Want to read Slashdot from your mobile device? Point it at m.slashdot.org and keep reading!


Forgot your password?
For the out-of-band Slashdot experience (mostly headlines), follow us on Twitter, or Facebook. ×

Comment: Re:That's not what the blockchain is for (Score 1) 14 14

Then configure your miners to not accept these transactions.

Essentially the blockchain is exactly this: A way to record information in an unforgeable way, for a fee to the miner. Bitcoin works, and the only way it can work, is by being a system that behaves in a desired way when each player maximizes their own benefit. (To a small extent this can be affected in a centralized fashion because the community can develop the reference implementation to a desired direction, but that may or may not turn to be anathema and may or may not be a powerful enough tool.)

True, blockchain bloat causes problems, and it's a limited resource. The bitcoin solution is to sell the space to the highest bidder, because generally that maximizes the seller's benefit. In a sense, someone saying "that's not what the blockchain is for" is very similar to someone complaining that people are using lithium to make these stupid batteries, driving its price up, and "that's not what lithium is for".

Whether Bitcoin can survive all the technical challenges in the long term is not at all obvious. For all we know, it might be that the entire model is game-theoretically self-destructive if analyzed thoroughly enough. In fact, it has provided quite a few surprises where the incentives have turned out to be something different than anticipated, causing weird scenarios where e.g. in some situations it's advantageous for a miner to not immediately report a found block. So far none of these have been such that they would cause a death spiral, but that's far from a given. (Arvind Narayanan's blog posts on the topic are quite insightful; you might want to start from https://freedom-to-tinker.com/...).

Comment: Re:Safari was late in implementing some web APIs (Score 1) 193 193

For instance, please explain why it took until iOS 6 for HTML/JS apps to access the user's photo and video libraries through [HTML file upload]

Because exposing a user's files to any in-page behavior is a security risk and needs to be handled in clean managed ways with limited APIs?

If Apple were sincere about making the web its API in iOS 1, it would have put a "clean managed" media chooser in place since iOS 1.

Imagine how bad it would be if "it works on the latest release, but only on these specific models".

Firefox already does this with its WebGL driver blacklist. It does not support WebGL on pre-OpenGL 2.0 GPUs, such as the integrated GMA 3100 in the Atom N450 processor in my laptop.

Comment: Safari was late in implementing some web APIs (Score 1) 193 193

LOL - you realize the the original iPhone allowed *only* HTML/JS apps?

True, Apple originally planned for the iPhone to use web applications. But it took a long time for Apple to follow through on this plan. For instance, please explain why it took until iOS 6 for HTML/JS apps to access the user's photo and video libraries through an <input type="file"> control and until iOS 8 for HTML/JS apps to put the most basic 3D view on screen (WebGL).

Comment: Yes, people still use iOS (Score 5, Informative) 193 193

Just because you no longer use Apple's iOS doesn't mean millions of other people don't still use iOS. There are two kinds of browsers on iOS: browsers that run remotely and behave akin to Remote Desktop, such as Opera Mini, and browsers that wrap the system's UIWebView or WKWebView control, such as Safari. The App Store Review Guidelines forbid third-party web engines that run on an iOS device. This means the vast majority of browsers for iOS are essentially window dressing around Safari.

People who go to conferences are the ones who shouldn't.