Only actual information: Jupiter's spot has shrunk over the last 100 years. No one knows what will happen next.
I feel like this summary & article wasted my time.
Most things can be explained very simply
"For every complex problem there is a simple solution that is wrong."
If you can handle the technical side:
That's all you need.
To address your other points:
Sidechains are divorced from the block so require other layers of trust and are therefore not blockchain.
You're absolutely right. Blockchain was only one of the inventions in the whitepaper. The system doesn't work with it alone. And if you can replace the buzzword "blockchain" with "database" in an application, it's not interesting and adds little to no value.
51% attack is completely possible, in 2 cases especially.
Right again. Bitcoin may not be what fintech applications are written on in ten years. But it will be a cryptocurrency that is trust-less, fungible, censorship resistant, immutable, peer to peer, and open. Bitcoin introduced decentralized security through computation that can operate in highly hostile environments. It is currently the most "anti-fragile" cryptocurrency because of size, but another may take its place.
Only 3 of the top 4 pools need to conspire to further their own self interest
This attack has been tried and will be tried again. It's a long story, but the current result is a fork called "Bitcoin Cash". So far it hasn't gained the same traction as the original "Bitcoin".
even if they are able to disrupt the network for their own purposes with 30% of the hash rate
Has most likely been tried very recently. Many suspect that spam transactions that drove transaction rates up for many weeks were exactly this. Transaction rates are lower again. These attacks are very expensive to continue. They require an immense amount of electricity.
Maybe there is a simply a spam attack possible that delays all transactions for many hours or days.
same as above
Maybe there is a trust attack where proof appears from multiple sources.
You mean a Sybil attack. Currently highly unlikely based on how the code works. Read through the source code.
When does a classic man in the middle attack become 'worth it', impersonate the work originator.
If you're talking about the network, it doesn't. With the amount of electrical power required, it's always much more profitable to simply mine bitcoin.
If you're talking about individuals, many are doing this right now and draining people's wallets. It's one user at a time. It does not affect the whole network. Crypto allows the user to be their own bank. This carries significant risks at the moment. I wouldn't recommend it to the masses yet.
if its not regulated out of use by governments in short order anyways
Some governments can make it go underground (like in Venezuela). But it's impossible to stop (like in Venezuela). Unless you destroy every computer on the planet that runs a full bitcoin wallet.
I encourage you to be skeptical. Be highly skeptical. If you dig into it, you'll see that your ideas on compromising this system are not new. You'll find a multitude of other attacks that have been accounted for as well. Bitcoin has been under attack since day 1.
If you really want to understand this topic, start by watching Andreas Antonopoulos, a computer scientist who specializes in Data Communications and Distributed Systems. If you care to go further, he has 2 books Mastering Bitcoin (very technical), and The Internet of Money (for the layman).
I would recommend starting with Blockchain vs. Bitcoin in front of Consultants. You can watch his videos on x2 speed because he enunciates well.
Don't believe anything in the Slashdot comments. On every article about Bitcoin / Crypto, so many comments are factually inaccurate, even when they sound intelligent, plausible, and are modded +5. In the words of Andreas, "(Bitcoin) isn't what it appears to be at first glance."
Finally, Princeton has a series of free lectures here: Bitcoin and Cryptocurrency Technologies
[The patent] outlined a potential cryptocurrency exchange system that would convert one digital currency into another. Further, this system would be automated, establishing the exchange rate between the two currencies based on external data feeds.
The patent describes a potential three-part system, where the first part would be a customer’s account and the other two would be accounts owned by the business running the system. The user would store their chosen cryptocurrency through the customer account.
The second account, referred to as a "float account," would act as a holding area for the cryptocurrency the customer is selling, while the third account, also a float account, would contain the equivalent amount of the cryptocurrency the customer is converting their funds to.
That third account would then deposit the converted funds back into the original customer account for withdrawal.
sorely tempted to take the "we could fire you or you could quit" option of quitting.
So he was coerced by the department... kinda ironic.
There's a large body of evidence correlating economics & culture to educational outcomes.
Genetics correlate also, but this is mostly genetic differences between individual families, not "race".
Gender difference in mathematics is only apparent in individual countries and fairly nonexistent when looking at the world as a whole (implying that gender differences in mathematics is due to culture).
This evidence is a good place to start understanding the problem and search for improvements. Therefore scholarships may be helpful (deals with the economics side). But focusing on "race" is misguided, when focusing on the problem of culture can give tangible improvements (ex: community centers in rough inner city areas), regardless of "race".
Anyone can search Google Scholar to look into these in more detail.
By "weak area" I meant (for example) the 5% a student gets wrong when they score 95% on a test, not a "subject" they're weak in. This weak area could be in a subject they are very good at and enjoy. And when you talk about tests not being an effective form of motivation, that's exactly what I meant too. Unfortunately, the argument that students wouldn't be motivated to learn without upcoming tests is one I've heard numerous times, and it's just wrong. In fact, I agree with everything you say. If there was a misunderstanding, it may be due to the fact that language was a weak subject of mine as well.
Our school specifically gives choice to students so they are able to follow their interests. We expose them to everything, but where it leads is up to them. Unfortunately, there's not much good information online about our elementary programs, but at least here's a quick comparison vs. mainstream education.
I'm certified to teach K-5 in one of the US states but currently teach in another country. I've looked into this idea quite a bit.
There is evidence to show that extra school time benefits children in families that don't give much academic support at home (especially prevalent in poor, inner-city neighborhoods). For example, standardized test scores in reading often rise after summer vacations in affluent areas, but not so much in poor areas. The assumption is that many affluent parents tend to read and encourage their children to read during the summer. It's simply a disparity of time reading. To combat this, some experimental, inner-city schools have had success raising scores with very long days. However, I haven't seen anything showing that longer days help elsewhere. Homework (no matter how many hours) has been shown to have no significant effect raising scores for elementary students. (Up to 2 hours helps high school students, but over that seems to give no additional benefit.)
Honestly, I would first look at reducing time giving children tests. In many schools, children are given about an hour of tests a day, on average (amount varying from day to day, class to class, school to school). Tests are specifically to help adults (administrators, teachers, parents). Children are not allowed to practice their weak areas (the main thing that helps them learn) during a test. Although tests give children goals to strive for, motivational goals can be given many other, more effective ways. That's often 180 hours of test time a year (36 days of school, considering 5 hours a day of "in-class" time).
In my school we give 1 standardized test a year, and no testing outside that. Our scores are usually average or better than average on the standardized test (despite having many special-needs students). The teachers have more time to work with the students (and therefore know exactly where each child is). We also have more time to plan (instead of correcting tests during prep time).
Common questions we get are about how we communicate a child's level, without grades (given from tests). Simply put, we give more in-depth reports to parents & other schools. It works, but this is the part that scares most administrators and parents. Frankly, this part is more work for the adults. But if the main focus is on what's best for the children, frequent testing should be abolished. From the perspective of a child's education (practicing difficulties and learning new things), testing is one of the least efficient uses of time. And if we truly want more class time, that's where educators should start.
Kleeneness is next to Godelness.
