I know, I'd love to use my phone as a display via capture card so I don't have to carry a portable monitor to troubleshoot headless boxes.
The developer says the 15 and 15 Pro are only missing software, the hardware is capable:
> I’m sad to say that we’ve confirmed with Apple that it will not be working with the iPhone 15. But this can be fixed in software, so feel free to file a feedback request for UVC support on iOS!
This is why the home computer and smartphone revolutions we were promised never happened. No one absolutely had to have them so everyone waited for next year's cheaper, faster, and better models and the market died out.
Imagine a terrible world where people are incentivised to buy stuff they don't need and barely want; we'd be drowning in crap and burning up the Earth to make it.
> BTC is a trash-grade asset because it's practically useless and proof of work is extremely expensive for BTC holders (and environmentally damaging)
A permissionless settlement network open to anyone in the world, with a sensibly staid development policy is as useful and valuable as... well, check whatever the market participants value it at.
I suggest you read more widely and deeply to build an understanding of energy production, consumption, transmission, the externalities of each step across then environment, society, and civilization.
Bitcoin incentivises efficiency in energy production (and use in it's narrow sector) and the development of increasingly more efficient energy sources. By virtue of having no marginal cost per energy unit produced, renewables are the most cost efficient now and only more so as the days march on given renewable's technological headroom to grow.
> programmatic public chains, especially Ethereum, are cost-efficient and extremely useful.
Don't forget naively complex, and liable to usurpation by the ever next fast growing challenger networks for the same at present hyped up use cases.
> They will become one of the foundations of the global economy
Along with an inability to map to and represent the assets, subjective agreement, and legal richness of the outside/real world.
> proof of stake is more egalitarian than proof of work because while the rich get richer in both, only in PoS do the rich get richer at the same rate as everybody else, whereas in PoW there are significant mining economies of scale
In PoW the compute and energy rich participants of the network get richer, these miners are not necessarily the same as the monetarily rich. They are rewarded further riches in exchange for their service in producing unforgeably costly proof that they have explored a given mathematical space and that as a side effect a statistically likely amount of time has elapsed and concomitant quantity of computation has occurred such that the history of the network is ever less likely to be able to be edited.
You should absolutely examine every coin and token's premine, distribution, issuance policies, caps, and the control and malleability of those over time.
But you're barking up the wrong tree here. Bitcoin is one of incredibly few cryptoassets with no premine. I hesitate to say only because I don't keep track of the myriad uninteresting derivatives. You could have been Hal Finney or someone else as equally receptive and enthusiastic on the open mailing list right from the outset.
We don't know that there is no premine. There were very many blocks early on that are thought to have been mined by Satoshi. He/they could have discarded the key or could emerge sometime in the future and cash out.
You can directly inspect the Bitcoin blockchain. The genesis block pointedly includes the headline it does to demonstrate it could not have been created before 3 Jan 2009.
After that date the blocks Satoshi produced, as a requirement to process and validate transactions to bootstrap the network were simply mined not pre-mined, in a manner open to all.
They could indeed transact in the future. Although I suspect at this juncture should that ever occur it would be to make a political statement since I find people of that intellectual bent tend to be poorly motivated by base material wants. Anyhow, that's pointless gossipy speculation.
Ah. Yes, I had in my mind a sloppy, incorrect meaning of “premine”.
My point remains the same for questioning the intent of the founders. We have no idea what Satoshi might do with the power he has in the form of early blocks.
Ethereum's current approach to PoS is insecure. It will take a lot more work to get to a secure enough place to switch over, if a switch is even possible at all.
I don't know why you were flagged, but if your question was in earnest:
Bitcoin almost certainly won't move. Because those touted energy efficient protocols come at the cost of much weaker security guarantees which undermine a key point of Bitcoin.
Proof of stake, the forerunner of energy efficient protocols, may work better for networks that have different aims, although smart contract oriented blockchains still need good security to be trusted.
The stupendous levels of complexity involved in trying to hammer out proof of stake into a viable method of energy efficient mining make the approach look ever more unpromising.
Ethereum keeps delaying the switch and the touted 2022 migration has once again been kicked into the long grass after this paper from a few weeks ago:
https://arxiv.org/abs/2110.10086
> Moreover, there is a general argument that the attacker will always be able to keep the consensus from finalizing nomatter what the fix is.
> The argument simply comes from the fact, that mathematically provable binary consensus algorithms known in this universe have n2 behavior, and ETH2 is linear in n .
> Therefore, the only way to really fix ETH2 is to make it n2 . Otherwise it is unfixable from the math point of view. There will always be another attack.
