eddieoz

They are different purposes. Meshtastic was better when you were online in the field, or without an established infrastructure. Meshcore is better when you are building an infrastructure in a city, because you will have better previsibility of repeaters, and have a better routing system.

Here in Tallinn, we had a growing Meshtastic network but because of a few misconfigured nodes, the network was always congested, slow, bloated with messages arriving less than 50% of the time.

Then we started to move to Meshcore, and the network seems healthier than when with Meshtastic. We are improving the access to other regions by well-placed repeaters and are talking to the Latvian community to expand and connect both countries.

About WiFi-aware, I think we still have constraints about distance, which is a little broader than Bluetooth but doesn't solve the problem because it's a low-power WiFi.

Seems they are launching with very small models, and they will be available throught their own version of ollama.

lf to see bigger models, at least 7/8b

:)

E-Residency envoy here.

It is a great alternative for everyone willing to scale their businesses across Europe. They have built a strong ecosystem, and founders will find a lot of support.

Poor Gerard. He was created on a local early stable diffusion on 22' It was the best we could get at that time.

So, I think we can agree that Bitcoin is far from a timechain in the way it works today, at least tecnically :)

The issue lies in the fact that we cannot establish a deterministic time interval between blocks, as miners must compete with their hashing power to discover each block. Implementing a fixed interval would compromise security. Moreover, setting a very short time frame between blocks could lead to a bunch of orphan blocks and other issues because of relay time, bandwidth, and others.

The idea is interesting, but the implementation poses challenges.

The discussion about the terminology used by Satoshi Nakamoto when creating Bitcoin has generated considerable debate in the crypto community. One of the most contentious points is the distinction between the terms "Timechain" and "Blockchain." Initially, Satoshi used "Timechain" to describe the interconnected block structure in Bitcoin, but later removed all references to this term. Why did this happen? What is the significance behind this change? Let's explore these points in detail.

*The Origin of the Term Timechain*

In the first version of Bitcoin's code released by Satoshi Nakamoto, the term "Timechain" was used to describe the sequence of blocks that make up Bitcoin. This terminology may have been chosen due to the sequential nature of the blocks, which are added approximately every ten minutes. However, as the project developed and the code evolved, all references to "Timechain" were removed, replaced by more generic terms like "chain" and "chain of blocks."

*Why Did Satoshi Nakamoto Remove Timechain?*

There are several theories about why Satoshi decided to remove the term "Timechain." The most plausible is that he realized the terminology did not adequately capture the nature of the Bitcoin network. Let's analyze some points that may have influenced this decision:

- Block Unpredictability: The idea of "Timechain" suggests a precise and predictable time sequence, something Bitcoin cannot guarantee due to the variation in the network's hash rate. While the goal is for new blocks to be added every ten minutes, in practice, this can vary. The exact time of creation of each block depends on many factors, including network difficulty and available computational power.

- Transaction Sequencing: In a "Timechain," transactions are expected to be sequential and time-ordered. However, in Bitcoin, the order of transactions within a block is determined by the miner who solves the block. This means that while transactions are immutably recorded, their order is not necessarily sequential in terms of time.

- Time Reliability: The timestamp of each block in Bitcoin is based on the time provided by the miner and validated by network nodes. This timestamp, however, is not an exact measure of time and can be slightly adjusted by the miner as long as it is within an acceptable range. This reduces the precision and reliability of the "Timechain" concept.

*The Philosophy of Time*

Another interesting point is the philosophy of time itself. Time is a concept widely discussed in both philosophy and science. There are debates about its nature, existence, and how it should be measured. However, there is consensus that time is a continuous sequence and divisible into measurable units such as seconds, minutes, and hours. This divisibility allows time to be predictable and used to measure events consistently.

In the context of Bitcoin, while we can predict that a block will be added every ten minutes on average, we cannot predict the exact moment a block will be created. This imprecision makes the concept of "Timechain" inadequate, as Bitcoin's block chain does not follow an exact time sequence.

*The Evolution of Bitcoin's Code*

In the original Bitcoin code, there were references to "hashTimechainBest," which indicated the best block within the longest chain. Over time, this terminology was replaced by terms like "hashBestChain" and "chainWork," which refer to the difficulty and accumulated work in the block chain. This change reflects a deeper understanding of Bitcoin's nature and operation.

In the code revised by Gavin Andresen, one of Bitcoin's early developers, we no longer find references to "Timechain." Instead, we see an emphasis on "chain" and "block," focusing on network integrity and security. The removal of "Timechain" and the adoption of "chain of blocks" (in the whitepaper) or simply "chain" indicate an evolution in understanding what constitutes the Bitcoin network and how it should be described.

*Adoption of the Term Blockchain*

Over time, the term "blockchain" gained popularity and was widely adopted, not only in the Bitcoin community but also in many other distributed ledger technology (DLT) applications. "Blockchain" has become a buzzword to describe any chain of interconnected blocks that maintain transaction records in a decentralized and secure manner.

