Comments URL: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=47330246

Points: 2

# Comments: 0

Comments URL: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=47306929

Points: 2

# Comments: 0

Perhaps the AI age makes everyone more data privacy conscious.

I've also long thought that eventually every household will eventually have a mini server for home automation and storing personal information. The rise of the cloud kinda slowed this down, but I don't think cloud and home server are mutually exclusive.

Of course the hard part is gaining enough critical mass to make a significant switch. JSON had AJAX. YAML had Rails. What could make JSON5 or KDL break out?

Comments URL: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23241373

Points: 2

# Comments: 1

You could ask what would happen if Cisco tried to force a new version of TCP/IP with unwelcome changes?

The comparison isn't quite the same yet, but it could be in the future and many bitcoin supporters think that's how it will turn out.

Bitcoin has a chance at becoming a currency because in the past it has been hard to reach a global consensus on value.

It may be possible to use a bitcoin based timestamping solution like https://github.com/goblin/chronobit to record the rights, but I can't see where the incentive is for everybody to support a distributed database of such rights.

Comments URL: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=6976592

Points: 3

# Comments: 0

The deflationary nature of bitcoin is it's hardest aspect to defend because there really hasn't been anything like it in history before. A finite asset that is easy to transfer over long distances without central interferance really is unprecedented.

I think you have bought in to the bitcoin fantasy that it will be the only currency in use. I don't think that will ever happen for a variety of reasons. If gold and fiat can coexist why not bitcoin too?. Loaning bitcoins seems to be a crazy proposition, so I suspect inflationary currencies will stick around just for that reason. Not to mention bitcoin by itself is fairly terrible for in person transactions, if you add a service on top what is the difference for the customer between that and a credit card company?. Fiat is useful and solves problems that bitcoin doesn't.

Regarding mining, I have my own concerns, bitcoin proponents love to describe mining as “securing the network” and equate it with vaults and security guards used in banks. This comparison is at least partly flawed, mining prevents double spends and nothing else. It's certainly true that a centralized ledger could prevent double spends for tiny fraction of the cost of mining, but globally who can be trusted by all parties to adminster it?. The comparison isn't one sided however, it is much cheaper to securely store (and move) bitcoins than gold for example.

Energy use is tricky, preserving the environment should be a top a priority, but should we aspire to use less energy?. One question I have often asked but never got a good answer to, how much of the worlds energy needs to be devoted to mining to prevent a 51% attack?. If it is north of 30% of the worlds energy output then right now that would seem a huge waste. But if we had access to cheaper, cleaner renewable energy, would it still be a problem?.

Malware?, it's just a symptom of larger problem, computer security is terrible. No one is really sure who to plame, users, applications, operating systems and hardware makers all come into the firing line. If bitcoin pushes forward computer security surely that can only be a good thing?.

I'm unconvinced about whether greshams law applies to mining due to the performance disparity between ASICs and CPU/GPUs, but surely if computer security improves this problem diminishes?.

Either the leak is justified or it's not. Either way the press is not responsible.

If the leak is not justified then the blame lies with the leaker and the organisation that the info was leaked from. If private companies poorly secure customer info they often get fined, but there seems to be no comeback when the leak involves a government.

The situation I worry about more is when someone is operating outside of the law, for example if you legitimately but unknowingly end up with some coins that were previously stolen, and then some guys with baseball bats turn up at your house.

You could say that the creator of Bitcoin decreed that it had value (I'm not sure I would agree), but it's still different from government backed money because nobody is forced to use Bitcoin (to pay taxes for example).

It certainly seems that within the Bitcoin community the word fiat now means government backed money, I suspect if Bitcoin becomes more successful it may end up redefining the word.

Yes there are a lot of CCTV cameras, there are a lot in most American cities too, in both cases most of them are operated privately.

What is different is that Britain has a much higher population density, so the surveillance appears more obvious, and makes for some skewed stats.

As for GCHQ, I would be surprised if they were notably worse than the NSA when it comes to snooping.