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


Forgot your password?
Check out the new SourceForge HTML5 internet speed test! No Flash necessary and runs on all devices. ×

Comment Re:In other words (Score 1) 52

limited participation blockchain is redundant because the trust is already established by the exclusivity of the system.

Imagine that not all of the participants turn out to be honest. Or, imagine this is finance, and 0% of the participants are honest.

Majority-signing works well when the majority are honest, even if a substantial minority are not. It also works well when everyone is dishonest, but very unlikely to collude. This is solving a different problem than Bitcoin tries to solve. This is an implementation of "mutual auditing", not an alternative currency.

The thing that establishes trust on bitcoin is that no one miner can easily own a large portion of the compute power on the system,

Perhaps. I think it's possible the NSA has the compute power to take over bitcoin, After all the NSA had "ASIC miners" for at least 7 years before BTC existed. (You don't think the NSA published SHA-2 before they had ASICs, do you?)

Comment Re:Not a bad guess (Score 1) 137

Human population has expanded tremendously in the last part of those 800,000 years, and all of us consume oxygen.

It's worth remembering that Earth's total biomass is:
* 99.9% Prokaryote bacteria
* 0.1% Other (mostly plankton)

The tiny remainder that's not bacteria or plankton is mostly fish. Humans, sure, are reasonably successful within what's left over, but so are cattle, termites, ants, and krill.

Comment Re:Why do people care... (Score 1) 75

If a person wants or expects privacy, I believe that the onus is upon them to take measures to sufficient degree

They do. They beat the crap out of glassholes. Sufficient measures thus taken, effective privacy is restored.

)there's no rational basis to be worried about it

Says you. Most people see it differently.

When I want privacy, I go somewhere private. I step outside, however... and it's fair game.

Says you. Most people see it differently.

Comment Re:In other words (Score 2) 52

In other words: They are doing something completely different, but still call it "blockchain" because that's the current buzzword.

A blockchain with limited participants is still a blockchain. It's as trustworthy as those participants. If the participants all trust one another, or trust the system to protect them from the others, it serves its purpose, even if they are in fact pathologically lying shitsacks like financial companies.

I'm dubious of the "editing", but if it's really just new records that say "this record replaces record XYZ", i.e., it's still write-only except by convention, that's fine too.

Reminds be a bit of what "cloud" should have stood for until it became a generic moniker for simple online storage.

Not sure what you mean here. Sure lots of marketeers talk about "stored in the cloud", but most often that does mean "stored with AWS or Azure, behind the scenes". And there's plenty of "cloud computing" too: more and more distributed scientific jobs are moving that way, as well as naturally-distributed work like animation rendering. Heck, it's the new fad for small software companies to build and test jobs in the cloud.

Comment Re: I am? (Score 3, Interesting) 200

So you have no ethical issues pirating content?

I have 0 ethical issues pirating content when the company won't take my money. Give me a (practical) way to pay for that thing I want to watch, either directly or through my Netflix sub, and I do. Companies are (finally) wising up to this, and beginning the fight against the legacy of region-specific distribution deals, culture of delaying release in some formats, and so on.

Comment Re:One white elephant for sale. (Score 1) 63

Google would likely to keep the employees, and in a few months announce that GTwitter will join the 60 or so services in the Google graveyard.

Microsoft would likely keep the employees at firs, destroy the product through mismanagement, then close any remote offices and fire anyone there.

Verizon would likely fire everyone immediately, and then bill them each $9000 for data overages.

Comment Re:I cut the cable back in 2002. (Score 1) 200

And remember, you have 3 main "natural" or "grabber" price points.

$20, $50 and $100.

Technicaly $19.99, $49.99 and $99.99, but I'm lazy and not going to worry about fudging a penny (which they kinda count on).

Basically things like cell phone service, single lines for service talk about something right around the $50/month price point. And shared plans are all around $100.
Same thing with cable. They, for a long while were $50/month (plus fees, etc). Now they've climbed into the $100 range.

Comment I cut the cable back in 2002. (Score 1, Insightful) 200

Other than a few favorite shows, I haven't missed a damn thing.

I have Netflix and an Amazon account if I want to watch something.

Since I'm the "techie" in the family, if I HAVE to watch something NOW, I can log into my parents' account and stream, as they haven't divorced themselves from TV.

But, for the most part, I simply don't miss it.

And somewhere in the past, my child TV addict self screams in horror.

With the equipment costs, and the push towards a "$100 minimum" bill and all these fucking channels you don't give a shit about...

Seriously, who the fuck needs 8-10 distinct ESPN channels both in SD and HD?
Plus "insert network" Sports Channels, etc?

I'm not a goddamn sports nut. Bundle all that crap into an optional package
I want a package for Scifi/Fantasy, maybe home improvement and science/technology.
And "news" channels can go DIAF.

The thing is, the cable companies want that "$100 minimium" no matter what.

So even if we get "a la carte", they're likely to screw with us no matter what.

Slashdot Top Deals

Doubt is not a pleasant condition, but certainty is absurd. - Voltaire