pull down to refresh
17 sats \ 0 replies \ @south_korea_ln 3h \ parent \ on: Bitcoin needs a censor bitcoin
Yeah, I was definitely not thinking about it being useful for the individual. But if 1000s of people consider this lottery mining as something they are willing to pay for (without likely profits), as an aggregate, you start forming the equivalent of a small pool of "idealistic" miners, who likely will have less pressure to censor.
On second reading, I guess that's what you referred to as "widespread adoption of "byproduct hashpower".
I agree.
Indeed.
I felt for him though as he recently had to sell part of his stack due to his partner incurring big losses due to leveraged trading.
I wonder if there is any argument to be made for a future where solominers play a role again. I guess their aggregate hash power doesn't even show in the chart above?
Got it. I'll research it a bit more. Feels like I'm just theorizing without much fundamental knowledge.
A final question, are there metrics that take into account intangible benefits such as healthcare, pension, etc that may partially compensate for the lower incomes (and/or higher taxation reducing net income) in Europe when compared to the US?
Putting aside again personal beliefs in terms of the morality of taxation, efficient use of resources, etc. And the likely lack of sustainability of the social system the way it has existed in Europe for decades.
Very entertaining read. Not sure if it'll work out the way it is being theorized, but it's a neat example of game theory potentially leading to the best outcome for Bitcoin.
A colleague at uni, in 2017. He told me about it, and mostly recommended me to listen to videos from A. Antonopoulos. He quickly made me realize that my little sidestep into XRP during the 2017 bull run was a padawan's mistake from someone who didn't see the big picture. I then completely switched to Bitcoin in 2018. Went to a LN hackathon and was hooked ever since.
Actually, I did go to a Bitcoin meetup sometime before all that in 2016 in Seoul, but the speaker did not manage to convince me that it was anything else but magic internet money.
As a side note, my colleague almost got hired for a professor position on Blockchain and AI, but the position never ended up being created. But that colleague knew the technical ins and the outs of it all, and I owe my current fascination with it mostly to him.
I see. It's good to have something consistent.
Does this metric get skewed by the big FAANG-style companies, or is the impact small? Probably talking out of my ass here, but is there some kind of "average" versus "median" effect here? As I mentioned in another comment, seems like European regulations are mostly damaging to the development of super-big companies, but not necessarily to the proliferation of small companies that can benefit from subsidies that are supposed to stimulate innovation. Subsidies themselves have lots of other known problems, including inefficient allocation of resources, but just trying to see things from a different angle today.
For sure. I know of a few people who left Europe for the US looking for greener pastures. Mostly because of the freedom that comes from having very little regulations and not much taxation.
One of them did so, had some great experience there learning how the startup world works, and came back a few years back to Europe where he started a company that is sending satellites into space. They are also doing pretty well.
Finally, just remembered another guy who's a friend of some of my friends who started an IT company. I checked, and his net worth is now 2.8 billion USD according to Forbes.
Just triggers me when I see someone as useless as Lagarde pretending to represent the actual productive people I've met in Europe.
I think it's a bit more nuanced.
I recently talked to 2 friends in Europe. One has joined a startup in Spain, focusing on AI stuff. The other one has started his own startup in Belgium, and they are thriving. It's a highly specialized material science company.
They both agree that it's nearly impossible to make a FAANG-style company in Europe these days. Indeed, due to regulations. However, both of them think that's a good thing. And I can follow them in that, as I don't think companies that are the size of Facebook, Google, Amazon, Apple, and Netflix (?) are a net positive to society. Not because the products they offer are useless (they aren't, most people use them daily), but because they are too big to fail, are walled gardens that kill any competition, and have too much influence in politics.
They told me both their companies benefit a lot from government programs to start a company without too much risk for the founders (one can argue that's a good thing because Silicon Valley hustle culture leads to many a burnout, one can also argue that's a bad thing as it puts less pressure to succeed), while at the same time, being forced to become profitable as, believe it or not, government funding is not infinite.
Not saying everything is rosy (it isn't, it's even pretty bad these days, as illustrated by the article I shared), but innovation and support for production are available. One just has to know the ropes on how to get it.
They are of course biased as they are in successful startups.
We should have an ~AMA with the guys from ACINQ, and ask them how they see the current environment in France to develop their LN company. Or maybe someone from Ledger?~~
Just putting this as a counterweight to the mostly negative sentiment one gets when reading Korean or US media reporting on Europe.
EDIT: your name sounds French... you might have boot-on-the-grounds insights to share. I'll be curious to hear them.
A trump coin ETF? Wtf~~
Just days after Donald Trump sparked a speculative and controversial crypto frenzy — by launching namesake digital tokens in the run-up to his presidential inauguration — an upstart ETF firm is pitching an exchange-traded fund that will go all-in on the branded Trump coin.
179 sats \ 1 reply \ @south_korea_ln 6h \ parent \ on: Parents Corner - The Sovereign Child Education
I see. If there is a book, I'd be more likely to get into it. I somehow can't sit down for hour long podcasts, yet a book is no issue.
Parents who want to be best friends with their kids
It's not even that they wanted to be best friends, it's just that boundaries were not really part of the way a kid was supposed to learn. I should have asked him about it when i met him last time, as I only remember the interpretation from their annoying behavior from second-hand discussions with my parents. Sounds quite interesting.
At the same time, kids are so free these days in Korea that I feel like my kid needs a bit more discipline. One of his teachers told us we should not scold him for being impolite to her. Even though we could hear the bad words he was using when talking to her. How will he learn if neither the teacher or us tell him he should not be talking to adults like that? He's 5.
Some of my cousins were raised as "sovereign kids", i.e. without any rules inside or outside the house. So-called free education. Their parents believed that the kids should figure out by themselves what was ok and not ok. They would never get scolded. When I or my siblings would interact with them, it was awful. The kids were insufferable. They would push us, tease us, etc but the parents would say nothing as this would be against their philosophy. I do not have fond memories of spending time with them.
I met one of those kids again as adults. He seem to be a well-adjusted adults now. Very friendly and mature. So, even though it was hard for others around them as kids, seems like this free education approach mostly worked out.
I don't think I'm cut out for this approach with my own kid though, so clear rules are part of his education.
I'm sorry if I misinterpreted the meaning of what is meant by "sovereign kids" in the video. I don't want to listen to 3 hours of Tim Ferris~~
I agree that social media and news headlines are not very good at representing the content of the actual studies. The latter have been mostly very careful about extrapolating from the fact that microplastics are on the rise to the unproven guess regarding the long term impact on health in humans.
Those few points from your link are quite relevant to me (one should also read the other ones for context... I don't want to cherry pick):
- Actual consumption of microplastics is much lower than popular media suggests.
[...]
- Despite incomplete data, it is clear that plastic concentrations in human tissues are rising.
- Current data does not conclusively prove that micro/nanoplastics (MNPs) are significantly hazardous to human health, nor does it confirm their harmlessness.
- Given the lack of benefits and potential for harm, reducing exposure appears prudent.
- Significant risk reduction is achievable without excessive cost or effort. Example: Replacing plastic with glass for food storage and water bottles is affordable and convenient. So is avoid heating or storing food in plastic.
Zhao and his colleagues focused on atoms of the element rubidium, which they cooled to only 19 millionths of a degree kelvin above absolute zero by hitting them with lasers and electromagnetic fields. They used the same tools – lasers and electromagnetic fields – to arrange up to 19 such atoms into a chain.
That's really the state-of-the-art.
I wonder how (and if) this relates to the third law of thermodynanics. At zero temperature, only one microstate would exist with minimum energy, no? This would imply an entropy of exactly zero.