pull down to refresh
0 sats \ 1 reply \ @nullama 19 Dec \ on: Powell says Fed cannot hold bitcoin, not seeking to change that news
But what happens when they seize Bitcoin?.
They even have the laptop used to seize Bitcoins from 2016 Bitfinex heist at the Smithsonian museum.
So, the US clearly owned those 94,000 Bitcoin at some moment in time.
Next weekend there will be a free 3-day Bitcoin-only event in NSW, Australia: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5520120.0
If you're interested to learn the actual mining process, I can recommend you to check out this open source miner. It runs with cgminer (mining software) which is also open source.
Where did you read that?, the official site says they support all the latest pixels, and I don't see a reason for them to stop supporting pixels:
GrapheneOS has official production support for the following devices:
Pixel 9 Pro Fold (comet) Pixel 9 Pro XL (komodo) Pixel 9 Pro (caiman) Pixel 9 (tokay) Pixel 8a (akita) Pixel 8 Pro (husky) Pixel 8 (shiba) Pixel Fold (felix) Pixel Tablet (tangorpro) Pixel 7a (lynx) Pixel 7 Pro (cheetah) Pixel 7 (panther) Pixel 6a (bluejay) Pixel 6 Pro (raven) Pixel 6 (oriole)
Similar to the two large pizzas from Laszlo, here's another less known example:
"$50 Trader Joe's Gift Card for 1 BTC" https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=13480.msg185165#msg185165
That $50 investment is now worth $81,439.62, or 1,628 times the original price...
Linus is the main maintainer of the Linux kernel, and sure, he gets to decide what code goes there. But there's no law against it. Anyone can fork the kernel and make their own changes. Companies do it all the time.
Why do you think these companies chose the OS that they did?
It's complex really, but one big difference is the license used.
With a BSD license you can keep your code closed, that's why iOS is closed source for example.
Linux uses GPL, which means the source code should be available, which you can get from AOSP: https://source.android.com Android derivatives like GrapheneOS use AOSP as their base for example.
Do you see Linux losing market share if countries are prevented from contributing to it?
There's no prevention of contributing to it. What I mentioned was the specific laws in the US about export of cryptography. You can't export certain types of software from the US to, say, Iran, or Cuba, etc. But those laws don't apply if the software originates from say, Canada, which is the case of OpenBSD.
TL;DR: One initial OS, Unix, inspired the creation of two similar, but different OS, OpenBSD, and Linux. You can even see them in action today (Android is based on Linux, and iOS on BSD)
Once upon a time, the company Bell Labs was using an OS called Unix, which was written by Dennis Ritchie, Ken Thompson, and others.
Origin story of OpenBSD:
In the 1970s, the parent company, AT&T, started to share the source code of this OS to other companies and universities that were interested in it. One of them was the University of California at Berkeley, whom continued the development of it and made it more publicly available, in what would be known as the Berkley Software Distribution, or BSD. There's some drama following, but one branch of BSD ended up as OpenBSD currently, based on the last available BSD source code.
Now the origin story of Linux:
Bell Labs eventually started to sell Unix as a proprietary OS. Richard Stallman didn't like that the software of Unix was closed, so in 1983 he started a project to create a Unix-like OS but completely open source, called GNU.
Stallman and others continued to work on GNU, but weren't able to complete a kernel for it (the core of the OS).
In 1991, Linus Torvalds created a kernel that basically completed the GNU project. Most people call this OS Linux, and of course Richard Stallman calls it GNU/Linux.
Also, does it matter that you like OpenBSD if the world uses Linux?
The world uses both really. Most servers run Linux, Android is also based on Linux, but many systems that are used worldwide are based on BSD. For example the OS for PlayStation and Apple (macOS, iOS) are both based on FreeBSD.
So, thanks to University of Berkeley, and Richard Stallman (and many others), we have an incredible world of software today.
I like that OpenBSD, because it is based in Canada, can freely export cryptographic functionality, because any of the US export laws don't apply to it.
Why do we ship cryptography?In three words: because we can.The OpenBSD project is based in Canada.The Export Control List of Canada places no significant restriction on the export of cryptographic software, and is even more explicit about the free export of freely-available cryptographic software. Marc Plumb has done some research to test the cryptographic laws.Hence the OpenBSD project has embedded cryptography into numerous places in the operating system. We require that the cryptographic software we use be freely available and with good licenses. We do not directly use cryptography with nasty patents. We also require that such software is from countries with useful export licenses because we do not wish to break the laws of any country.OpenBSD was the first operating system to ship with an IPsec stack. We've been including IPsec since the OpenBSD 2.1 release in 1997.
So, in practice, have you ever crossed a border without a passport?
Because, even ambassadors have a passport. It's different, sure, but they need to carry a diplomatic passport to cross an international border.
I wonder how far back it goes, maybe only gets to the cypherpunks stuff, but in reality you could continue all the way to Alan Turing, and arguably all the way to Charles Babbage.
most immigrants don’t assimilate.
I'm not sure if there's enough data to conclude one way or another.
There are heaps of cherry picked examples that showcase each side. For example, Albert Einstein ended up being a quite alright American immigrant, Elon Musk is also another great example of a successful immigrant in the US... also Steve Jobs was the son of a Syrian immigrant, etc...
I think the main issue is that people see immigrants as different, as a "us vs them" mentality, when in reality, they are basically the same.
Of course there are many immigrants causing issues in foreign countries, but also the native population is causing issues there as well. In the same way, immigrants and natives are both doing great things as well.
Note: It should be noted that a named living person has not claimed guardianship and therefore responsibility over the child.
Sure, if a person in the middle of the wilderness has a kid, then yeah, like any other animal, there's no responsibility over the child.
But in a particular society, there are rules, and they protect the kid for example so that the parents have responsibilities over the child if it is born in that country.
By using the word parent you are implicitly assuming a society. Language is not created in a vacuum. It needs a society.
No, because there are other people in the world with the same name.
Additional question: is there a law that force you to have a name?
Depends on which society you live in, but in most of them, yes, they require a name for citizenship.
Legal guardian is a more broad term that includes natural guardian:
A minor child's parents are the child's natural guardians
What is the meaning of the word "parent" ?
A parent in this case refers to either the progenitor of a child or the adoptive parent.