What is even more sorry is if you had bought a 100 dollar phone you could have bought a new phone every year for 10 years and had better protection. Which is totally wasteful.
I worked in both Android and ChromeOS orgs at Google. They way the leadership in each treated updates was very different.
ChromeOS devices are expected to be supported for 7 (or so) years. This is true even at the planning stage, which is why certain vendors are avoided as they cannot be reliably expected to provide support for that. There used to be a policy even that only upstreamed kernels can be shipped, as in: if the vendor does not upstream their kernel patches, no part of theirs can be in a ChromeOS device.
Very little thought about updateability was given in Android until about 2018(?)-ish, when project Treble started happening. And even then, that idea had existed for a while before it was implemented, and it took a long time to sell android leadership on it.
Check out http://btrdb.io/ which is a similar idea. It's a distributed database as well. It was designed for storing billions or even trillions of records for electrical data from hundreds of sources at once.
It was written by a couple of friends of mine and others, so I'm not sure how it compares to the article link, as I'm not a databases expert.
You're probably right, whether we have free will or not, we still cannot tell the future, so we should act as if we have it. This poster is clearly conflating their own life situation, which might limit them somehow, with the universe at large. I could get divorced and disown my son and run off to another place to start another life, but I "can't" do that because of my own morals and limitations for what I'm willing to do. The OP could do a similar thing, but chooses not to because of whatever thing is limiting then from that decision.
Same here. I used to have to borrow, steal, or buy content, but now for about 50 bucks a month i can subscribe to a few services and get all the tv, games, and music I want. Until that changes considerably, I'm fine with the status quo.
The USG could kill it by using a 51 percent attack; the NSA must have rows upon rows of servers that could be repurposed for a week or two to destroy the market. Split the blockchain every couple of hours into several different versions, eventually there would be little chance to reconcile things.
>the NSA must have rows upon rows of servers that could be repurposed for a week or two to destroy the market
Their general purpose servers are nearly useless for mining bitcoin because their hashrates are orders of magnitude lower than the ASICs that professional miners use. If you want to 51% attack bitcoin you either need an absurd number of general purpose computers (possibly more than all CPUs/GPUs that exist on earth) or pour billions into making hardware that can only be used to mine.
$1B would be more than enough to design and manufacture all the necessary ASICs to cripple the network. They wouldn't even need to do a 51% attack to do so, e.g. selling coins at a complete loss would bleed the other miners white.
>$1B would be more than enough to design and manufacture all the necessary ASICs to cripple the network
Source? Some napkin math using the current bitcoin network hash rate[1] and the price/performance ratio of a yet-to-be-released bitcoin mining ASIC[2] suggests that you'd need $9.5B to take over the network.
The NSA/CIA/etc. is precisely why this won't happen, for the same reason the same are launching no wide-scale attacks to take down Tor - the guys in suits doing questionable government things need anonymity too.
Bingo. I’ve always thought it was the NSA, CIA, or maybe UK or Israel but I doubt the latter two. Especially since Satoshi’s wallet is so large and hasn’t moved.
Bitcoin has to make it much easier for 3 letter type agencies to follow money.
I theorized back in 2009 that this is exactly what would happen, but instead of having NSA use it's server farms, it would be the central banks using third party cutouts to buy up chunks get to a collective 51 percent. Why I didn't predict that the obvious result would be a runaway market I still kick myself for, because at the time I rejected bitcoin for it's lack of privacy and just moved on...
My current guess is that they are going to pressure all the other coins, and come to some collective agreement after some farcicle fact finding mission ala 1907 to agree there should be some sort of central bank controlled digital coin... which of course they will control, but will lack anonymity. BTC will crash then. (but again, maybe I'm not the best person to listen to on this topic!)
It's called loyalty, it goes both ways, but American companies don't understand it today. You shouldn't just treat people like a tool or equipment like American companies tend to. Sometimes people need something from the company and the company provides, then in return the employee works harder when they can.
