pull down to refresh
Qerko was a diamond in the rough for paying in Bitcoin at restaurants in the Czech Republic. Merchants using payment processors needed to KYC for a fucking coffee.
Merchants who take the payment on a self custodial wallet are fine.
So, paying through a payment processor is like paying with mastercard, both parties need to be KYC, while paying p2p is like cash and no KYC needed?
If that's the case, it is good for bitcoin. It makes clear what is bitcoin (p2p cash) vs IOU virtual currencies
Weird indeed... i don't think its related to BNB, though, since they are converting specifically the recovery fund only to bitcoin....
Maybe they are preparing to survive a market wide naked short squeeze?
If you need to honor bitcoin withdrawals, having fiat in the recovery fund won't help if there is not enough bitcoin being sold in the market...
Framework maybe? But, I mean, all the hardware comes always from few big manufacturers.
I don't think anyone is bugging hardware on purpose... it would be very inefficient, hard to target and potentially dangerous. It is more likely for backdoors to be always delivered, to targeted individuals, by software that can be updated, patched and destroyed.
So I guess my recommendation is to install Linux 🗿and use full disk encryption
Check this out: Bisq DAO.
It's basically a self sustained microeconomy, fees are just a part in this, but i suppose it can work without, especially on Bisq easy that afaik is purely reputation based
Jeff Bezos is overestimating the quality of networks around the world, it is not just bandwidth, you need low latency for an experience that is close to local hardware.
We are going to see mainstream ARM PCs and chinese GPUs before cloud renting.
Your point about using btc and 110, versus the awful mess I made in the OP is accurate. I was trying to avoid antagonizing anyone by labeling one side or the other as the "true btc" side
Fair. I am not trying to antagonize either, if the bip manages to win, it'll become BTC, i suppose. Can't really call BTC something that is not yet deployed.
"Wipeout" in this context means orphan. As in the 110 chain is valid as far as the btc nodes see, and therefore if it ever accumulated enough PoW, the btc side of the split would be orphaned and all nodes would see the 110 chain as heaviest valid chain.
I see... this gives them the same chances as anyone trying to rollback the chain, so it all boils down to thinking there are stronger arguments for B110 that eg. CZ that time asking to "pls rollback the hack", that is IMO true, but not even close to be enough to have that confidence in the outcome.
It is very hard to follow along with all this BIP-110 nonBIP-110 naming, can we just agree to call the current consensus BTC and whatever proposed fork as B + its BIP number, so BTC vs B110 ?
That said, maybe i am missing something, but isn't this an asymmetric disadvantage actually?
Since the BTC clients can accept both BTC and B110 blocks, they will always see a fresh chain, while B110 clients will have two options:
- willingly accept BTC blocks that they deem harboring potentially harmful illegal content, until they win the upper hand
- risk falling behind several blocks
not sure which of the two options is implemented in the BIP110, but i assume the 1st, or we wouldn't be having this conversation since luck won't help defeat the accumulated POW if they don't start as a majority
If the 1st option is implemented, it is true that B110 clients could gain an upper hand and cause a reorg, but that would realistically affect only the latest few blocks, and it would be just like any other reorg that could happen at any given time.
The only difference is that usually reorgs happen once in a while and by mistake, on the contrary B110 would be akin to a prolonged attack on bitcoin.
If somehow this manages to last very long, the chain will slow down, fees will skyrocket (since tx in orphaned blocks go back in the mempool) and ultimately miners will join the chain that gives an higher chance of recouping their losses, that would be the BTC chain, since it will have more transactions and so more fees.
Good news. For additional context, they allegedly built this censorship technology for the football lobby, which was crying about illegal streams.
Yes, it's that REGARDED. Also, they allegedly basically have no idea what they are doing, because they ended up banning google drive several times, and they allegedly posted their porn searches online on a pdf document by mistake.
I am not a big fan of the current gov. But it is actually the AGCOM doing this, not them.
It's an independent authority that the government can't dismantle until 2027, its members were chosen by the mostly unelected globalist government we had in 2020.
I don't think anyone likes the AGCOM tbh.
OpenSource usually works like this: you write something either because you're paid to do so or because you need it yourself. When the incentive to maintain it is gone, the project may sit idle.
Later, when someone else needs the same thing, instead of starting from scratch and spending months or years reaching the same goals, they can build on the work that already exists and move it forward.
In the Bitcoin and adjacent ecosystem, things are a bit unusual since people often rebuild the same stuff over and over. Just look at how many javascript nostr libraries are there, we should invite people to fix/fork or adopt existing projects and use licenses that incentive doing that for profit (like MIT, BSD, CC0 etc).
The size of the government is not a good indicator, the question is if his politics point toward the individual or the collective, and I'd say trump is 70% individual
Everyone in the western politics is a bit socialist tbh, but not at the level of a commie or a fascist IMO.
A mafia boss employs you to do crime, a fascist dictator says you need to do your part for the greater good, whatever he thinks this greater good is.
Hitler was not even a fascist...
Anyway Trump is less fascist than Bernie Sanders, since fascists were socialists.
They are very powerful tools
A few days ago I put Codex on the task of translating a library from Rust to Java, and it nailed it.
Admittedly, it wasn’t a very complex codebase, but it was still pretty incredible to see, especially considering that for an human it would have been a tedious work of likely 1/2 full days, while Codex completed it in about ~20 minutes, almost perfectly.
I remember that 5 years ago, automatic translation from one language to another was only a thing of dreams and few tech demos.
I'm pretty convinced now that a lot of the work I've done over the years on cross language bindings could be done by Codex in just a few minutes, or, better yet, by translating the source library directly.
That said it is still no match for an experienced human dev, so I strongly doubt traditional coding is dead, but I think we are going to see more single dev+agent teams going forward, where the dev focuses on complex tasks while the agent can write the glue and maintain the boilerplate.