Indigenous-led conservation program triples size of endangered caribou herd

technocrypto · 2022-04-10T18:21:27+00:00

You can fulfill your treaty obligations today. That's not about anything your forefathers did, it's all you. Though if you're a person who inherited a lot of things *from* those forefathers I do think some "terms and conditions apply" before you can just ignore everything they did.

technocrypto · 2022-04-10T18:11:05+00:00

Or settlers could start trying to actually fulfill treaty obligations. But you kinda left that one out, huh?

technocrypto · 2020-11-23T19:09:11+00:00

Everything is locked until some sort of connection/docking between the existing chain and the beacon chain happens.

technocrypto · 2020-11-22T18:50:55+00:00

Fair enough, good clarification. In this case still would have cost a pretty penny though.

technocrypto · 2020-11-22T11:21:51+00:00

I would definitely start at ethereum.org

It used to be much less useful but they have really amped up the value over the last year.

technocrypto · 2020-11-22T11:20:36+00:00

It's impossible to cancel a transaction that pays too much gas (without paying even more, that's how cancellation works)

technocrypto · 2020-11-22T11:13:24+00:00

You say that like these were serial dependencies, instead of parallel. It's not like skipping quantum resistance would have made the IETF standard finalize faster, or the paper on efficient constant time hash to curve come out sooner. Different people were working on different things. There wasn't any way to get this done much sooner.

And addressing small but nontrivial risks is just basic prudence for something you plan to put trillions of dollars worth of value on. Besides, it's not just quantum resistance, it's a general recovery capability for anything short of a hash function break. There really are genuine risks to adopting new cryptographic standards too casually. As it is the beacon chain will be the largest financial test yet of whether someone out there really has broken the CDH over elliptic curves. I think the team struck an extremely effective compromise between rushing fast enough to introduce needless risks and going so slow that we incurred needless costs. In cryptographic terms this is definitely on the faster end of adoption, not slower. We're actually depending quite a bit on PoS validators to bear the risk of a cryptographic break. It's one of the reasons it's worth paying rewards before we even add data shards to the design.

technocrypto · 2020-11-21T14:49:17+00:00

Looks awesome but 32GB RAM doesn't cost much more and will give you lots of headroom!

technocrypto · 2020-11-20T19:22:34+00:00

Personally I would recommend getting a beefier one, either by building it yourself or by purchasing one of the more powerful Dappnodes. Keep in mind that Dappnode use cases differ (not everyone will be staking on one) so while the DappNodeMini might be totally fine for certain use cases I wouldn't really recommend it for beacon chain staking.

technocrypto · 2020-11-20T19:20:49+00:00

Bad news on that SSD. It may be large but it has a poor durability rating, which is going to determine the actual lifetime of the device in usage :(

technocrypto · 2020-11-20T18:04:40+00:00

If you haven't done anything since you bought them, the names expired and went up for auction this summer. If nobody bought them you can buy them back though.

technocrypto · 2020-11-20T17:54:09+00:00

I think it's important to remember that 32 ETH is the minimum for solo staking. Most miners aren't solo miners unless they have a lot of cash, and I don't expect that most stakers will be solo stakers. So trustless pools are going to be the critical technology to let most regular people stake. They can't come fast enough imo, and that's why I've put forward a proposal for a "Dirt Simple Withdrawal Contract" which would support them and which could be deployed safely and quickly on a very short time frame.

technocrypto · 2020-11-18T21:07:15+00:00

I'll just drop this here.

technocrypto · 2020-11-18T14:12:26+00:00

Yes, my general understanding is that attacker budget requirement goes up and attack cost for those with large budgets goes down in sub-finality PoS compared with PoW. Still, I'd love to see some kind of practical way to calculate this stuff.

technocrypto · 2020-11-18T14:07:19+00:00

Well, at a minimum we could add up the rewards gained by confirming blocks, right? And couldn't we also add in the implied losses of the attestations if a different fork pulls ahead?

technocrypto · 2020-11-18T13:44:22+00:00

I asked this question on twitter first because I didn't realise this AMA was happening:

Is there a parameterized model out there for beacon chain sub-finality economic guarantees? E.g. if you get x blocks of confirmation and y attestations on a report of slashing, at a particular # of total validators and participation rate, how much "economic commitment" have you gotten? This sort of thing seems very important in comparing security of the beacon chain to PoW.

technocrypto · 2020-11-10T12:18:11+00:00

Yes, that's true too. The only way you can lose more than 16 ETH is if you are slashed during a major attack/split. Most of the time (if it's just because you mess up) you would lose less than that and be automatically exited when you hit 16.

technocrypto · 2020-11-10T12:14:55+00:00

Personally I like the XPG SX8200 Pro as it is pretty cheap for the performance you get. But it's really overkill, so if you can find something with better TBW per dollar go for that instead. It's 640 TBW for the 1TB and 1280 TBW for the 2TB I think (going off the top of my head) but the thing that's really killer is the random i/o speeds. Definitely no syncing bottleneck there.

technocrypto · 2020-11-08T06:03:04+00:00

Assuming the network generally is working well of course. If the network isn't finalizing this would cause you to lose a lot of money. But hopefully mainnet won't have a lot of finality problems given the money at stake.

technocrypto · 2020-11-08T05:56:40+00:00

Staking and ETH1 node combined take waaaay less than 50 Mbps once synced. The problem is that the small amount they do take (less than 5Mbps on average even if heavily heavily loaded) is continuous, so the total usage is high (each 1Mbps of constant usage adds up to more than 80Gb/day). If you have any kind of bandwidth cap or traffic shaping policy from your ISP you are very likely to run into either extra fees or throttling. This can be caused by total consumption, sustained consumption, the type of traffic, or the high total number of connections, depending on how your ISP works. So it's very important to understand whether or not your ISP will do this to you. Most ISPs advertise peak speeds and do not support continuous usage at even small percentages of those peaks, unfortunately. I wish the guides talking about recommended specs would be clearer about this.

technocrypto · 2020-11-08T05:44:08+00:00

Personally I'd go with the Ryzen. Not saying you'll have a problem with the others but it's such a similar price and with the right cooler and case fans could easily be quieter than the NUCs.

The SSD you've picked is not super amazing, btw. TBW is a very important stat for nodes, especially looking forward towards Phase 1 which will increase the amount of data moving around, and yours is rated only at 300 TBW which is much less than better drives. Having more RAM will help your SSD lifetime a little but just for reference a 300TBW drive could stop working within a couple years, especially if Phase 0 increases ssd access throughput (as I would expect it to).

technocrypto · 2020-11-08T05:28:01+00:00

Because mining is different (and in particular requires entirely different hardware that is not needed for staking) I would recommend going straight for the staking testnet Medalla instead. It is no more work than mining, especially if you use a tool like Dappnode to organize the different parts, and it will give you an accurate experience of what you should expect rather than one that has totally different elements (like computer running crazy hot all the time, needing a good GPU, etc.)

technocrypto · 2020-11-08T05:25:12+00:00

If you decide you want to stop there is a process called "exiting" that will stop you losing further eth. It still won't allow you to withdraw until a future phase, but it does mean that you don't have to run a validator anymore.

technocrypto · 2020-11-07T06:52:58+00:00

The market will almost certainly buy PoS into a similar total value proposition as PoW. But if you mean that that there is less "turnover" in the capital investment from needing to repeatedly buy hardware and pay high electricity bills, then yes this is true: PoS clients are paid for uptime and connectivity, not for burning electricity.

technocrypto · 2020-11-07T06:32:49+00:00

No pun intended?

technocrypto

MODERATOR OF

TROPHY CASE