Slashdot is powered by your submissions, so send in your scoop


Forgot your password?

Comment Re:Pffffhahahaha (Score 1) 30

Also, what's the point of using a VR headset when you only have one video feed? Look closely at the drone video and you will see a simple fpv board camera mounted on the top, with a center-front mounted gopro (or gopro clone). You're not going to get 3d video with that setup.

And a few other things wrong here: why are competition fpv drones carrying extra weight with a high-def video recorder on board? Stupid. And what's with that "closed like a box" body configuration? Where's the airflow? These folks aren't professionals; they're wannabes. Move on, people.

Comment Re:Huh? (Score 1) 90

>> Why the fuck do people keep believing that some wallet or exchange which came into existence a few months ago is secure?

The good news is, you don't need to worry if 3rd party exchanges or wallet providers are secure or not. Try using a multisig wallet (like at BitGo) where you hold two of the keys, and the company holds one. It takes two keys to conduct a transaction. If the company is hacked, your bitcoin can't be stolen. It really is that simple. I'm not saying it's impossible, but the risk is much, much lower than if you hand over all your keys to a 3rd party...

Comment Re:Over and over (Score 1) 90

>> I find the idea of virtual currencies interesting, but not mature or safe enough to put "real" money into any of them. Maybe someday, but not today...

Something tells me that you don't know anything about multisig wallets...
If people would stop trusting 3rd parties to hold their bitcoins for them, then problems like the one at Cryptsy would stop.

Comment Re:Flouncing for market manipulation and COINTELPR (Score 2) 256

I work for BitGo.

Let me ask you, how many transactions do you think can fit in a single 1mb block? While the number of inputs per transaction is important, about how large do you think the average multisig transaction is compared to singlesig?

As I said before, transactions (with dynamic fees of course) are already seeing slow confirmations. You are correct that I can attach a rediculous fee amount of 100+ satoshis per byte and the chances of it being propagated faster is true. However, this is just today.

So, next week 200 satoshis/byte? Next month 500 satoshis per byte? Where do you draw the line? And if you don't know what the hell I'm talking about, then I suppose I wasted my time trying to explain it to you.

Comment Re:Flouncing for market manipulation and COINTELPR (Score 2) 256

>> And the miners have flatly rejected it, out of concerns for Bitcoin XT's path of overcentralizing Bitcoin.

Take a look at this open letter from Sam Cole (CEO of KNC Miner) that came out today.

Bram Cohen might be smart about distributed systems (bittorrent), but he's no expert on financial markets. The post you linked to was half a year ago, and it's painful to see just how wrong he was. The proof is all around us; take a look at the most recent blocks in the chain if you don't believe me. I work for a company that's a leader in bitcoin and blockchain technology. The transaction demand is getting too large, and the result isn't an uptick in the fee market, it will become too slow to be viable for businesses (and consumers) to transact. I deal with the fallout of small blocks everyday. The issue is real.

Thanks for pointing out Coinbase's position on BIP101. I didn't read that article previously. Realize that they're saying that it's the best proposal so far, not that they think it's the right way to go.

The major problem is that devs and experts see two different futures for bitcoin: the first camp wants to see it grow and possibly become more mainstream, and the other wants it to stay the fun little project that it has been. Are you in the latter camp?

Comment Re:Flouncing for market manipulation and COINTELPR (Score 5, Informative) 256

This is one of the most mis-informed posts I've read on Slashdot.

I work in the bitcoin space and know quite a bit about it. Bitcoin has a scaling problem: we're already maxing out the 1mb block size and transactions are starting to take more and more time to confirm - the system is starting to suffer and slow. There is no chance of bitcoin scaling to support more transactions if the block size stays static. The block size was initially introduced to stop spam attacks from affecting the network, however those issues have since been mitigated.

>> Gavin Andresen and Mike Hearn want you to switch to something called Bitcoin XT or Bitcoin Unlimited or some other fork of Bitcoin that is under unilateral control so that they can centralize Bitcoin to a dangerous degree...

Absolute rubbish. If you look at the code for BitcoinXT, which is simply BIP101 attached to bitcoin core, you will see that it allows the blocksize to increase if consensus is reached by miners. I know Gavin personally and it's his ambition to see bitcoin mature into something even bigger than it is today. With the current blocksize locked up to 1mb, this isn't possible. Gavin (and others) have introduced plans to solve this issue. Where's your plan?

>>Now reflect for a moment that the only major industry supporter of the Bitcoin XT proposal is Coinbase...

Coinbase merely ran XT on a test node to help run bitcoin simulations using larger block sizes. They also wanted to be prepared and understand its operation should XT ever go mainstream. I wouldn't say that they support it, however they are doing their own due diligence to determine if XT is the way to go. Nothing wrong with that. Many others are doing the same thing.

I'm asking myself why someone like yourself would spend so much time on a post with such an extreme (and negative) view? Do you lack the vision of a bigger picture? What's your motivation to publicly misinform others? Why are you trying so hard to spread FUD which ultimately damages the bitcoin ecosystem? Have you put in short orders on bitcoin for some kind of exit strategy for coins you're currently holding?

If you want to have an extreme and negative view of things, that's fine. My concern is that others who read this won't know that they're reading worthless FUD.

Comment Re:Why would anyone tolerate this bullshit!? (Score 1) 720

No, this isn't why MS is wanting everyone to upgrade to Windows 10, even four years before Windows 7 expires support.

They're getting into the same game as free mobile apps: collecting and selling your personal information. Windows 10 is not free; read the fine print in the agreement. You pay by giving them information on everything you do on your computer, which they sell to third parties.

Open a file? Microsoft collects and sells.
Visit a website? Microsoft collects and sells.
Play a game or launch an application? Microsoft collects and sells.

Everything you do on Windows 10 is collected and sold to third parties to boost MS revenue stream. If you need proof, start dumping network packets going to MS servers as you click around your desktop.

Comment FUD (Score 1) 116

"It does so by either disrupting remote control or GPS navigation."

By the looks of the device, it has a 2.4GHz yagi antenna, which would mean that it simply saturates the device with a 2.4GHz signal. What about drones flying spread spectrum 480MHz, or even 5.8GHz? And that antenna won't cover the GPS frequencies, either.

Face it, this is simply a tool to stop DJI Phantom drones and similar products. Nothing to see here.

Slashdot Top Deals

Life would be so much easier if we could just look at the source code. -- Dave Olson