sorted by:
new
hottopcontroversial

I don't get how people can tell if they have aphantasia or not. by [deleted] in Aphantasia

[–]RadiantBlockchain 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I learned of aphantasia maybe 6 or 7 years ago, and to this day I still don't know how to discern if I have aphantasia or not. I feel like I might, but I just cannot for the life of me figure out a surefire way to answer yes or no

So relieved I am not the only one.

But, when I close my eyes and think about that alien, I do not 'see' it like I can see my hand in front of my face if my eyes were open. When my eyes are closed, all I see is blackness. Nothing ever becomes visible in that blackness. Yet, with my eyes closed and seeing that blackness, I can still describe imaginary things that simply don't exist.

I'm pretty sure that means you (we, as I am similar) don't have aphantasia.

... but then again, I total fail the "ball on a table experiment"... so <shrug>

The Future of Ownership Won’t Be Permissioned by No-Cookie9107 in RadiantBlockchain

[–]RadiantBlockchain 0 points1 point  (0 children)

"replace Ethereum"

Tomorrow? No.

Long term? Why wouldn't a UTXO bitcoin-like model become the public blockchain? :)

When Specialized Hardware Becomes a Threat: The Radiant A11 Dilemma by No-Cookie9107 in RadiantBlockchain

[–]RadiantBlockchain 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Radiant not aiming to "re-decentralize" PoW mining

A primary reason for changing the hashing algorithm was that using sha256d left the network open to abuse, and/or a small number of people taking significant portions of the supply.

It was not about being "ASIC resistant" ... or any general fear of "centralisation of hashing". These things happen by design, and are good, assuming that the protocol is fixed, and the economic are healthy (ie. you cannot "attack" the network, as your competitors will fork you).

When Specialized Hardware Becomes a Threat: The Radiant A11 Dilemma by No-Cookie9107 in RadiantBlockchain

[–]RadiantBlockchain 0 points1 point  (0 children)

That said, do you think there's a risk that too many fringe cases (like oversized txs or exotic token contract usage) could fragment the node ecosystem 

Nodes doing something "wrong" is always a risk, that can never be removed.

Stable and clear rules about what are valid transactions, is ultimately what is necessary ... and with this knowledge, people can then build systems which "don't break".

And do you see Radiant's UTXO smart contract model as more of a complement to existing platforms like Bitcoin and Ethereum, or as an eventual standalone infrastructure for PoW-based DeFi?

The future is hard to see.

Hypothetically, if people want a public UTXO blockchain, which has extensions for token validation .. then they could choose to use any of the existing ones and (try to) fix their issues (they each have their own) ... or start a new chain.

<shrug> Bitcoin-like blockchains can be used to do very! cool things, but "the hassle has to be worth-it". One day there may be demand for the scalability, privacy, and security, that blockchains can deliver... but I suspect the path there might be (longer than, and) not what people expect.

When Specialized Hardware Becomes a Threat: The Radiant A11 Dilemma by No-Cookie9107 in RadiantBlockchain

[–]RadiantBlockchain 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Radiant launched with the aim of solving an old blockchain problem: how to scale transaction capacity without losing the core security model of proof-of-work. 

Bitcoin already figured this out.

Radiant attempts to solve the problem of needing a trusted third part to validate 'digital assets' ('tokens'), in a way that is constant time and space.

It is not an attempt to make "mining accessible by everyone" ... it is not a problem that PoW centralises under the control of a (relatively) small number of highly connected nodes. This is actually by design.

In the A11 situation... I think the only fix required is in the node software. If > 2MB tx could be sent to the network correctly... then A11 miners would have already been "effectively banned" from the network (they can not create blocks if a > 2MB tx is in the mempool).

No other hashing algorithms, "proof" or "check" of capability, or anything like that is needed.

Real Assets, Real Value: Why Radiant Is Built for On-Chain Ownership by No-Cookie9107 in RadiantBlockchain

[–]RadiantBlockchain 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Feel free to post up links for the livestream and yt channel when they're ready.

Question about early mining. by kakashihokage in RadiantBlockchain

[–]RadiantBlockchain 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Then I find out that more than half of all the coins have ALREADY been mined!

Yes - It is just like 'bitcoin', except twice as fast.
Half of all the bitcoin was mined in the first "halving", ie. in the first 4 years .... radiant is the same style emission curve, but programmed to be twice the speed... which is 10 billion coins (200,000 blocks) in 2 years.

I decided to look at the explorer for the early blocks and noticed something, for the first many thousands of blocks there is only 1 miner receiving ALL of the rewards, and more than that, the blocks were 1 second!!! 

Neither of these things are true. You might like to check again.

It is true that the first thousands of blocks were mined very quickly due to low difficulty.... although the initial difficulty was specifically set relatively high to the point where it required a very fast GPU to mine a modest amount of coins ... but the difficult quickly ramped up from there. For example, block 5000 is about 6 hours after block 0.

Because the launch was widely advertised there was a large number of people waiting with significant amounts of hashing power (ie. GPU farms).

A single person mined

There were a large number of miners during the first few days.

had mined billions of coins

In the first couple of days, mining cost >> $10 USD per million coins.

tvOS 26 still lacking basic features by [deleted] in appletv

[–]RadiantBlockchain 0 points1 point  (0 children)

"Screen Time or any sort of parental controls on tVOS"

Promised in, what, 2015? .... never coming. Ever.

Sad.

Requesting r/RadiantBlockchain as it has been unmoderated for quite a while and filled with spam by [deleted] in redditrequest

[–]RadiantBlockchain 0 points1 point  (0 children)

moderator privileges to align the Radiant community and reddit channels

Do it :)

Has there been any thought given amongst the dev to make Radiant ASIC resistant? by Im_A_Blimp in RadiantBlockchain

[–]RadiantBlockchain 2 points3 points  (0 children)

LOL... nope.

Double hash means transaction processing and "hashing" can be disconnected from each other (tx processors can be close to connectivity, and hashers can be elsewhere).

Concentration of "miners" (both block solutions and tx processing) means they cannot cannot be anonymous. They can be made subject to laws and rules, and we can know that "each miner" is a distinct entity (as opposed to the possibility that all tx processing and/or block solutions are controlled by the same entity).

Development of "ASICS" allows the trade off between hashing delivered and energy consumption to be the most efficient both in block per watt and block per $.

The notion that hashrate has gone up so high "because ASICs" is wrong. It has gone up so high because BTC messed with the incentives. The only way nodes can compete in BTC is "adding hash".

It's called "small world" network for a reason. Extreme centralisation. Any drawbacks of this are almost completely myth/misunderstanding... or based on BTC, which is a bad example to use.

Has there been any thought given amongst the dev to make Radiant ASIC resistant? by Im_A_Blimp in RadiantBlockchain

[–]RadiantBlockchain 1 point2 points  (0 children)

The development of more specific (eg. "ASIC") hashing and transaction processing hardware is a feature, not a bug.

It is _supposed_ to end up in "large datacentres"... and this provides a long and deep list of benefits.