> It may be that by continuing patching a fix after a fix after a fix one can end up with something that will work from an engineering point of view.
> This will be security by obscurity.
> But it will not be secure from the math point of view.
So while bodging in patches might work one day, it's an immature approach and a scary place to try store value.
The sheer number of moving parts create a scary amount of emergent complexity and complexity is the enemy of security.
Disclosure: I'm an early but now uncomfortable ETH holder.
On the "fundamental" link, see this reply that appeared after you commented:
"The reason that Ethereum’s consensus can run in n time rather than n^2 is BLS signature aggregation. The attacks in the paper however aren’t attacks on signature aggregation. So I don’t think your argument is valid."
It really was in earnest! I don't keep up with crypto news so just assumed this was something being worked on somehow.
Your answer would have fitted well with the thread that responded to my question!
As difficult as the vulnerabilities of PoS are to solve, at least there's nothing yet to say that they can't be solved given enough work; wheras, from what everyone is saying, the energy problem is essential to PoW as such?
With PoW all that burned energy creates a strong root of trust.
How do you establish that root of trust with PoS? Currently approaches are ultimately circular, IE trust it because the majority holders of the coin are continually voting to trust it.
The difference being you don’t need to ask existing Bitcoin miners for permission to begin mining Bitcoin yourself. Conversely, staking is inherently impossible without first obtaining “stake” — and how can you obtain stake without the approval of existing stakers?
US dollar payments aren’t subject to the approval of stakers, and existing PoW miners have no on-chain mechanism to prevent new market entrants from competing against them for hashrate.
So, “no”.
To begin staking, you first need stake. But merely transfering a PoS coin from an exchange to your own wallet for subsequent staking is inherently impossible without the approval of existing stakers. Even this isn’t enough: existing stakers must also approve of your initial staking transactions.
PoS is something fundamentally different from PoW. PoS-like ideas were around since before PoW, but such a system can never be used in a trustless way, which was what PoW enabled.
So it's fair to say that Bitcoin could never "transition" to PoS since the whole premise from the start was that it wasn't! It could not exist before. Now that it exist, and has been shown to work, it has caused a cambrian explosion of sorts of protocols with less reliance on trustlessness. But they solve a different problem.
You can fork endlessly and each fork won't matter one whit because they don't follow the longest chain secured with the most hashing power.
Or your fork can follow the longest chain and abide by the rules so your transactions are accepted by the rest of the network, in which case you're using Bitcoin and haven't forked.
So you then follow that chain and try transact on it. If your counterparty is satisfied then cool, carry on separately in your own bubble.
As you continue to transact with the rest of the world you'll realize you were both on a fork as you eventually encounter a chain with a much greater block height and you figure out that's where the current consensus lies.
You will still have your your UTXOs on the main chain since the transaction won't exist there. You and your counterparty figure out which chain is subjectively valuable to you.
In reality you ascertain the provenance of the software you're using the same way as all other software. If you fall for a supply chain attack and use the wrong software then all bets are off, you're vulnerable to your attacker and anything can happen.
You don't know if there's going to be a reorg in as much as relying on quantum mechanics you don't know you're not going to fall through the floor. Nothing is certain, only somewhere on the scale of probable to improbable. Look at the available current hashpower and decide where the incentives lie.
Anyway this is getting into the epistemological weeds. How do you know the universe/simulation you think you're in wasn't created last Thursday? https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Last_Thursdayism
Great, so when prices increase so much people can't afford to buy something there's no inflation with regard to that item. That's handy.
You're right, I suppose the homeless don't experience inflation in housing costs, therefore it doesn't exist!
This is as beautiful as the NSA's redefinition of surveillance whereby they only collect _all_ the data they can. But it's not surveillance until they look at it, which they assuredly don't because there's so much of it.
Further to the point above, when this happens the GDP drops. These metrics need to be looked at in combination with each other, not in isolation. There is no "one metric", its a series of metrics that tell a story.
I'm ashamed I have visited. Print those warnings in all the emphasized font you want, could Nagaenthran comprehend them and connect the dots to his coerced situation?
Everyone should at some point in their upbringing have a modicum of experience caring for someone with a mental disability
Singapore's actions and judicial system are vile and disgusting.
That's incorrect. The busywork is to prove that a certain amount of time is likely to have elapsed, as a coordination mechanism in a network of unreliable, uncoordinated, or even adversarial actors.
PoW is valued by the network and its participants.
What needs to be accounted for are the carbon and other negative externalities dumped into our singular shared environment. This is a massive global problem that you do a disservice by focusing on PoW.
