Also, the total amount of bitcoin will stabilize in like... 150 years. After that it won't go up or down. It's not the amount of bitcoin that's decreasing, it's the rate at which the supply expands. Right now it's much more expansionary than fiat currencies but the price is still rising. It's not supply that's driving that. Meanwhile, advanced economies are going to be lucky to average 1-2% growth per year. If the amount of currency was fixed, then deflation in an economy growing at 1-2% would only be deflation of 1-2% per year in prices. With that sort of relative stability, deflation might not be much of an issue, you just need to adjust prices now and then. A 1-2% increase in your money value per year isn't going to stop people spending.
The problem with that logic... is that if prices were all set in BitCoin, then the BitCoin price *wouldn't vary*. It varies against the US Dollar, not against itself. So prices stated in BitCoin would be much more stable if all costs and prices *were in bitcoin*.
Additionally, the protocol has built into it a mechanism in which the person processing the block can charge an optional fee for processing each transaction. As the value of new bitcoins created per transaction drops, there will be competition, and some creators will start adding in transaction fees. The node willing to charge the least wins out in those cases, so there is stiff competition in the bitcoin transaction-processing business. Basically those who use too much energy to do so are driven out of the market, and will be even more so once the automatic rewards per block start to disappear. it's an interesting mechanism.
Satoshi never intended BitCoin to be a viable currency, it was implemented merely as a proof of concept of his research paper which outlined using the blockchain technology to solve the "double spend problem" inherent in digital currencies unless there's a third party to validate the transaction. The limits built into it were designed to create a limited amount, because it wasn't intended as anything other than a proof of the technology outlined in the paper.
That's not actually how the terminology works. The ice-age is the last 2.6 million years, due to the continental topography causing less mixing of tropical and polar waters. Within the Ice Age there are glacial and interglacial periods - relative amounts of freezing and thawing. We're in the middle of an interglacial that began 11000 years ago. but previous patterns covering 10000's of years aren't much good for predicting how climate is going to be impacted in the near future. Our particulated emissions exceed prehistoric incidents such as supervolcanoes that had noticeable climate effects.
Every Android device I've ever owned (3 different manufacturers) had completely different stock applications. Those aren't part of Android, it's meant to be modular and open. On an open platform you're going to get more variation in app quality, not less.
How do you know that Android Go isn't exactly what you just said, a fork off the main Android branch removing some of the high-end stuff? Fixing up an old version is not a great idea, it will come with whatever security holes existed then and now you have to patch it.
It's much more sensible to strip down recent builds to their bare essentials then decide what needs to be added in, you get to keep all the security patches that way.
The schools are more concerned about ensuring all children have access to the same technology regardless of income. It's not about smarter kids, it's about fairness in testing. And paying licenses ensures you get support, that could well save schools money compared to what they'd need to do to have embedded open-source calculators in their tests, which would require them to hire IT guys to set that up and maintain it.
We're probably headed towards a new service feudalism. A few people are disproportionately going to own large amounts of the machinery that runs society, and your only "in" will be to work as servants to those people for whatever they think you're good for.
Soft AI is still capable of building deathbots and the like, but it would lack conciousness. You can't reason with an anthill. Soft AI could well be more dangerous than hard AI.
That could be a result of trying to rush things. You can't rush diversity, opportunity to learn needs to be built into every level of the education system. Trying to shoehorn some quotas on at the output end of the pipeline isn't going to end well. It needs small and consistent help all the way through so the graduates you want are actually ready to hit the ground running.
Slashdot Mirror
Also, the total amount of bitcoin will stabilize in like ... 150 years. After that it won't go up or down. It's not the amount of bitcoin that's decreasing, it's the rate at which the supply expands. Right now it's much more expansionary than fiat currencies but the price is still rising. It's not supply that's driving that. Meanwhile, advanced economies are going to be lucky to average 1-2% growth per year. If the amount of currency was fixed, then deflation in an economy growing at 1-2% would only be deflation of 1-2% per year in prices. With that sort of relative stability, deflation might not be much of an issue, you just need to adjust prices now and then. A 1-2% increase in your money value per year isn't going to stop people spending.
The problem with that logic ... is that if prices were all set in BitCoin, then the BitCoin price *wouldn't vary*. It varies against the US Dollar, not against itself. So prices stated in BitCoin would be much more stable if all costs and prices *were in bitcoin*.
Additionally, the protocol has built into it a mechanism in which the person processing the block can charge an optional fee for processing each transaction. As the value of new bitcoins created per transaction drops, there will be competition, and some creators will start adding in transaction fees. The node willing to charge the least wins out in those cases, so there is stiff competition in the bitcoin transaction-processing business. Basically those who use too much energy to do so are driven out of the market, and will be even more so once the automatic rewards per block start to disappear. it's an interesting mechanism.
Satoshi never intended BitCoin to be a viable currency, it was implemented merely as a proof of concept of his research paper which outlined using the blockchain technology to solve the "double spend problem" inherent in digital currencies unless there's a third party to validate the transaction. The limits built into it were designed to create a limited amount, because it wasn't intended as anything other than a proof of the technology outlined in the paper.
Agree to get paid in an amount of gold, translated to the current BitCoin price.
It's inappropriate to spell-check a quotation, you provide it as-is.
That's not actually how the terminology works. The ice-age is the last 2.6 million years, due to the continental topography causing less mixing of tropical and polar waters. Within the Ice Age there are glacial and interglacial periods - relative amounts of freezing and thawing. We're in the middle of an interglacial that began 11000 years ago. but previous patterns covering 10000's of years aren't much good for predicting how climate is going to be impacted in the near future. Our particulated emissions exceed prehistoric incidents such as supervolcanoes that had noticeable climate effects.
Every Android device I've ever owned (3 different manufacturers) had completely different stock applications. Those aren't part of Android, it's meant to be modular and open. On an open platform you're going to get more variation in app quality, not less.
How do you know that Android Go isn't exactly what you just said, a fork off the main Android branch removing some of the high-end stuff? Fixing up an old version is not a great idea, it will come with whatever security holes existed then and now you have to patch it.
It's much more sensible to strip down recent builds to their bare essentials then decide what needs to be added in, you get to keep all the security patches that way.
The schools are more concerned about ensuring all children have access to the same technology regardless of income. It's not about smarter kids, it's about fairness in testing. And paying licenses ensures you get support, that could well save schools money compared to what they'd need to do to have embedded open-source calculators in their tests, which would require them to hire IT guys to set that up and maintain it.
We're probably headed towards a new service feudalism. A few people are disproportionately going to own large amounts of the machinery that runs society, and your only "in" will be to work as servants to those people for whatever they think you're good for.
Nature tends towards the most efficient use of resources. It has no preferences because it's not sentient, but it does have tendencies.
Soft AI is still capable of building deathbots and the like, but it would lack conciousness. You can't reason with an anthill. Soft AI could well be more dangerous than hard AI.
I don't buy the argument that a lot of *water* is bad, but just enough (which happens to always be more than the current amount) is just right.
That could be a result of trying to rush things. You can't rush diversity, opportunity to learn needs to be built into every level of the education system. Trying to shoehorn some quotas on at the output end of the pipeline isn't going to end well. It needs small and consistent help all the way through so the graduates you want are actually ready to hit the ground running.