It maters since decentralization is not a silver bullet. There is always some main repo, and it is hard to change it, or even just inform people about change. If you want other people to participate in your project then hosting it on biggest/most popular service reduces entry barrier
Probably. Just checkout how much fallout RMS generates when sharing his opinion outside software domain. It will be always weird, to kick original autor from project, but it happens from time to time.
So outside drug trade and crypto lockers what constitutes the crypto industry? The only constant I know are pump&dumps, be it in form of alt-coins, ICO or NFT.
How about the recent news from Visa where they would like to develop a smart contract wallet infrastructure (no seed phrases and account abstraction) on a layer 2 which uses zero knowledge proofs to batch transactions offchain for scalability? https://usa.visa.com/solutions/crypto/auto-payments-for-self...
Oh right, this doesn't follow the narrative that crypto is useless for everything.
> As part of Visa’s internal Crypto Hackathon challenge earlier this year, we took on the opportunity to explore the above scenario using a novel technique.
They say in their conclusion that they're interested in this. I don't see any talk of commitment.
All you need to know is right there in the heading - "Visa Crypto Thought Leadership".
You can go back years finding all kinds of research papers, press releases, broad statements from you-name-it Fortune 500 talking about some crypto project.
It means absolutely nothing for these big corps to take a tiny portion out of their income-offsetting R&D departments to put a few people on moonshot/fluff/PR campaigns for papers like this. It makes them look cool, relevant, whatever and in the event it somehow goes somewhere they look like geniuses (and some exec gets a promotion). If it doesn't work out they never mention it again -OR- release a statement announcing termination of the project because of environmental concerns, etc (like Tesla).
Because you say so? Is that why it doesn't mean anything. At least the parent poster posted some links, you didn't and are still drawing baseless conclusions. Next time please do provide something more.
Conversely, I'd love to see examples of successful blockchain/crypto projects in production in large enterprise/Fortune 500 or anywhere else. Or anything pointing to mainstream blockchain/crypto adoption outside of gambling on exchanges. Bitcoin is almost 14 years old and Ethereum is coming up on eight...
It's getting tired to debate but I've been very active in blockchain since 2017, with two startups in the space. After more than a decade and tens of billions of dollars in spending and funding by everyone from enterprise to VC blockchain and crypto penetration and adoption is abysmal. If you want some sources and background on that conclusion I wrote this nearly a year ago and if anything usage and adoption is lower:
Let me guess you lost a bunch of money or didn't make enough and are ready to give up? Or did you lose a lot and now think it's bad?
Fact remains that blockchain is around and not going anywhere. While HN is super negative about blockchain, not sure why as this is a tech. innovation but still super negative, like this place is being run by big banks who stand to lose the most?
If you had read the article I wrote I started it by explaining that I divested of all crypto holdings in 2021. Even with those (very) positive returns I can't look away from what I've experienced and seen in the space.
My change in thinking comes from five years very deep in this and realizing:
1. It's been five years waiting and we've yet to see any meaningful adoption. Bitcoiners (as one example) still post videos on social media of them doing Lightning transactions at some random one-off retail location like it's worthy of a post... The pro-crypto/blockchain community is like a cult following a doomsday preacher that keeps predicting dates for the apocalypse that come and go - only to believe yet another future date. If after a decade it's still a big deal to buy a sandwich with crypto it's really time to reconsider your position. If after a decade you're still celebrating things like a Visa press release of some blockchain research project it's really time to reconsider your position. Wouldn't we all laugh at someone getting excited to send an e-mail, shop online, or have $CORP setup a website in 2000?
2. Living blockchain and crypto everyday for five years has only served to reinforce and demonstrate first hand the attitude you see on HN - even with the incredible amount of time and resources thrown at the space it's still nowhere near ready for prime-time. I've written plenty of comments describing the horror that is even the most fundamental layers - node implementations, etc. See point #1 - I've been waiting for it to grow up and as a rational person I can't keep falling for lofty promises that never materialize. HN (for the most part) thinks the tech sucks because it does.
3. Being active in the space has only exposed me directly to the incredible sleaziness that is crypto and blockchain. I've had founders of large and well-known startups show up to meetings obviously high on drugs, saying things like "I'm just trying to get made, paid, and laid" repeatedly. I've had meetings with large blue chip VC firms active in crypto that essentially describe the position of SBF - "We're in the ponzi business and it's going well". My latest startup is an anti-fraud solution for blockchain and I've been repeatedly told things like "Why would we want this? We make our money on fraud." Needless to say details of SBF unfolding - drug usage, criminality, etc are not surprising to me in the least. HN (for the most part) thinks crypto and blockchain is a cesspool of bad actors because it is.
