I always assumed contributing to RFCs is about as easy as contributing to C++, which I always assumed is virtually impossible without a billion dollars or a billion citations of your academic papers.
Why would Bitcoin purists care about off ramping onto fiat?
This seems awkwardly unnecessary for a technology that has only prioritized deflationary economics and economic sovereignty through private key encryption.
Serious answer: Because they have to eat. Being a purist doesn't mean they can afford to ignore the world they live in; even if they believe that USD is fundamentally worthless and keep all their wealth in Bitcoin, they still need to occasionally pay bills to people who don't take Bitcoin.
Because it means that 85.7% of all mistakes will be caught by very simple software checks before getting to your system. (85.7% == 6/7).
Check digits in your userdata is an old trick and is very useful in practice. Maybe modern systems should aim for something better than %7 but it's a good starting point as a system design concept.
Just a mistake, I imagine. Probably just typed the pattern out starting with the last number they wrote, which unfortunately was invalid.
> I was looking at ticket 984,946,605. When I type in 1 higher, 984,946,606, no ticket is found. ... So the ticket after 984,946,606 is actually 984,946,610
It’s not the burden of society to prove the dangers of the technology we purchase on behalf of the businesses that sell it.
We recall consumer products for danger well below the numbers reported in the article above. A vehicle on the road should be held to an even higher standard.
Safety testing has proven that Teslas are incredibly safe - probably some of the safest cars on the road. Both in crash tests and accidents per mile driven.
If someone is claiming that there is a safety issue despite the existing data, then yes, the burden of proof moves to them to validate their new claim.
Do we? I don’t think so. We recall vehicles based on an investigation and quantification of the risk.
The numbers here aren’t very high and they don’t reflect any serious risk of harm. Recall math is interesting to me, but it’s not just a function of customer complaints.
People said the same thing about cloud computing and machine learning. When the cost per compute approached commodity status for both, those opinions quickly changed.
People will say whatever the status quo says or they’ll be booted off the island.
All that’s been proven is we can apply patterns of discovery well defined by info theorists a century ago to electron state in a machine.
We’ve hardly upended immutable law established by physical experiment. Discovery of human ability to capture natures energy in its machines is also not so new; trebuchets and arrows leveraged gravity.
Only 14% of the adult public has more than a bachelors. Religion proved it is not that hard to convince the majority in titillating nonsense.
Individually none of the specific discoveries that go into SpaceX or Google were invented there. Iterating on well known ideas with well known technology is what humans do. It’s fascinating and interesting.
The figurative gibberish about a minority is to serve nation state propaganda about how amazing it is here. But inside the gulag we all defer to the minority needed to sell the illusion.
That would be an insane precedent to send if breaking or removing a FOSS project becomes a crime simply because your project happens to be used in some mission-critical system.
Good way of making sure no one ever contributes to FOSS again.
luckily, predatory pricing does not have to consider intent.
see Brooke Group Ltd. v. Brown & Williamson Tobacco Corp., 509 U.S. 209.
essentially, all you have to do is prove that there is "dangerous probability" that a monopolist can recoup their losses after all competitors have been priced out.
Are you open to contributing to this RFC?