Follow Slashdot blog updates by subscribing to our blog RSS feed

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Get HideMyAss! VPN, PC Mag's Top 10 VPNs of 2016 for 55% off for a Limited Time ×

Comment Re:No need (Score 1) 298

It's even worse than you think! By the picture shown in the FA, http://clipair.epfl.ch/ it appears that you'll have to lie down the whole time, and they can only transport 3 people around at maximum. Not only that, but there are no windows besides what I can only surmise are tiny little air holes to keep you from suffocating in transit.

Comment Re: rule changes (Score 1) 165

You might as well be talking about the miners as royalty who rule over a village. "Yes, the rulers have the power to change the rules anytime they want to. But if they were to do that, then the citizens would revolt, and take away all their power. See, so we're free after all!"

You may think everyone would revolt. You may also think the people would demand autonomy over the currency they are invested in, but no one has tested that so far. There are no longer just purists like yourself invested in Bitcoin, but businessmen, too, and their numbers are growing. They might not be so quick to join the rallying cry against minor infringements like yourself.

Comment Re:rule changes (Score 1) 165

That defense is a pretty handwavy answer. You can't sum up the high priority transacations(whatever that is... based on bitcoin days destroyed, I guess??) against hashpower without assigning weights to each, so what are those weights? And even then, you're simply trading one type of security, hashpower, for another, high priority coin ownership. It's a risky idea, by closing one avenue of attack, you open up another, only you're not familiar with the second. Computer programmers have the nasty habit of assuming if they don't see a flaw, there isn't one, and historically this blows up in their face a lot.

If the old network is attacked and falls because of the majority of miners attacked it, it does not mean financial suicide. Rather it's that if you don't follow whatever fork the majority of miners choose you are in danger of losing your transactions, and therefore the value of your balance. Bitcoin has always been based on that notion, "the moral majority will have the most hashing power", it's just that now the owners of that hashing power are centralized, cloaked in secrecy, and probably far from moral.

Comment Re:rule changes (Score 1) 165

If the miner of the new network have 75% of the hashing power, they can spare 2/3 of it to launch an attack on the old network without any fear of reprisal. Depending on how evil they want to be they could:

1. Effect a DDos by producing empty blocks. All transactions would grind to a halt
2. Commit a double spend
3. Create a longer fork in private for several days, and then publish it, causing all of the transactions within that time period to roll back and completely destroying the faith of those invested in Bitcoin.

Whoever has significant more computing power than anyone else wins. Period.

Comment Re: How about replacing the CEO with a machine (Score 1) 921

You sound like a kid demanding money from his parents with a bunch of "necessities" with inflated dollar amounts in order to extract as much money as possible from them. The government isn't your mommy and daddy. I don't love you as the special little snowflake like your parents do. You don't get to buy designer jeans and live in your own apartment without flatmates so you can bring chicks home on my dime. Fucking ingrate

Slashdot Top Deals

"355/113 -- Not the famous irrational number PI, but an incredible simulation!"

Working...