HN user
Bots and cheating are in a similar category but considered different things. Cheats unfairly enhance a player's ability to raise their rank while bots sell the lowest-level accounts to people who don't want to spend time grinding in-game points (in League's case, IP to buy Champions or Experience Points to hit level 30, the bare minimum to participate in ranked play).
What about the ETH blockchain is needed to fulfill this requirement? Bitcoin's blockchain can be used in the exact same way.
Theoretically ETH can easily replace bitcoin as a payment method for anything that can be bought with BTC currently. I would imagine some people investing in ETH are expecting that to happen.
My BofA account has a whole spending habits section with graphics and charts and a ton of features, for free, which comes with my debit account. Why would I want to do all this myself?
The only real answer is privacy, but I would just use BTC instead of USD if I wanted privacy anyway, and BTC is already programmable.
I'm not quite sure I follow. I only see news posted by my friends and the pages I follow. What would FB lite look like?
In most publications editors select headlines for all stories in an issue. The writer does not have a say in what is printed as the title of their own article.
This is a perfect example of what I was talking about. It is a nice idea. However there are no problems charities face that existing FIAT currencies or bitcoin or standard real-world contracts don't already solve. Unless there is a case to be made that censorship or centralization is a problem for contracts in the charity space, this app is a solution looking for a problem, in my opinion.
It is unclear how blockchain smart contracts contribute any value to the users in this case.
That's not true at all though. Smart Contracts are being used in a wide variety of great projects.
Do you have any examples of projects that would be truly different or impossible to implement without smart contracts?
Using a blockchain to enforce scarcity and authenticity of digital objects is a cool idea on paper but only actually becomes effective under one of two scenarios:
1. Everyone simply agrees and acts accordingly thereby giving the ledger value. See: US dollars.
or,
2. There are real-world repercussions to violating the rules. This implies some form of hybrid blockchain/real-world-contract with trade via blockchain and enforcement via the real-world law.
There are advantages to trading on a blockchain. To make the claim that a digital item (can be simply copied with a screenshot) is "rare" because it's one-of-a-kind on the blockchain only works if everyone agrees that ownership via blockchain is as important or more important than the pixels that make up the image.
The definition of "works" in my previous statement is up for discussion, considering this idea is silly on its own merits, it might be working just fine as far as the creator intended.
The more confusing thing is what will happen when the userbase finds out Ethereum "smart contracts" aren't good for anything except online gambling which certainly will not be allowed on the TokenBrowser app. Also, I shook my head when I saw your screenshot, that is certainly not a good first impression.
It's not only a free-market solution, it's also the solution that doesn't involve giving your ISP plaintext data and trusting them to do nothing wrong with it because the government said so.
I was mistaken, and you're 100% right. I hadn't realized Pewdiepie lost so much from this slip-up.
It seems like the definition of "imploded" in the context of JonTron and Pewdiepie is "lost an insignificant and negligible amount of subscribers".
If someone is concerned with their ISP knowing the sites they visit, they can use TOR or a VPN to re-route that traffic elsewhere.
There is no way to avoid this.
The way the internet works right now, someone at some point has to know which server you want to connect to. It's your ISP or your VPN provider or the TOR nodes you're connected to, or some other lesser-known program that obfuscates your identity.
You do not have to be tech-savvy to install a browser addon.
This does not restrict your freedom because you can still encrypt your traffic and obfuscate your browsing history easily using free and open source software.
Of course you shouldn't use a free VPN for anything sensitive, but to obscure your browsing data (like what you search for or what media you consume) it's completely fine.
TOR is free and is specifically for the purpose of anonymizing your connection to the website you're visiting. This article isn't about authenticity of your identity, it's about confidentiality of your browsing history.
Using a simple free VPN to encrypt your traffic is enough. This does not cost time or money. Neither does TOR.
You shouldn't trust your ISP to not be collecting your information in either case. Even if they say they aren't spying on you that does not mean they should be trusted with any of your plaintext data.
Ethereum tried this, and a bug in the code lead to millions of dollars of value lost. They ended up hard-forking the code by changing it to match the intended outcome of the code, thus reversing the actual outcome of the execution of that code.
Eventually you'll have millions of lines of code, and within those millions of lines of code there will be a bug. It's no different than writing a legal contract in English. In both cases you can only do your best to make sure there is no misunderstanding or undefined behavior, but there is always a possibility that at some point someone will find a flaw and exploit it.
To put things into perspective, let the Bitcoin network hashrate (double SHA256 per second) = B and the number of SHA1 hashes calculated in shattered = G.
B = 3,116,899,000,000,000,000
G = 9,223,372,036,854,775,808
Every three seconds the Bitcoin mining network brute-forces the same amount of hashes as Google did to perform this attack. Of course, the brute-force approach will always take longer than a strategic approach; this comment is only meant to put into perspective the sheer number of hashes calculated.
Google filters out negative auto-completes. Try the same thing with Trump or any controversial figure, like Martin Shkreli.
For example, when typing in "Martin Shkreli is a" on Google, the only auto-complete is "Martin Shkreli is actually good". Try the same on Bing and DDG, you will see all of the negative auto-completes you'd expect.
Not necessarily. It depends on defensive capabilities. It's very possible that two countries get into a conflict thinking it is a mutual assured destruction scenario, only to find out one country is better at neutralizing attacks in-transit.
Yeah, that screenshot comparison is like comparing a basket of mixed apples at a market to a vast field of apple trees.
"Doug Ericksen, the communications director for Trump's transition team at EPA, said he expects the communications ban to be lifted by the end of this week."[0]
and,
"ARS spokesman Christopher Bentley said the ban would not include scientific publications released through peer-reviewed professional journals."[0]
[0] https://www.apnews.com/5ada25fc57b44a0989e681d6dc2a3daf/Trum...
Is there a source for this? I am not seeing a source in OP's article nor am I seeing any sources in any of the articles that show up on the front page of DuckDuckGo. Also, none of the articles written about this are written in a major news outlet.
Occam's razor is a good guide to avoid critical thinking.
Sorry, I don't understand. If the problem is a hypothetical situation where a compromised developer uploads malicious code, then how does IPFS relieve any pressure from that circumstance?
Individual IPFS nodes are certainly blindly trusting the developer's signature as a stamp of approval. Adding more nodes doesn't make that problem better. It makes it worse by providing a greater false sense of security.
In the case of a compromised server operator, as long as hosting company X is smaller than Amazon, it's always better to use Amazon's cloud service to mitigate the possibility of server operator tampering.
The subject could be seen as very complex but for most use-cases there is a simple litmus test. Do you need censorship-resistant transactions or a neutral/decentralized timestamping server? If not, then you don't need a blockchain. That's really it.
In the case of a vendor, accepting _bitcoin_ has own security advantages, and bitcoin comes with its own blockchain built-in. As a vendor you probably wouldn't really need to worry about the blockchain as much as you would need to worry about avoiding exchange rate fees.
I use toggl[1] exactly this way. Check it out.
https://shakespeareillustration.org/ -- in case you don't want to brute force the correct order of link-clicks to find the original source.