I do lack familiarity with the European environment, but between geothermal, wind, hydro and natural gas backup, is it really feasible as it is in places where solar gives 0.01 USD kWh prices?
How is this sustainable as the gap between self generated and stored energy and the grid price continues to diverge?
If present trends hold it won't be long before a few years worth of energy bills even in Europe finance a full off grid deployment. There doesn't seem to be much room to cut on the energy companies pricing which remains variable and pointlessly complicated vs "I bought this off grid system and now I never think about energy anymore".
Just people in high density housing, people in a lease, and those who can't afford the up front cost will constitute the majority of residential grid energy usage and purchasing?
Wild Ass Guess: Everyone OpenAI is negotiating with is likely considering how much they can gain from potential future revenue. This typically leads them to demand high rates.
However, this move flips the question: instead of asking how much they can make, they must consider what happens if their competitors partner with OpenAI. The concern then shifts to what competitors can achieve in the market that could threaten not just their economic interests but potentially their entire business model and worldview.
Suddenly, the desire to be the one partnering with OpenAI isn't just about accessing a lucrative revenue stream; it becomes a strategic imperative to mitigate risks and maintain competitive parity.
I understand it perfectly and loathe it, not for the reasons people typically do, but because what it pretends to be able to do it cannot, and actually does the opposite of.
> Unlike every other attempt at electronic cash that came before it, Bitcoin also doesn't need the approval of any person, police force, legislative body, military, or government. I'd challenge people who hold negative views on Bitcoin to name some other systems for which this holds true.
This isn't actually true, BTC requires a certain amount of subsidy every ten minutes from the global economy. If that subsidy is not forthcoming it ceases to function. That subsidy is constantly increasing in terms of purchasing power.
Further, the regulatory authorities of the world have complete power over the transactions that take place on the ledger, and pretty much full visibility into and out of the ledger when it comes to their controlled fiat currencies.
Neither of the above hold true for many other cryptocurrencies, but I'm not interested in shilling for them, because the entire cryptosphere as a whole is a wretched hive of scum and villainy, largely because of attempts to force the above status quo from BTC onto the remainder, which given the multitude thereof, and the ability for them to endlessly replicate and spawn, is basically doomed to failure.
Note: I am well aware that the popular opinion of BTC is not aware of much of the above, but I didn't say "people believe x" I just said "x".
It's not clear whether you're missing the point on purpose or not, so I'll just come right out and say it; his guilt for any crimes of which he is accused is entirely unrelated to how sensible the proposition is that entities ought to be able to completely shut down people on every social media platform by accusing them of something and then immediately demanding that they be demonetized by these platforms.
"DAMN! I didn't trip over myself fast enough to make sure this personality was immediately demonetised on every internet social media platform after they were accused of a crime on a TV channel!"
I do a version of this that doesn't require restore at all, I have three separate physical systems that all share a VPN across the world, and wherever I am at any given time zfs snapshots are syncing across that VPN to those three physical systems depending on which one is the primary I'm using at any given point in time. They also use the VPN layer to check if they have peer status on a faster local network like the wifi or LAN and use that instead for the snapshot transfers if so.
If for any reason any one of these systems either is destroyed or is no longer master, picking up from where I left off is as simple as picking another system up and marking it "master". No restore process, no changes, nothing at all, and it picks up from exactly where I left off when I was working on the other system. Means I can just grab my EDC laptop and stuff it in a bag not knowing how long I'll be out or where I'll be going and also know that it will be completely up to date with my datasets, or I can grab my desktop replacement laptop and its enormous external disk if I am going to be on a different continent for an extended period of time and want full geographic dataset locality. At no point in time does any of the above require the manual running of any process or replication or anything like that.
Reprovision and restore would take a whole lot longer than this, wouldn't give the abilities that it provides, and the above is only possible because of zfs snapshot replication.
I also use a USB C external SSD that is a member of a ZFS mirror and a md raid group that is bootable, so even if my EDC laptop were to spontaneously combust, I could immediately get up and running on any similar laptop with roughly comparable hardware simply by putting that SSD in and booting from it, then adding the SSD on the laptop to the zfs mirror / md raid group.