This led some Bitcoin maximalists to reject the term "blockchain," arguing that it has been co-opted by projects that do not maintain the same standards of security and decentralization as Bitcoin. Instead, these maximalists prefer to use "Timechain" to highlight the differences and maintain the purity of the original Bitcoin concept. However, this adoption of "Timechain" can be seen as an attempt to distance themselves from other projects and maintain a unique identity, even if the term does not accurately capture the network's nature.

*Conclusion: Timechain vs. Blockchain*

The discussion between "Timechain" and "Blockchain" is more than just a matter of terminology; it reflects the evolving understanding of how Bitcoin and other distributed ledger technologies work. By removing the term "Timechain," Satoshi Nakamoto demonstrated an adaptation to the technical and practical realities of the Bitcoin network. The term "blockchain" has become widely accepted and understood, capturing the essence of what the network truly does: a chain of blocks that records transactions in a secure and decentralized manner.

While some in the community may continue to use "Timechain" to differentiate themselves, it is important to recognize that Satoshi's change in terminology was based on a deeper understanding of the network's limitations and capabilities. The adoption of "blockchain" as the standard term reflects this evolution and the wide applicability of the technology in various contexts beyond Bitcoin.

So, whether you are a Bitcoin enthusiast who prefers "Timechain" or someone who adopts the term "blockchain," the important thing is to understand the philosophy and technology behind these terms. Bitcoin remains a revolutionary innovation, regardless of the name we give to its structure of interconnected blocks.

I hope so... Su Zhu, Do Kwon and SBF being free are a very negative reinforcement for the entire ecosystem. It is absolutely unfair.

SBF has his freedom in Bahamas, enjoying the weather and playing his games

Alexey Pertsev, a dev who was writing open-source code to preserve ppl privacy is in jail for 103 days and will stay there for at least 3+ months during the 'investigation'

That's what justice means

But it is just to protect you from hackers.

“This court-authorized operation to copy and remove malicious web shells from hundreds of vulnerable computers shows our commitment to use any viable resource to fight cyber criminals,” said Acting U.S. Attorney Jennifer B. Lowery of the Southern District of Texas.

"We just made the smallest of changes to a chip that everybody is building, and all of a sudden it started doing a lot better.

"It's quite amazing to me that nobody spotted it in the 20-or-so years that people have been working on that model."

The research paper was published in the journal Nature Communications: https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-021-22274-1

no wires... this is something

It is a very expected feature, at least to me.

> "In the days of Silk Road, Tor — a type of open-source software for maintaining anonymity online — was used to hide IP addresses and bitcoin facilitated transactions without involving banks. That would not happen today. Looking back, it’s referred to as “the most sophisticated and extensive criminal market­place on the internet.”"

It is happening, all the time.

First move I'm aware, against crypto miners

Just imagine if you create any platform where people link some post, then you need to pay to the author some royalties.

Because someone else engaged in some content. Unbelievable.

I would like to know if it is about the interpretation of reality they brought, or if it is about the caos broken game actually it is. :p

"States don’t like strategic dependence and so, in 2021, they will develop standards and technology that diverge from global commons, and which embody their values and which they control. This will be more than the different “flavours” of the internet we are already seeing emerge. It will be a fundamental shift in how technology is developed, owned, accessed and leveraged by nation states and companies."

Put simply, the resolution is no different from the previous proposals which generated a wide backlash from privacy-conscious companies, civil society members, experts, and MEPs. The difference this time is that the Council has taken a more subtle approach and avoided explicitly using words like ‘ban’ or ‘backdoor.’ But make no mistake, this is the intention. It’s important that steps are taken now to prevent these proposals going too far and keep European’s rights to privacy intact.”

> “Mac gave me this little bar, but why can’t they just give me a whole touchscreen?” asks a boy comparing the two laptops.

Absolutely fair

FCC seems to be against net neutrality, no matter what.

Gaming in public spaces could be solved if it had a bluetooth mic

They announced 'about', and idk if it will be their 1st version of status. IMO it is about the first steps to become a social network.

Thanks for the heads up.

I just read both (Moxie and Matrix.org) and I will stay with Matrix response.

I understand Moxie points and the main one is about speed, as I understood. But, as Matthew Hodgson pointed out: the governance of decentralisation is hard, but not impossible.

So, in the end, Signal moves are driven by the market. And, IMO, sometimes it can be dangerous.

I miss really miss this feature... having 2 devices, I can have signal in just one.

I don't believe syncing in multiple devices can be a problem for the app purpose, mainly because the new whatsapp features they announced.

Agreed. The core services are working very well and business decisions because of this new market opportunity can drive them to pivot to something totally different.

Integration to Matrix.org... I think we could have a very interesting outcome.

Yes, you are correct.

From the infosec point-of-view, I believe simpler is better. Adding extra complexity always opens the door for issues which were not presented before, in the core product and core functionality.

From the business perspective, I understand it is a step to get the new demand opportunity.