Five years ago I was convinced blockchain was the next big thing - akin to the internet/web. After five years of these personal experiences, all of the available data on adoption, headlines of people in crypto getting indicted, faking their own deaths, rugpulling, exchanges collapsing, Defi and wallets getting hacked left and right, failed project after failed project, dealing with people I want nothing to do with, etc, etc I see it for what it obviously is - even though I've personally come out ahead financially (largely due to timing and luck).
How much of your personal self-interest/stake is driving your position on all of this?
Where are you getting that they would like to develop or even explore this further?
From the link, this was taken from an internal hackathon earlier in the year before the further crypto meltdown. they didn’t even write a proof of concept. Call me when they actually trapease or do something.
No, the ownership has not change by buying a NTF. Not the rights to the work nor even the ownership of a specific digital file. That's why I'm asking. Cause the whole NTF space is held up by a general misunderstanding of ownership and rights.
> Cause the whole NTF space is held up by a general misunderstanding of ownership and rights.
It would we more correct to say that critical NFT commentary is held up by misunderstanding about what digital art collectors actually think and want.
If I want to buy rights to a JPG, I go search on Shutterstock. If I want to buy a piece of digital art (in form of a limited edition receipt), I go to a gallery.
Can it start generating electricity without waiting for steam to reach required temperature? For now we can only assume the worst case scenario and group it with fission in "up to 12h startup time". The report in https://www.eia.gov/todayinenergy/detail.php?id=45956 compares existing power sources
It is a bit funny. Just few years ago most people said Twitter is mostly pointless, just a gimmick, and can't really compare to other social networks. It looks it has founds its niche in the end.
It is irrational, and I know it, but I had so many issues with drivers for
Radeon 9550, almost 20 years ago that I am still afraid to buy another AMD card.
It’s an odd comparison: both DF and RimWorld are more complex than each other here :)
RimWorld simulates organs in a more complete way than Dwarf Fortress does, and lets you surgically remove and replace those organs. That’s pretty cool, and a lot fun. Each part has hit points, and each can be lost in combat. A character without body parts suffers from infirmities or death, depending on how critical the part is. A character who is missing a leg can still function, but moves around more slowly. RimWorld tracks similar information about the body parts of animals and robots, which makes combat against them a lot of fun. Herbivores run away from pain, and robots still have organs like cameras and chemical reactors that can be destroyed to incapacitate them.
Dwarf Fortress simulates body parts in a more complete way than RimWorld does. Each body part (limb, torso, head, etc), has hair, skin, fat, muscle, and bone layers each with their own properties. These parts also have sensory and motor nerves as well as blood vessels. DF keeps track of the color of the skin and hair, the depth of the fat and muscle (and those are related to the Dwarf’s stats), and what type of damage each layer has taken (bruises, cuts, tears, etc). Damage to some layers can heal naturally, be surgically treated, get infected, leave a scar, etc. Others, like nerves, often won’t heal. This sometimes leaves characters unable to use body parts that they haven’t completely lost. It keeps track of some organs, such as the brain and the gonads, but not others like stomachs, hearts, lungs, etc. Surgical options are much more limited, as befits the setting. You can clean a wound (with or without soap), set bones, suture cuts and tears, and use casts or traction tables to immobilize broken limbs. A character who is missing a leg cannot walk normally, but the game will try its hardest to allow them some mobility using other parts, or you can give them crutches. Like RimWorld, Dwarf Fortress tracks the overall body plan for all species in the game (thousands upon thousands of them), as well as the unique information about each individual. Dwarf Fortress gains many of the same combat and storytelling benefits as RimWorld from its in–depth simulation.
Dwarf Fortress goes a step beyond RimWorld though, when it comes to Forgotten Beasts and the Undead.
Forgotten Beasts are horrific monsters left over from the chaotic creation of the world. They have _randomized_ body plans. Sometimes they will be a combination of two or more creatures, like a giant feathered iguana with bat wings and a fiery breath. Other times they will be a standard body plan (such as a colossal troll) made from an unusual substance (such as quartz, or fire, or iron). And it knows the material properties of quartz and fire and iron, and it can simulate how your weapons will do against them!
The Undead are a similar kind of fun. These are ordinary creatures (such as your own fallen dwarves) who have been reanimated by arcane forces. The Undead of course do not feel pain, do not need blood or intact nerves to use their body parts, and ignore all damage. And remember how a crippled character will still try to crawl if they are missing a leg? You don’t know fear until your dwarves are being chased by an undead skull that is pushing itself along by its eyebrows, biting anything that comes near. Your old nightmares will fade into irrelevance once one of your dwarves butchers a cow and the bloody skin and hair are reanimated to terrorize the innocent.
It had optional graphical tilesets for a decade or so, this release is more about overhauling whole GUI. Some stuff was just plain annoying like having to manually create bedrooms from furniture. Some stuff was fixed by DF-hack project, for more sensible experience.
