>Aren’t we sort of codifying malicious intent, instead of trying to remove it from the equation? Whom would this serve?
Define malicious intent.
What and whome one person is willing to trust will always be different than another person. This is a hard truth that we will never work around. Culture vs Culture, family vs family, idea vs idea. We can't get rid of conflict or therefore 'malicious intent' and by extension we can't (or shouldn't) bank on trust. I think the better way to deal with our very real human differences is to look past them in the spirit that all of us are creations of a higher power, and thus working together is in everyone's greatest interest.
Money as a medium of exchange is a very powerful concept It holds the idea of an IOU that can transcend our differences in the spirit of building a better world. But in order for that to happen money needs to be fungible, else our differences will enviably tear it apart.
Perhaps when the dollar was backed by gold this concept was more or less true, but central banks undermined that, hense the pull towards extreme decentralization.
>There is place for verification in the interim, such as maintaining security of your home, but if we are looking ahead (as blockchain enthusiasts do) we should strive for a future where humans are not motivated to hurt other humans. NOT TREATING IT AS SOME SORT OF DEFAULT IS A GOOD START.
I must disagree with this concept.
To treat it in a trusted manner is to ignore the fact that we have insurmountable differences and therefore those differences will raise their ugly heads elsewhere and tear our hopes for peace apart.
Rather to start with the presupposition that these differences exist, but that we will create a form that transcends them for the better of all is imo the ideal.
>How is a human institution in your mind "antithetical" to a technology?
It's not human institution vs technology, it's the very structure of central banking vs decentral banking. It's the concepts themselves that are antithetical.
-Edit
I couldn't remember the word, but I believe the term that applies here is 'diametrically opposed'
But that's the unspoken assumption I'm talking about - that blockchain and decentralized banking are one and the same / that this is the only design use case for the technology. There are many people actively working in block chain space who do not believe these are identical concepts. They may yet win out long term.
I'm not claiming that blockchain is a one use concept. Yes it can be used for other things then banking. I personally feel that NFTs are a great example of that, and that they hold many possibilities for the future.
But the main benefit that blockchain provides is a way to decentralize a network, it's quite inefficient from a performance standpoint. So to use it for anything other than that is a waste (at least currently). Centralized currencies are better than decentralized ones performance wise, and I don't predict that will change anytime in the near future.
To quote Eldenwrong's perfect comment here
"You can use a rock as a spoon but that just makes you retarded"
Hense blockchain currencies (the ones that aren't scams ofc) are decentralized by their nature, since that's the only draw to using that method.
Because of the Pareto distribution this should fail at some point, but with the innumerable amount of new currencies coming into existence, that shouldn't be a problem.
I aggree with the necessity of haste, but I hope these turbines can be developed in a way to have minimal impact on all the ocean life that uses these currents aswell, there's already so much damage thats been done to the ocean ecosystems already.
I believe that's where this line of thinking comes from.
Have you ever tried to change lanes because yours isn't moving, just to find that right after you change to your new lane it stops and your old lane picks up again? Man that sucks
Many people are finding their way out of big cities and into a less technologically enhanced life. Good ol' rural country living.
Is it possible for urban society to shift away from AI? No I don't think so. Is it possible for a NEW society to emerge that shifts away from AI? Yes, and that new society is already alive and growing.
Perhaps one day these two opposing societies will have to fight for supremacy, which sounds like an interesting scenario. Someone should write a book about that.
I know that Monero or any other crypto won't be accepted as a "legitimate" digital asset by governing agencies, so this doesn't really impact crypto.
If bitcoin became a legal tender then Monero would have that bridge though, so I'm routing for it, but it doesn't effect crypto all that much either way.
So many of these "cryptocurrencies" everyone and they're dog loves are just scams. If they get legal support then governments will just have a new set of rich incompetents to bail out...
Not that they can't afford it.
Total US money supply ~21 Trillion
Total monopoly money supply (the boardgame) 20,580 x 250,000,000 = 5.145 Trillion
They have some to spare.
Real crypto will always be underground. That's where it's ment to be.
And those only pay out if you don't consider the mining costs to make the batteries. If you do, they're significantly worse
We should be sticking to combustion cars, atmosphere sourcing the gasoline (we said "it's too expensive" back when gas was $0.79 a gallon; things have changed) and mandating 10% inefficiency into something chemically stable, so that road trip driving becomes part of the solution
But there are tons of great abdominal exercises, all with different benefits depending on your goals.
The sit up is such a specific motion, that it really has very limited benefits. Stabilization type exercises will benefit more. Some exercises will help with core strength alot, without being directly "ab" exercises. Heavy weighted squats are a great example of this.
If your goals are only to get a 6pack then you don't need ab exercises as much as you need a very disciplined diet supplemented with lots of cardio.
I would like to add that these are quite difficult unless you have a baseline of some athleticism. If you’re just getting into fitness these are going to be too hard.
For 6 packs, good diet and being lean/athletic is all you need.
I just finished serious cryptography, and I'm looking for the next step forward. I have little to know real programming experience, and my math skills aren't the greatest, (only high school with basic understanding beyond that, I think I understand the math behind RSA, but not the implementation so much)
Would cryptography engineering be too advanced for me? I plan on developing my programming skills after I get a computer, but until then want to continue learning.
Cryptography Engineering is less advanced than Serious Cryptography (but it's "take-y-er"; there's a lot of opinion / best practices stuff in it, and a lot of that is good).
I'd say that if you've read and grokked Serious Cryptography, and you don't want to write code, something like _IMC_ (Silverman, above) is an interesting next step, in that you'll mostly be reasoning about math, and you'll be working at a much lower level than the basic RSA formulae.
It also depends on what aspects of cryptography are interesting to you. If you want, for instance, to get a much better grip on how bulk cryptography works, as opposed to signatures and key exchanges, your best next step might be papers. For instance, a good next step on block cipher cryptography would be the Heys tutorial: https://ioactive.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/07/ldc_tutorial...
Looks like I can't pick up IMC at my local library, so I'll have to wait a tad on that one, but I can start with papers right away. I can't quite say what my particular interests in cryptography are, but (I guess not too surprisingly) I have a desire to know more about Hash functions. Now I'm going to try to hunt down the papers for Skein. Thanks again!