I use sanoid to do basically the same thing as this, and was interested in giving it a shot to see if it was more hands off but it's definitely a more complex setup to begin with, given you have to setup your own SSL certs etc, not sure why they wouldn't just use SSH transport for this like everything else.
> I just realized! Cryptocurrency bros are pure function bros. Everything is pure and has no side effects!
That's a fair criticism to the extent that any theoretical decentralised ledger process pipeline touches the real world, but the extent to which they do touch the real world, and the benefits available from each of them varies enormously.
> Which puts a huge target on your head for any kind of real world malicious actor.
If the choice is between that and having a bank and its chain of dependencies as a tyrannical real world dictator, I'd rather have to deal with that target than be trapped in that tyranny. That risk can be mitigated, it can be compensated for, structures can be erected to address it.
If you're slave to a tyrant, you're simply immediately subject to whatever their whims are. That is utterly unacceptable, even if it does theoretically reduce some risk for some people sometimes.
In a society that was not a cyberpunk dystopia, the price for instruments that allowed you to circumvent said tyranny would probably be much lower than it is. But this is not that world, I guess.
You can dispute it in the case of some hypothetical future architecture that requires physical real world enforcement of some state change on a decentralised ledger, sure, there you might have a point, who can say what the future holds?
That's not the same as denying access to global markets, as long as legitimate cryptocurrencies maintain liquidity with global markets, that attack can be ruled out if you self custody. It doesn't rely on any physical state, it relies on you using a centralised service of custodial account management where a third party can direct that entity to deny service to you, or that service can independently decide to deny service to you. There's no centralised service to attack in a proper peer to peer system, they can't stop you interacting with the market.
Right, this and BTC both, although Amaury's proposal was less insultingly stupid than the proposal that split BTC (I require an 8% of the coinbase donation to continue optimising this chain vs I require this chain be completely dysfunctional and useless, and force the intermediaries back into it for it to be of any utility at all, when the entire original purpose of the ledger was to disintermediate them)
Assuming you live in a world where everything happens mediated by decentralised ledgers and no central source of enforcement or power, an entity is dispatched to repo the house and auction it in order to pay out the initial smart contract financiers. It's a long way from here to there, I know, but there's no "impossible" about it. If you want to get really tricky, just incorporate a token for the house, the ownership of which is decided by a clause in the smart contract for an auction if the terms of the payments for the smart contract are not met, then the physical arbitration component boils down to "this person says they own the house, they have the deed, please leave" just like it would in present world.
> How exactly do cryptocurrencies prevent this?
Because you hold your keys and you get to decide what is broadcast on their behalf on the ledger, not a custodian. There is no central point to pressure or capture in order to execute the same attack as above in tradfi.
Wrong, because even if the exchanges pick a chain that is completely ridiculous in terms of rules, say they permanently limit the tx throughput for the entire world to 3, or something absurd like this, and the exchanges and users who can see how absurd this is sensibly opt out of mining or transacting on that chain, the profit for defecting is great, because mining is a zero sum game.
As long as some suckers are trading actually liquid assets for the instruments on the sabotaged chain, it is economically rational for the miners to mindlessly rubberstamp the rules of the chain.
1. Use something other than BTC, like BCH. TX cost is a lot lower.
For the rest, there's no reason you couldn't do any of those things in a legitimate working peer to peer cryptocurrency in principle, regardless of the fact that at the moment people don't and the structures you engage with instead are staples of tradfi.
They do many things, but the ones I want to avoid the most are their mechanisms of control in the global economy. The fact they can lock your bank account and deny you access to global trade because you said something or did something they don't approve of is utterly unacceptable and this alone is enough for me to aim for their destruction.
Do you mean lobbying for BTC? Because if you do, as I said, they sabotaged it into uselessness for its original purpose as a peer to peer transaction medium that disintermediates traditional centralised finance from the loop in other to maintain their position.
If you meant something else, I don't understand your question.
Because if they're not using the same node software as the exchanges, they can't trade with other people trading the BTC instrument. The exchanges allocated the BTC ticker to "whatever the bitcoin core node software says it is" and that is defined by the one guy who has commit access to the bitcoin core repo.