pull down to refresh
79 sats \ 1 reply \ @netstatic 1 Dec \ on: MARK MY WORDS! In 2025 I will bring these HSG SCAMMERS TO JUSTICE!! alter_native
I sympathize with you and am sorry for your loss.
I don't think the federal government will be as effective as you might think. I would avoid going through the crypto asset recovery site so you can use that money to stack more.
The best thing you can do to get back at the scammers and the ineffective government that has failed you is to withhold your tax money whenever possible. Also vote for politicians that want to disassemble all the useless structures we have today and advocate for more eyes to be set on problems like these. Maybe a little vigilantism is the real solution.
If you decide to ignore this and proceed anyway, I wish you the best. I'm not trying to be a preachy ideologue, I just want to prevent you from losing more money.
A nerve seems to have been touched
There is no purpose in a statement like this except to make people mad 😂. Your post came off a lot stronger than his lmao🪞
The nature of life its such that everyone will have their own definition of moral. The powerful majority forcing their values on the weaker minority will always happen. I wouldn’t reserve that phenomenon to only happening under a democracy.
Democracy I reserve for the governance system whereby we try to convince the minority the wishes of the majority to convey they’d lose in a violent disagreement.
Good in theory but the majority don’t always represent the most powerful, and the participants don’t always know what’s being voted on. Most don’t have the time to understand the existing system of laws made before them and the unintended interactions between new laws.
The US also doesn’t have a true democracy, it’s a republic, which makes an even more convoluted system for which people must navigate to make changes to.
No, legacy wallets are fine. What’s more important is which software he used to generate his keys. If it was Bitcoin-QT/Bitcoin Core he’s fine
One thing I think gets forgotten is the fact that the internet started out distributed. Distributed computing and peer to peer long predate Bitcoin and laid the foundation for being able to build a monetary system like this. I don't think it means they had a similar vision for Bitcoin and the Bitcoin ecosystem is starting to naturally (and unfortunately) lean towards centralization with all these wallets connected to the same company node, the lack of interest of node-running, the inaccessibility of mining, etc.
I think the network is sufficiently decentralized today but work still needs to be put in to maintain this status. Either we make stronger cases for decentralization, or better incentives to be self-sovereign. In some ways I see Bitcoin as a do-over for a network setup that prioritizes decentralization and p2p technologies.
I’d things go offline (meaning no one has internet), we’d go back to other proxies for payment. We’d also have non-trivial long distance communication problems (since I treat any telegram connections as being online) and would need to form local coalitions to find an appropriate currency to use in the meantime such that enough people will think is fair enough to adopt
Your question of robustness vs exactness frames the 2 as if they're at odds with each other, you can have both robustness and exactness. The UX problem encountered by your user wasn't about robustness, it was about how you decided to engineer your experience.
If you were going to force an extension for a specific output type, why allow the user to specify an extension at all? Doing it this way is setting them up for failure. It's like if I asked you for advice on something I've already made a decision on.
If you're building on libraries that have this problem, make sure as many inputs that would lead to inconsistent states in the library are disallowed at the user input generated from your code. Never correct things for the user implicitly if you can help it.
Best case is you never allow them to make a mistake in the first place, but if that's not possible, you can catch inputs that would potentially lead to errors and inform the user to take action on a proposed fix. And if you need to implicitly correct input as a last resort, although I can't imagine a scenario where this would be needed right now, then you should absolutely notify the user that this correction happened so that they don't get confused on how they got their output.
The anti-federalists were opposed to the Constitution not because they disapproved of its weak federal government and demanded something stronger, something more like what we have today, but because they disapproved of a federal government at all. In other words, the vision Dalio now derides and implies is the precursor to civil war was, in fact, the most radically centralized of the forms of government considered by the Founders.
I think he made a typo and meant decentralized in the last sentence of the quoted paragraph. Having no federal government and more state rights would not lead to more centralization.
Actually, from a technical perspective I do enjoy trying to figure it out. From a user perspective, I'd like for there to be no money at all and wish I could get anything I want delivered instantly. Obviously this can't be realized because the real world has costs, so I have to pick and choose what I want based on what I can access and afford.
Just like every decision in my everyday life, Bitcoin has made tradeoffs. It isn't the fastest way to purchase most products (lightning network aside), but it is the fastest way to do so in a decentralized manner that is near impossible to reverse given enough confirmations. That is a metric important to me.
Any digital currency can have a "better blockchains in certain aspects" when compared to Bitcoin. Someone can make the argument that Dogecoin is better because it's built with a funnier theme in mind. Someone else can say Ethereum is better because it allows smart contracts. "Better" only has meaning for a given metric. And in all the metrics I find important, Bitcoin still beats everything else.
Someone woke up firey today 😂
Something doesn't have to provide 0 value for it to be a scam. For example, you can sell me on the idea of an umbrella being extra unique and charge double price for it. Once I realize it's a regular umbrella I'm calling it a scam, even though it provides protection from the rain. Why? Because I'm not getting adequate value for the cost charged to me. Taxes in a lot of ways are like this. There are a lot of middle men.
Proof of work is like starting a live stream, writing some viewer comments on a basketball, and trying to make full-court shots backwards. You keep trying until the ball gets in and once you make it, you number the ball and repeat the process with a new ball. Let's say everyone who got their comment on a ball sends some money to an escrow you can only spend after 100 balls are made after it.
Now if someone else comes into the stream while you're trying to get ball 64 in and does the same process of writing the comments and shooting backwards, then they can start stealing escrowed funds. For example, if they started from ball 63 and got ball 64 in, they would be entitled to the escrows for both balls (63 and 64). In that case the original person could focus on ball 65 and get a new escrow, or he can try his luck at overtaking the second person from ball 63 again.
In this example the balls are blocks, the comments are transactions, the miners are players, and the escrow is the combined fees and subsidy. Shooting balls is the equivalent of mining with sha256 and the winning block hash (with preimage) is like the video of the ball going in (the thing produced that shows you did the work).
I didn't add a difficulty adjustment in my analogy, but let's say when the commenters see too many balls get in the hoop too quickly, the commenters stop giving money until the basket is moved even farther from the players.