gila

I don’t want to know this, but it’s cinnamoroll

Maybe in the context of an ideologically opposed global hegemony, you’re right. Maybe we should do something about that.

Lemmy is like email, and lemmy.world is like your email provider. Sync is like Outlook

On the other hand, it’s not like we have 600lb bears charging around. Pretty much all kinds of attack by our land animals can be thwarted using the ancient & mysterious art of wearing enclosed shoes & pants.

I’m really meaning the lack of option not to consume fast-moving consumer goods, rather than the option to pay a premium for them elsewhere. When their market position is similar to like an outlet for government rations except for private profit, their net is essentially what was skimmed off the top of free enterprise. 2.66% is just the current maximum amount that is justifiably worth without doing societal harm

That’s an expected tradeoff of operating an essential service is the point. It’s not as though their margin is that slim by mistake, or out of goodwill, or bad business sense. It’s meant to lead to the situation where we shop at Walmart not by choice, but in lieu of other options.

For me that number is only what’s left at the Amazon warehouse in my city. There’s always more stock or listings when I deselect ‘Delivered within 2 days’. Because Amazon warehouses in other cities can’t ship to me within 2 days, we’re too remote.

Dolphin is in a better state than it’s ever been, now has a resampler so you can get those crisp pixels like on original hardware. For anyone whose interest is in actually playing old Nintendo games over speculating on their IP, even if they own a cartridge, they’re probably playing on Dolphin.

Agreed, but consider this: centralisation in this context is intended to refer to the distribution of power and control toward any authority or party, including entrenchment of VC. It’s definitely a valid point for something like Solana, less so for Ethereum I feel. At a certain point, the sum of involved interests are simply too disparate to be utilised together toward some nefarious end. Of course, robust on-chain community governance is critical for anything that wants to push beyond the microcap experiment stage that Ethereum was in during 2016.

You were supposed to have the eureka moment where you realise that’s not a thing, oh well.

I’m pointing out that the DAO hack transactions are not muted on ETC, they still exist as transactions in a validated block on that chain. Whether its state of mutability exists in binary or on a spectrum, ETC is shown to be immutable using your criteria, further showing that it’s not as simple as “crypto isn’t really immutable”. Different chains, even directly originating from the same project, have different characteristics with respect to mutability. It’s not to say that ETH is worse and/or better than ETC, or that either of them are good, it’s just what’s been observed as a matter of record, contrary to your depiction

You’ve almost put all the pieces together. A decentralised linked list is … ? oh wait

Then I guess you misunderstand that the hard fork resulting from the DAO hack was the result of consensus of the network participants, not a unilateral action taken by the Ethereum foundation. Indeed, the protocol facilitated that’s the only way it could happen.

The historic source code is still hosted, if you think ETH devs have the ability to ‘edit whatever they want’ then you should be able to point to the lines of code where that ability is afforded to them. Or someone should, 8 years should have been enough time to have a flick through.

Your anti-ETH comment came across as an anti-ETC comment to me, that’s why I responded. I stand with you in disagreement with the 2016 hard fork. Mostly because many people would lose money anyway, and did. ETH corrected 50+%.

ETC is literally the original chain, sans Ethereum foundation’s branding (which is why your reference to it confused me). Founding members left and continued to support ETC, and went on to found other foundations with a basis in academic rigor, which formed the fundamental basis of the ideological disagreement between participants.

You said this showed ETH/ETC devs have a ‘kill switch in their back pocket’, but the part of Ethereum that was ‘killed’ is alive and much larger than it was in 2016.

Well, it’s been about 15 years, and everything else we’ve found so far has been shitter. So just, give up on decentralisation I guess?

So are you pushing a non-blockchain based decentralised ledger solution then, or did the point they were dodging actually just go over your head?

Bitcoin is open-source software, a network of nodes running Bitcoin core, the source code for which you can find here: https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin

Morals are a consequence of free will, which Bitcoin does not have. There are valid moralistic concerns about Bitcoin, but they are related to the impact of Bitcoin, rather than whether it is a moral system.

It depends on whether you’re interacting with the blockchain directly, or via a custodial solution more appropriate for end consumers. Same like how you don’t get a refund if you operate a western union branch and fuck up the wire.

Ah yes, Bitcoin bad because some people that use it are bad, how did I never think of that

Oh nice, that’s how high Solana’s TPS has gone in testing (in practice it hovers around 5-10k TPS). There’s also newer chains like Aptos that claim to be able to handle 150k TPS with subsecond finality. Of course, neither of these chains are very decentralised, but at least they aren’t fully permissioned and centralised. Especially on a network belonging to a partisan, anti-competitive, anti-trust law-breaking, Wikileaks funding thieving Israel supporters like Visa.

Who do you think controls ETC? IOHK? It’s an open-source project.

It had some 51% attacks a few years ago, is that what you are referring to?

I’m honestly just curious what you mean