Catch up on stories from the past week (and beyond) at the Slashdot story archive


Forgot your password?
DEAL: For $25 - Add A Second Phone Number To Your Smartphone for life! Use promo code SLASHDOT25. Also, Slashdot's Facebook page has a chat bot now. Message it for stories and more. Check out the new SourceForge HTML5 internet speed test! ×

Comment Re:Modern compiler protective measures (Score 1) 77

People didn't choose NAT - it just came with whatever home router they bought and thats just how the world works for them. If NAT hadn't been needed, I think the world would have evolved perfectly fine with home routers that came with a proper default firewall without the need for NAT.

Comment You can stuff it under a mattress.... (Score 4, Interesting) 150

If you take a bitcoin address and print out the hash, you could put that under your mattress and delete the file.

Only that piece of paper would then enable a person to spend the bitcoins.. If they burned up in a house fire, they would be gone forever assuming certain cryptographic primitives remain secure.

Comment Re:Ruby Community / Rails is hardly "a mess" (Score 1) 341

I've had to learn some Ruby to support automated testing written in Ruby and Cucumber.

I hate Ruby.

Ruby feels like someone took Perl and intentionally made it even worse.

The syntax is awful. Pipes and hashes and at symbols everywhere. The documentation is not good. Many packages - I'm sorry, "gems," because we have to be cutesy - don't have documentation at all, not even in the source code. Typing? What's typing? Everything is an object! That's all the type you need, right? Curly braces? Pffft. Those are to passe. You need to close things with an 'end'. Methods with ? in the name? Sure, why not. It gets really fun when you're using that character as a method name and an operator.

I can forgive the anti-curly-brace thing, but everything else about the language feels like it was developed by an 8 year old watching bad hacker movies. So much language-specific crap that does utterly nothing to enhance readability or ease of development.

The day I never have to touch Ruby again will be a great day.

Whats really wrong with having a ? in a function name? Other than C didn't do it in 1971...

Written in another language, people often prefix boolean-return functions with is_, e.g. obj.is_deposit - to me its much more readable and clear that your "asking a question" by writing obj.deposit?

Again, pipe is just a chracter - whats wrong with using it? They are used to denote blocks, e.g.

0.upto(10) do |i|
    puts "i"

Also, I'd be curious to know what "language specific crap" you're referring to, theres plenty to like..

Comment Re:Errr... no. (Score 1) 68

I've been tossing the idea around lately that something like a blockchain could be used as part of a larg-scale PKI - once you announce your public key and it gets several confirmations, then it would be hard for someone to announce that your key is something else after the fact and your not necessarily trusting a company or the government to do so.

But how do you prevent someone else from announcing before you.. or what incentive would their be for miners to mine... still plenty of issues not solved - but it could fix part of the problem.

Comment Re:Bahahaha (Score 2) 68

The irony is that the mathematical foundations of bitcoin create a solid record of legitimate ownership that may be more ironclad against fraud than many of the systems employed by businesses today.

Tell that to the members of the Mt. Gox exchange.

Mt Gox had nothing to do with the blockchain... The reason that Mt Gox couldn't "go get the money back" *is* that the blockchain says its not their money any more. Which it isn't because someone went and spent it!

Comment Re:wtf! (Score 3, Insightful) 68

Perhaps you giggled because you don't understand it? There hasn't been any flaws with bitcoin itself and the block chain that caused coins to be spent by someone who didn't know the ECC private key... Loss-of-currency has occurred with poor third party implementations, e.g. using ECDSA and selecting the same value of k for multiple signatures (similiar to the mistake made by sony and the ps3) or Mt Gox which was either just outright fraud by the company or a severe implementation error.

The block chain is fairly effective at deciding "what came first" and after several confirmations becomes fairly infeasible for a bad actor to change - I don't know of any weaknesses provided your computing pool is large enough that no person controlls 50%. Well, or a quantum computer solving the discrete logarithm...

Slashdot Top Deals

Every little picofarad has a nanohenry all its own. -- Don Vonada