal of state internet regulations
https://www.c-span.org/video/?...
Across the country, new local mesh networks which become more powerful as more people use them are an alternative to big ISPs. https://goo.gl/KFHShw
The Future of Mesh Networks
https://goo.gl/hukXpG https://goo.gl/LgAo2f
Elon Musk plans to dethrone telecoms
https://goo.gl/gdpp4D https://goo.gl/WsDpLq https://goo.gl/ZZ7318
FCC regulation withholding progress for new internet service technology
https://goo.gl/SQyCFE
The Law and Economics of Network Neutrality
https://goo.gl/d87HW3
Net Neutr
Are your purposefully ignorant?
Its from the House Committee on Intelligence, put forward by the chairman after months of investigation.
https://intelligence.house.gov...
Backed up by real objective (objective means anyone can see them and agree, not mysterious anonymous sources, see the difference there? no of course you dont) facts unlike the trump.russia narrative, which has morphed into the obstruction narrative, and will probably morph next into the hates america narrative or some other nonsense like the previous things.
Like I said get up to speed on current events:
http://docs.house.gov/meetings...
And there is more to come.
All except for the part where he was indeed 'wiretapped', you need to get up to speed on current events.
This is exactly what I was trying to say, include all news sources and objective standards.
This 'study' is pure drivel, and doesn't even suggest alternate interpretations, or reveal what would disprove their assertions, like good studies would.
What if the 'study' suggests that one group looks at more sources in an effort to discern the truth as compared to another group which simply accepts what it is told.
Amongst other possibilities.