pull down to refresh
Thank you! I got intrigued also by the other one discussed above "Gödel, Escher and Bach". I will check out both.
A part of your post reminded me the paradox of beauty in Zhuangzi (see reference):
Mao Qiang and Li Ji
were accounted by men to be most beautiful, but when fishes saw them, they dived deep in
the water from them; when birds, they flew from them aloft; and when deer saw them, they
separated and fled away. But did any of these four know which in the world is the right
female attraction?
Beauty is only relevant depending on your referential, and I would interpret truth the same. What is considered to be true is true in some referential. E.g.: I see the colors as I do given a typical human being who can see red, green, blue and all derived colors. But someone with color vision deficiency would probably disagree with me. Give me two or three dimensions, I can represent it. Now give me four dimensions and my cognitive limitations make it hard for me to represent it even though in math it is perfectly fine.
So with respect to some referential, I think we can all agree to some truth, which we may find false in some distant future. I think truth exists, and we can consider it absolute given a referential.
Actually everything in science is true until proven otherwise, and changes of paradigm always take time to get accepted. What makes something reasonably true at some point is that it can be falsified and tested. Given that, it seems fine to me to consider something absolutely true given nothing else falsifies what I believe to be true.
I digress a bit but recently I was reading a book written by John McMoneagle who was using "remote viewing" for US agencies. He was discussing in his book about our perception of time with past, present and future. For him, although he can't explain it precisely, what we think about time is more complex. I find it fascinating that even basic concepts such as time, that in math we typically represent as a single dimension and take it as granted, might actually be multidimensional or completely different than we think today.
Wise. There are still some offers, but not at all like in the past.
Why do you say Peach is dead? I only saw lnp2pbot being stopped and replaced by Mostro.
Please try Robosats, it's a good platform. I can't count the trades I did on it. Just a small fraction of scammers apparently. Since I am not a Bitcoin seller, only buyer, I never had issues. There was this discussion about a reputation system but I don't remember the website someone gave me for a reputation system to rate people on Nostr.
Personally I use a mix of all (Robosats, Peach, Bisq, Lnp2pbot)
People with who I transacted on Robosats had to change their account or use a proxy to avoid having their account frozen.
And then after a while coming back and see that few people remain offering the payment method I was using.
And yet scammers are probably 0.01% of the total of transactions. In some way I prefer physical robberies.
I didn't really overcome it but I would tend to think that some kind of reputation system matters. Also I need to think about alternatives.
From the definition of Mises, if we think and speak multiple languages then we could claim ourselves from the "nationality". I think the author puts a bit too much emphasis on the language.
Last year I have visited the museum of Japanese immigration in Saõ Paulo, and it definitely seems that when the Brazilian portuguese gave the order to forbid schools in Japanese language (in the thirties I think, or maybe during the war), some identity may have been lost.
But as far as I can tell, even though language skills in present days are not good, or makeup, culture, etc are different, they don't totally identify as Brazilian but also as Japanese. One old couple I visited had in their apartment a picture of... the Emperor Hirohito. They were watching Japanese tv, but could not read subtitles since their reading skills are bad.
I think other factors like leaving our country of origin, not paying taxes there, having no social relations, different skin color, traveling are important factors as well.
After more than 10 years not living in the country I am from, I struggle to laugh at political jokes, and I giggle when I hear about "our" motherland.
I digress but if stories of extra-terrestrial beings having sex with humans were real, I wonder if their children would identify somehow as Earthlings without speaking one language on Earth. My guess is yes.
Good to know. I am planning to buy a phone next year, I am using Pixel 6a (supported until next year).
That would be great if they could support e-ink devices as well.
I tested as well.
With 1 sat I had 1 sat of fee and 100 sats I had 1 sat of fee. I used Minibits to send. Since I experienced higher fees on Radar I was expecting more fees.
Overall for a beginner it looks good.
To me it seems quite unfair though to write a warning for Spark when Wallet of Satoshi and Blink advertise using Spark as well... In terms of UI adding a warning and an asterisk only there feels weird also.
So I think removing all warnings for Spark or add a warning for all custodial wallets to make it consistent would be better.
e.g.: I use Minibits with Stacker News, this is definitely custodial.
