Noise from high power motors will be the bane of all operators, even when the car just drives by. However the junk yard will soon be a good place to source 48v generators.
Is there a C++ compiler that doesn't include 'make' and/or a 'make' replacement? There are linkage rules and even a few keywords just to allow linkage with code not generated by the compiler. It's very much part of the language.
'extern const int *table;'
Having a compile-time program create table would guarantee that it's created at compile time. Having a constexpr does not guarantee it would be done at compile-time, it silently degrades to run-time. If verifying requires an assembly listing, I see it less useful than the currently available tools.
C++ is never just C++. The build system for any C++ program includes both macro language and some form of make and/or make replacement. Explicitly generating tables at compile time and linking is bog standard at this point.
Write a table generator program, have output create a table, splice in the order into make and/or make replacement.
Sure it's three extra steps, but it's small steps that can be debugged. It also doesn't require any advanced compiler tricks that may or may not actually run at compile.
Bitcoin doesn't scale with "The Cloud". If anyone can get the private key, they have the money... sending it off to any other provider is going to end badly.
Sure any other company doesn't care if "The Cloud" leaks.. it's just the customers problem, cause it's their data... However Bitcoin leaks, it's the companies money, so it's now again their problem.
Hardware can usually be spec'ed reasonably accurately from the start. "The Toyota Way" can incrementally optimize building against a specification, from the bottom up, starting with smaller details.
Software however is all but impossible to spec from the beginning, or perhaps ever at all... so with only working with the smaller details, the larger picture is lost. At any time, any team, is instructed to stop a problem and immediately fix it, it's band-aids on top of band-aids.
Having multiple teams working on overlapping projects, with little communication leads to the spaghetti code that was mentioned.
Distribution of new coins that are "mined" are dependent on the price of electricity and popularity. Being first means it was the most popular by default, so it had the most diverse group of "miners", all of them. I could make CrapCoinV37 today, with only myself "mining" it, it would be a worthless expense of electricity if it wasn't popular. The price of Bitcoin stays reasonably in equilibrium with the cost of electricity required to "mine", which is substantial.
Most importantly, the Coin that has the highest expense to "mine" is the most secure. To attack Bitcoin by out pacing the current miners, it would require millions of dollars in hardware which could just as easily be used to legitimately acquire Bitcoin by mining.
However second place is easily attacked, as the case with BCH, the bitcoin attempted fork. Miners are using their hardware to primarily mine Bitcoin, paying for the hardware, then occasionally attacking BCH, to break it's adjustment algorithm.