Prof @Cornell, co-director @, founder @avalabsofficial, co-founder @bloxrouteLabs.
RT @el33th4xor: First of its kind: EU authorities shut down a Bitcoin tumbler in a sign of things to come. via @Coi…
Happy pizza day everyone. /Cc @bit_gossip
RT @katherineykwu: This whole CSW thing has gone so bonkers that the U.S Copyright Office has to issue an OFFICIAL STATEMENT clarifying wha…
My guess is that the authorities will come to regret the chain reaction that they are starting here.
This minor shutdown will have major ramifications. This kind of shutdown creates selective pressure for tumblers that cannot be shutdown. And we know, from the research world, that it's possible to build much better ones.
First of its kind: EU authorities shut down a Bitcoin tumbler in a sign of things to come. via @coindesk
On Safety and Liveness Tradeoffs in Consensus Protocols
The clown show continues to be hilarious.
RT @ColinTCrypto: Bitcoin SV Price Pumps. What's this really mean? It's a good time to sell BSV! @Bitcoin @roger…
RT @phillipliujr: A visualization of how Avalanche consensus works by @Tederminant. Take a look at the github too!…
RT @weiks: Great proposal. Market cap should be: Market Size = "last price" x "supply that has moved within N years". Only question i…
RT @veradittakit: 🔥 Hot off the press: “VeradiVerdict - What Does Layer 0/BDN For Scalability Look Like? - Issue #38”…
I should have typed 17m, the circulating supply, instead of 21m in the examples above. People do attempt to compensate for treasury coins and coins not in circulation, but the "moving supply" is a much better way of capturing that for forked coins than the circulating supply.
I wonder if we can get consensus on this issue across multiple coins. We have to cut out bad actors that go to great lengths to send a misleading message to small investors. We should perform the market cap calculation in a way that captures the actual size of the market.
The idea comes from @TimBeiko who refined my initial proposal, and it's at least an honest metric, and in fact a meaningful metric, more so than what everyone does today.
This leads to misleadingly high market caps for forked coins. This is particularly acute for BSV. If you believe CSW, SN coins are tied up in a trust, and hence out of circulation.
So, it would be much better to count "moved coins in the last N years", and report the moving market cap. One could even let the user pick the N. This way, a fork that has no interest would have a moving market cap off close to $0. No gaming the system by forking a popular coin.
If you don't believe CSW, then you either sold your coins or will never trust/bother with BSV to even attempt to sell them. And SN will never touch that chain, if he's alive. It's criminally misleading to take the latest price and multiply it with 21m.
Here's a simple idea to improve the space. Problem: there are many forks of Bitcoin. The reported marketcap is almost certainly misleading. For instance, if you fork BTC now, its marketcap is calculated by 21m*price, even though you'd probably have 0 interest in the coin.
RT @initc3org: Only a few weeks away! This coding experience will have you working closely with other researchers in the blockchain communi…
If you're in it for the tech, the tech frontier moved. If you're in it because of sentimental attachment to SN, well, do your due diligence and don't go after people who are actively trying to fool the masses with legal or technical sleight of hand tricks.
Technically, Satoshi was brilliant in 2009. By 2019, he got outdone in every way by Team Rocket. That's the end of the story.
In 2019, it doesn't matter who Satoshi is. It's not like Goldman will say "this fraud in a 3-piece suit got recognized by the copyright office, let's use his pet fork." If institutions come, they'll come to systems that possess the scalability and low latency that they need.
Meanwhile, there was a coordinated pump on the few remaining exchanges that support fraudcoin. If any of you still have some fraudcoin left around, these pumps are good opportunities to liquidate.
And remember, this whole thing started with dumb acts of computer manipulation: forged emails & fake signatures. These are trivial for techies, and convincing to nontechies. The latest legal shenanigan will sway the clueless, esp non-americans who don't know how US law works.
