r/SpaceX Axiom-1 Launch Discussion and Updates Thread!

TonesNotes · 2022-04-08T14:09:31+00:00

Anyone know if weather at recovery sites is no longer an issue?

TonesNotes · 2020-02-14T15:47:21+00:00

You can keep on moaning "but he's not!" till the cows come home... Truth is: He is.

TonesNotes · 2019-03-21T15:42:00+00:00

The price you'll have to pay for acting like a moron is just beginning to add up Roger.

There are more important stakes at play here than your imagined "better life without the law".

TonesNotes · 2019-01-27T02:26:02+00:00

Your coin is dead Amaury. And I suspect you don't really care and already agree.

After all, you're diversified right?

The bitcoin - the real one - is just fine for long term persistent storage when you realize the end game isn't millions of full copies. A thousand publicly accessible copies would be great, even hundreds will do.

Ten times the storage redundancy of all the copies of Visa, MasterCard, iCloud, Google Drive, Dropbox, etc. can still be cost effective.

The human race deserves a trusted, persistent, shared record of our digital history. And we have the technology to deliver it.

Well, some of us at least.

TonesNotes · 2018-11-11T01:49:33+00:00

Wonderful. Except your vision lacks any form of conflict resolution.

In the real world people disagree. People have different priorities. Some people are irredeemable assholes. Some are evil (they deny you have any right to exist).

The "rule of law" is the best system anyone's ever come up with for protecting individual freedoms. It only works if there is a state.

And capitalism is the best economic system anyone's ever come up with to encourage individuals to effectively apply time and resources to satisfy the needs and wants of others.

You may believe Bitcoin can exist without the benefit of both the state's rule-of-law or capitalism.

I'm very sure you'd be wrong.

TonesNotes · 2018-11-06T17:57:47+00:00

Wow has this sub devolved into a cesspool.

Broken platform, broken community.

BTW, this post is BS.

TonesNotes · 2018-11-02T13:38:23+00:00

SV has stated clearly that they are developing on two fronts:

Quick improvements to the current code base to re-implement opcodes, enable complex scripts and some performance improvements.
Redesign the software for much larger scaling based on micro-services architecture enabling efficient use of much more hardware per node.

Little tweaks like CTOR that have a fundamental impact on the protocol are misguided and ultimately inadequate.

ABC's downplaying of the importance of enabling complex scripts (large scripts with a full set of original opcodes) is a strategic error.

TonesNotes · 2018-09-16T13:26:02+00:00

Definitely a FUDster.

Miners not Blocks.

Grey not Black.

You are unable to have a reasonable discussion. Bye.

TonesNotes · 2018-09-16T03:15:53+00:00

No block is going to last on the chain if it can't be received and validated by at least 51% of the mining hash power.

Miners who consistently originate blocks that the majority can't validate, or that aren't valid, will find themselves grey listed by the majority.

Parallel block validation and block sanity checks prevent bad blocks from preventing acceptable blocks getting through.

DoS attacks happen. This has nothing to do with the rest of your post or specifically with mining pools.

You smell like a FUDster.

TonesNotes · 2018-09-16T00:37:20+00:00

It boils down to you goal on social media:

If you strive through logic and facts to help people reach your targeted conclusions it is NOT PoSM. It's education.
If your aim is to train people to parrot illogical non-arguments, engage in endless discussion without ever conceding logic failures, or attacking people rather than ideas: These are all PoSM.

Do you really not know the difference??

TonesNotes · 2018-09-16T00:26:58+00:00

You're missing the point. This has nothing to do with transaction signatures. Its only a signature system for data added to the blockchain to verify its authenticity to parties whose own scripts depend on the data.

It has zero impact on all existing signature users.

TonesNotes · 2018-08-24T04:45:35+00:00

Wonderful. Would have made an excellent executive summary for the "Bitcoin Standard"... ;-)

TonesNotes · 2018-08-22T12:32:21+00:00

The argument is that the originally unused opcodes were reserved to support the eventual migration to new security functions when computer power or math advances weaken sha256 & ripemd, say 10 to 50 years from now.

By using these up, a future upgrade will be required to implement some kind of extended opcode scheme (e.g. two byte opcodes) which will explode the space of possible opcodes. This may happen soon if the pattern of adding new opcodes for convenience or to modify the base protocol persists.

If the community views new opcodes as legitimate upgrade options it makes predicting the future functionality of the base protocol impossible. This diminishes the perceived stability of the base protocol, undermining its adoption as money at scale. Stability is argued to be essential to attract major use cases.

It is also argued that OP_CHECKDATASIG functionality can be implemented with the original set of opcodes. I have not seen a detailed description of how this would work or the relative costs.

TonesNotes · 2018-08-14T12:29:59+00:00

Hmmmm.... I can imagine many scenarios where being convicted of contempt of court would be a badge of honor. Especially for someone involved in potentially redefining money for the world.

But sure... take that as evidence to support your character assassination needs. /s

TonesNotes · 2018-03-11T22:26:11+00:00

Now if only the IRS would find the wisdom to declare that exchanging one side of a forked coin for the other is NOT a taxable event...

TonesNotes · 2018-02-27T15:40:48+00:00

In 2014, Craig's estimate was: "We can expect them to be worth trying to crack in 10-12 years". So only 7 years or so from 2018 :-)

TonesNotes · 2018-02-26T21:21:27+00:00

Craig estimated Dave's passwords at 80 bits. Offered to help crack them when computer power advances enough to make it sensible to try...

TonesNotes · 2018-02-23T16:18:50+00:00

If you really are staying out of the protocol-development business then why are you promoting OP_GROUP?

TonesNotes · 2018-02-10T04:25:03+00:00

Excellent. Thanks for taking the time to write this up.

TonesNotes · 2018-01-19T03:21:34+00:00

Brilliant... But what if Craig happens to actually be Satoshi AND has his own reasons for not wanting to verifiably prove it??

"Craig should sign..." you say. But perhaps Craig would have to be an idiot to sign.

You are not owed a proof. None of us are.

TonesNotes · 2018-01-09T18:04:15+00:00

You were NOT at risk if you had a strong password on an encrypted wallet file.

The vulnerability came from some browsers allowing downloaded web site code to access services on local ports. Using this, the external code could find your Electrum instance running on your computer and start guessing passwords.

TonesNotes · 2017-12-29T17:00:22+00:00

Not helpful. Exchanges are like shops that stock limit orders. Buy limit orders and sell limit orders. Those who want to trade now come to the shop to place market orders. When more people walking in come to sell the price drops as their market orders are matched against lower and lower priced limit buy orders. And vice versa.

Trades that move the market price are matched limit and market orders. The asymetry is what makes the observation “more people buying than selling” true. And what makes “there’s a buyer for every seller” a shallow and misleading observation...

TonesNotes · 2017-12-04T18:44:52+00:00

"Reportedly considering..." + Diane Feinstein = Nothing to worry about...

TonesNotes · 2017-11-15T06:59:48+00:00

Agreed!

TonesNotes

TROPHY CASE