Fedora sway atomic
Customized a bit to decrease memory usage. But besides that works very well out of the box. Toolbox on Fedora atomic is convenient also. I highly recommend.
I have been using KDE for many years but got tired by how the temperature of my laptop can get high with it. With Sway, CPU and memory usage, temperature are very low. No 3d bling bling compositor.
I voted "Terrible idea".
My personal point of view is to use multisig with different vendors.
Though realistically since others I know don't share my views I have suggested singlesig with a hardware wallet which has a budget for security and certifications.
Although certifications can lead to skewed results, at least it shows work has been done to improve security.
Additionally I don't know reports of stolen funds with wallets generated with bitcoin-cli (besides I guess those kept as hot wallets, but I don't know what Luke Dashjr used)
Thank you, I just saw that yesterday thanks to optimism.
I found also this one which is archived:
https://github.com/0xB10C/bitcoind-observer
And this:
https://github.com/AltaModaTech/btcnode-metrics/tree/main
And although it is not pluggable to Prometheus I found this one using Phoenix (Erlang) which can be good to take a look at what others do without Grafana:
https://github.com/151henry151/node-probe/tree/main
Thanks you! Exactly, tracing with ebpf would match my requirements. I am ok with the RPC load if it allows me not to reinvent the wheel.
Actually thanks to you I have discovered other projects on GitHub which may be helpful. I will share it here if the results are better and I am able to make it work with Prometheus.
I don't want to be intrusive, but is it you Primexz on GitHub? If yes, thank you again haha
Thank you, I will take a look.
Trying to find what could possibly go wrong I was wondering also if the assumption of independence of events is still valid if two dice collide. So I would toss the dice one after the other just in case, as the math behind assume rolls are independent events.
If you look at lottery events they probably use a machine to roll dice to guarantee independence of events. I don't want to be too paranoid there too and discourage you though.
I would still be personally worried about bias from dice (but I may be biased hahaha).
To avoid that, I would not buy used dice or someone else's dice. There are people who put it into ovens to cheat on Dungeons and Dragons (https://www.reddit.com/r/statistics/comments/3246r7/where_to_buy_loaded_dice_for_teaching/).
I would still be paranoid about dice so I would buy those advertised for casinos. And even then I would still be worried so I would use the idea of Ava Chow I saw on Nitter to use the von Neumann skew-correction algorithm or a variant. And I would do my own research about the different algorithms used, although the one you shared seems perfectly fine.
Everything written above could be overthinking. Also factually people who used dice with the coldcard were safe. So factually those who used dices were proven right to do so. However I would still keep diluting risk by using multisig because this is where I feel confident and have put thought and effort into.
At the end of the day, the diversity of ideas to secure bitcoins is interesting to see and I learned something new from the way Bitkey does it. Although I didn't like the aggressive marketing they did and I would not use it myself. For those who prefer dice, I think they should go for it.
Everything requires a leap of faith. Maybe the next time I board an airplane the pilot will be suicidal and won't make it into the destination.
I think he is overthinking.
You make a good point. People who thought about self-custody were not surprised about a single point of failure failing. People who used multi-vendor multisig were pleasantly surprised and reassured they were right.
My multisig was a mix of hot wallet (Nunchuk), ledger, jade and other keys on Liana (unfortunately just a few wallets are miniscript compatible).
I think people at Casa are probably those who are pleasantly surprised. Expecting single points of failure failing, not multisig. Jameson Lopp talked about multi-vendor multisig way before Coldcard failed, this is how I got the idea.
One of the first example of big failure I have learned in computer science was a rocket which exploded because of a type issue (I think integer and float). Also the patriot missile, which blew up an American boat in the 90s if my memory is correct, is taught in textbooks.
Not sure if I get this right but here is how I see it.
All elements of the set A belong to B. No elements of the set B belong to C.
Hence No elements of A are in C seems correct to me. Answer A seems right.
All elements of C belong to A contradicts the second statement. Answer B seems false.
Some elements of B are A seems right to me as the first statement says that all elements of A are in B.
I am not a native English speaker but I understand the last statement as the set C does not exist, which seems false fo me given the second statement.
My answer is A is necessarily true.