A highway cuts through my city, largely because it used to be very poor and it was politically expedient to prioritize interstate traffic at the expense of city dwellers (there's measurably higher rates of asthma near highways).
Its not just "StrongTowns hates them", it's that a lot of cities have gotten the shit end of the stick, transportation-wise, and people who actually live in the city don't want to live next to a fucking highway for the convenience of suburbanites. It's not a conspiracy, there's political support for these policies in cities.
Just use park and ride, cut throughs can go fuck themselves, you sound entitled as hell. It's not your God given right to shit up other peoples' home with your car.
Like, the drivers manual? We're talking about basic driving skills here. Cars need room to stop, the higher the speed, the more room they need to stop safely. Most human drivers aren't perfect and leave a lot less room than they should, AVs won't share that flaw.
AVs can react faster than humans - if all the vehicles in the tunnel are controlled automatically, distances could conceivably shortened quite safely. Not sure why "citation needed" was downvoted, it's far from clear no matter where you stand on the issue.
That's called 'shooting the messenger'. It is not a good idea for those who want to be open to different opinions, a fact which actually can be gleaned from the linked article. If, as you say, 'everyone flags it as spam' it would be good for 'everyone' to read the linked article. That does not mean you need to agree to everything written there, by all means disagree but do so on the base of reason.
> Eschew flamebait. Don't introduce flamewar topics unless you have something genuinely new to say. Avoid unrelated controversies and generic tangents.
How can you discuss neo-Nazism or black supremacy without knowing what those terms actually mean? Again, this is once of the themes of the linked article: placing labels is not the same as understanding an issue. Reading about subjects you disagree with makes you a more knowledgeable and possibly even wiser person. It does not make you into whatever it was you read about.
My understanding is you only need 33% of the hash power at any given time. Since PoW is only done as part of sending transactions, it probably takes less hash power than you'd think to cause problems.
>Why does everyone repeat that Byzantine consensus requires maximum 33% of participants to be dishonest?
Not 33% of participants, 33% of the hash power, could just be one participant with a pile of GPUs or ASICS or "JINN" chips lol. That's the claim made by the IOTA author, anyway.
Right now it wouldn't surprise me if someone could amass 90+% of IOTA hash power anyway.
Okay but it was more of a general question. I see Hashgraph and others always saying that they need 33% of participants to be honest. But with unforgeable message signatures that limitation doesn't apply.
Virtual Voting in hashgraph requires a 2/3 agreement.
Of course PoW provides some protection against sybil attacks, but the reality is that with enough hashpower the network can be overtaken. (Hence why HashGraph is a closed network.)
First, a paper written three weeks ago of an unproven currency is a bit of stretch.
Second, I didn't say it was necessary to order transactions, I said that is what it is used for, which is correct. You are replying to a point that I didn't make.
You said proof of work is ABOUT ordering transactions. I was trying to say that it's not. It's used for other things: namely as a way to determine the next miner, like leader election in consensus protocols. It also adds a lot of computation on top of the transactions to show that the miner is heavily invested in the ecosystem and thus serves as an economic incentive. It has almost NOTHING to do with ordering transactions. Transactions are ordered by the blockchain, and everyone has to verify them anyway.
Kerl is Keccak I.E. SHA-3, the international NSA standard. They called it Kerl for fun in homage of Curl, which is still under active development with the absolute world-leading cryptographers of lightweight cryptography. Curl had to be invented to push LIGHTWEIGHT cryptography which is necessary for the Internet of Things. It's quite astonishing how much misinformation is spread around.
SHA-3 is not an NSA standard. It was invented by Guido Bertoni, Joan Daemen, Michaël Peeters and Gilles Van Assche who are researchers at various companies/universities and are from Italy and Belgium.
I am very curious about what 'LIGHTWEIGHT' cryptography is
defined as. I am also dubious about anyone that claims to have 'absolute world-leading cryptographers' since many strong cryptographers are quietly employed by intelligence agencies and most others are academics.
Also, since we are being pedantic, SHA-3/Keccak is an NIST standard, which is a federal agency of the United States.
I'm not an expert in the field, but there certainly have been efforts here and there to make "lightweight" crypto that needs little computational resources (and therefore battery power). One example would be KASUMI[0].
Its not just "StrongTowns hates them", it's that a lot of cities have gotten the shit end of the stick, transportation-wise, and people who actually live in the city don't want to live next to a fucking highway for the convenience of suburbanites. It's not a conspiracy, there's political support for these policies in cities.
Just use park and ride, cut throughs can go fuck themselves, you sound entitled as hell. It's not your God given right to shit up other peoples' home with your car.