Interesting analogy! Extending it, the problem with the existing “pool” system is that it’s a coercive monopoly and it is unresponsive to the needs of miners or nodes. It just ticks along, serving only its desire to secure more power.
No. I’m talking specifically about a group of people who called themselves Progressives and started the Progressive Movement. The most well-known and prominent of this first wave were Theodore Roosevelt and Woodrow Wilson.
I’m using “progressive” in the history-of-political-thought sense, referring to the movement that began self-identifying as Progressives in the US at the end of the nineteenth century. See https://mises.org/library/book/progressive-era
You may not be interested in politics but politics is interested in you, in other words. I care more about being a role model to those close to me. I can say with pride that I only voted once, when I was young and foolish (I voted libertarian) but I have not consented in the thirty years since.
Fair enough and thanks for the response. But then I have to ask - what is the ultimate goal for progressive bitcoiners? I’m here for separation of money and state and I see that inevitably leading to outcomes progressives would not be happy with.
Sincere question for progressive bitcoiners: if you could press a button that would end all fiat central banks immediately, would you press it no matter what? What if that caused an increase in inequality? What if all federal social programs would get defunded? What if taxation as we know it now would be impossible? Because if you would, then you are not a progressive anymore.
It is always “the most important election of our lifetimes”. Political action, except outright revolution, can be counted to do one thing - legitimize the regime.
Wondering about spooks in Trump’s camp is not a retarded take, considering how he got rolled by Pompeo and the rest in his first administration.
Not only a strawman, a very tired and unoriginal one. If you cannot understand the ethical reasons to stay away from politics, at least understand that it is a waste of your time and resources. Best you can do for yourself and your loved ones is to separate and protect yourself as much as you can from the whole sordid mess.
No incarceration! Summary execution by the victim or physical removal.
Can anyone else chime in? Does switching from first-seen to first-validated block as a mitigation to the attack deacribed by nostr:npub17u5dneh8qjp43ecfxr6u5e9sjamsmxyuekrg2nlxrrk6nj9rsyrqywt4tp in his excellent article represent a consensus change?
nostr:note1l2ml89avat3uvfrjhux2f8x9xkdgrhzykesfvpwnuge3pjxpjylsghskxj
Thanks for the response! I would have thought it was just policy and not consensus since the problematic block has not been validated in full yet. Given a valid new block header, my node will ignore any other header of the same height, even though it does not know that the first block received is fully valid, just that the header is. Assuming an implementation in which blocks of the same height can be validated in parallel, all this means is changing what the node does in the event of a tie from “first seen” to “first validated”. What am I missing?
The GAE uses vassal states as trial balloons. Once these pilot programs get normalized, they will bring them back home.
Interesting article, thank you. Would it make sense for Core to prefer an easier to validate block of the same height if it is stuck on a hard to validate block? Essentially, for the node to be able to validate blocks of the same height in parallel under certain circumstances. That could change the game theory for the attacker.
Fair but in my world view fiat banks are part of the regime.
Nice! Please set up your zaps.
Except the chyron and conclusion promote the fiction that the USG is somehow acting as a restraining force.