pull down to refresh
33 sats \ 1 reply \ @nullcount 7 May \ parent \ on: Diversity is key for balance mempool
BTC is already the most decentralized money we've ever had. I'd hate to have my node fall out of consensus or see a chain split occur just because I was virtue signaling over MuH ImPleMeNtaTiOn sO sPeCiaL and CoRe Is CeNtRaLiZinG BTC
I don't think a chain split will happen if many people run knots because, like I said, its just core with extra options. But we've seen issues with implementations that aren't a direct fork of core like btcd (golang). If you were running btcd node when this happend... https://bitcoinmagazine.com/technical/bug-took-down-part-of-the-lightning-network
...then your node would have been kicked off the network, unable to get new blocks until patched. If thats the cost of being marginally more decentralized, then I don't think it's worth the tradeoff IMO. But run whatever node you want. It's not my problem if BTC rejects your node or you end up creating a shitcoin in the process.
Both core and knots are written in C++
Not a lot of diversity there. Really, knots is just core with more config options added
Its probably best that 99% of the nodes run the same implementation (or at least implementations based on the same language)
In a consensus based system, even the bugs in the software (or nuances of the underlying language) have to be universally present in all nodes in order to avoid falling out of consensus or causing a chain split.
If an aircraft had problems 2.1% of the time I needed to fly it, I, for one, wouldn't call it "reliable".
If I made a trade on robosats daily for 3 years, I'd spend over 22 days in dispute court on average
And another 20-ish days worth of my trades would be canceled without dispute.
I enjoy doing squats.
Regular small dose exposure to pathogens is good for the immune system.
1¢ is worth ~10 sats
https://sat-cent.vercel.app/
It might be a pre-1982 penny made of mostly copper with a melt value of 2¢
It might be on "heads" and I'll have good luck!
It might save a couple seconds later on when I use it to pay with exact change
For now, the cost of excluding a high-paying txn is relatively small, and the virtue signal is comparatively strong. Maybe when fees account for 90% of miner revenue the desire to discriminate will be reduced.
Subsidies tend to distort all kinds of markets. How can blockspace be properly valued if empty blocks still pay 80% as well as full blocks?
Today, Ocean delays the inclusion of "spam" which might be tolerable to the market, after all, how quickly do you really need your JPEG stored on everyone's node?
The market for blockspace also permits a miner to censor non-spam and prioritize these "spam" transactions instead. If the market wants spam txns confirmed quickly, then all it takes is one pool (or an alliance of pools) with similar hashrate as Ocean to effectively negate all their efforts to delay spam.
The four ways of value transfer:
-
Spend my money for myself
-
Spend my money for other people
-
Spend other people's money for myself
-
Spend other people's money for other people
If your students are dumb enough to get caught, then maybe they're not ready for the real world yet.
If your students are smart enough to use AI, they're ready to graduate and start learning about the real world.
This is one of the earliest critiques of technology diminishing cognitive ability
“This discovery of yours [written language] will create forgetfulness in the learners’ souls, because they will not use their memories; they will trust to the external written characters and not remember of themselves. The specific which you have discovered is an aid not to memory, but to reminiscence, and you give your disciples not truth, but only the semblance of truth; they will be hearers of many things and will have learned nothing; they will appear to be omniscient and will generally know nothing.” — Plato, Phaedrus 275a-b
School prepares kids for a world that hasn't existed for decades.
I prefer FOSS because it is more trustless. But trustlessness alone does not necessarily yield better software.
Excellent software can emerge from both FOSS and closed source, is my point.
In 2032, all software is written and audited by AI so funding development is about to get way cheaper /s
If you aren't able to review every line of code yourself...
But you trust the wallet maintainers not to be malicious...
And you trust that hundreds of competent engineers have reviewed the source...
Then whats the difference between using closed and FOSS?
Imagine if Apple included a closed source wallet on every iPhone. I trust Apple not to steal from me... they have a lot to lose by being malicious. And I trust that Apple is employing smart engineers to review the code.
Sure they're probably logging data about me, and that might make the closed source option "worse" in this case. But FOSS could also log data in a way that goes unnoticed for a long time
Depends. If I started a company and built a new wallet from scratch but I decided not release the source, I would probably still use it since I wrote it and could review the source anytime I wanted.
Or if a company I knew and trusted released a closed source wallet, I'd consider using it if I knew that hundreds of smart people were auditing the code.
Its probably not the best business decision since new customers probably don't trust the business and making the wallet FOSS would allow people to trust the community to vet the software instead of just one centralized team.
Do you audit and review the source code of all the FOSS wallets you use?
Free open source software is better/safer/more secure
Not necessarily. There are plenty worse/dangerous/insecure examples of software with a FOSS-flavored LISCENSE.txt in their repo.
Base models are technical products. Apps like ChatGPT use the base model to deliver value. I suppose apps benefit more from branding than the base models themselves.
Its common practice in software dev to label releases with a major.minor.patch (i.e. v0.1.23) version notation. A bump in major version represents a huge architectural difference, or rewrite, or release of many big features, and/or incompatibility with previous versions. Whereas a bump in minor version is less significant, but still probably has lots of improvements. A bump in patch version is likely just a bugfix or less noticeable change.
The naming convention for LLMs likely stems from this as well. It has little to do with fractions or doing math. Its just a way to see at a glance how a piece of software is improving over time. Bigger number usually means better/battle-tested.
If shovels do all digging, and wheels move all weight, if machines manufacture all the things, if computers do all the communication and coordination, if robot vacuums pickup every mess... only then will AI fix everything.
Vinegar is actually more effective due to higher concentration of acetic acid. Cola isn't poison because of the acid, its the sugars that are addictive and slowly killing people.