A certain group has spent tremendous energy cultivating a community of people who don't understand logic at all. They'll be swayed by dumb acts of legal manipulation.
The distinction between "Copyright office recognizes person X as author" versus "Copyright office witnesses that person X is claiming to be the author" is subtle. If someone doesn't understand the law, they'll get confused.
The actual copyright belongs to the actual creator, and is a natural right that arises at the moment of creation, without any registration. Following the Bern treaty, registering with the copyright office has become unnecessary.
The copyright office does not adjudicate authorship disputes. It merely acts as a specialized notary-like service, saying that "person X claimed copyright." Anyone, with sufficiently loose morals, can claim copyright for anything.
If all you can do is 3 tps on chain, high chain fees and custodial solutions are inevitable. But if you can increase capacity by 1000X, the entire equation changes.
I'm told that IC3's last bootcamp was a blast, though I couldn't make it. I will be there this year. Come and buidl with us.
Ecco un articolo per i nostri tifosi italiani:
Come and join us for the IC3 Blockchain Bootcamp!
Stellar Goes Offline, proving lack of decentralization
For completeness, we should highlight that all blockchain businesses are expected to architect security to N levels of confirmation, with a worst case reorg or hard fork scenario of the entire network going offline for 12 hours or more, while the chain sorts itself out.
RT @el33th4xor: Permissioned blockchains are doomed.
Interesting to see Ben Lawsky's name come up in this treatise on predatory lending practices involving taxi medallions. Tl;Dr: he is criticized for not taking action.
RT @ChristopherA: You can brute force open a password protected pkzip file for any password 16 chars or less using an Amazon cloud server f…
Here's a member of the audience after hearing @kevinsekniqi talk about Ava.
RT @ekang426: NY Recap 2: @avalabsofficial x @cosmos meetup. Great presenters with solid tech. Looking forward to seeing both projects at B…
RT @lawmaster: I find it very hard to believe that the SEC will approve a Bitcoin ETF any time soon given that their primary worry has alwa…
Both Classical and Nakamoto consensus protocols have leaders. Avalanche is leader-less. This has huge implicative for performance, security, and censorship resistance.
RT @CoinfomaniaNews: Cryptocurrency pioneer @el33th4xor has an exciting project on board.
Step aside VISA. We can exceed your performance, with a TRUSTLESS network of thousands of volunteers. Cheers.
RT @TQTezos: You don't want to miss Validator Economics today at 4:30, hosted with @gauntletnetwork and @BisonTrails, featuring @kevinsekni…
RT @tarunchitra: Come see @kevinsekniqi and @el33th4xor (+ @_prestwich, @zmanian, @_charlienoyes, and more!) tonight at our Validator Econo…
RT @ComplicatedIsOK: @el33th4xor @coindesk The culmination of so much rigorous work -- congratulations and best of luck.
RT @HashingItOutPod: Congratulations to @avalabsofficial on the test network! We interviewed @el33th4xor on the show last year to talk abou…
Ava Labs Exits Stealth, Launches Blockchain Testnet Based on ‘Avalanche’ Protocol via @coindesk
Proud to be working with Garry at @avalabsofficial Come to Token Summit today to see if we are delivering.
RT @garrytan: Initialized 2019 key theses 🗄 File cabinet businesses eaten by software 🤖 Pragmatic computer vision: Computers can see 🧮 Len…
That would be The Fraud and friends. And that #REKT short is why people think Fraud & Co are behind this failed attack.
Literally every crypto group knows this. Except perhaps one. I can think of only one group that would be stupid enough to think they can profit off of a dinky attack like this, because they don't get crypto, weren't around in the early days, and have a flawed view of the world.
And even fundamental problems in consensus protocols don't faze the market. An easily patched DoS vulnerability isn't going to cause market panic.
Every techie in crypto knows that technology and price have absolutely nothing to do with each other. There are countless coins that are completely broken. There are coins that have operated with centralized components for years.
© 2009 creamsocial