Here's the submission that won the Hutter Prize in 2021: https://github.com/amargaritov/starlit It uses a LSTM to predict the next token lossily, then uses https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arithmetic_coding to convert that to lossless compression. Lossless compression can definitely leverage a lossy compressor, such as via arithmetic coding. Also see: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Context-adaptive_binary_arithm... which has a simple "Example" section - imagine if the top prediction made by your neural network was correct, you emit "0", if the 2nd was correct, you emit "10", if the 3rd, "110", if the 4th, "1110". As you can see, this is lossless, but the fundamental prediction is lossy, and the better that prediction is, the better the compression. (In actuality, you wouldn't waste your 1 bits like this, you'd use arithmetic coding instead).
This is not real encryption, it picks only one byte of shared secret and XORs it into the plaintext. Therefore, there are only 256 possible decryption keys to check, which is trivial.
Instead, you'd want to use the shared secret as a key to something strong and symmetric like AES.
Naming Baritone after Fit is actually a coincidence / joke, the repo github.com/cabaletta/baritone was the result of random brainstorming for something untaken. We only later realized it described Fit and thus added that to the readme :)
No that's not at all how this works. The iterator could "return" a boolean by passing a boolean to "yield". The return value of "yield" just indicates if the generator should continue, or stop because the actual loop has exited (due to break or return).
This inspired me to plumb the depths of FizzBuzz, seeking further into it than anyone ever has before: the 10^10000000000th digit (it's a "1"): https://github.com/leijurv/reverse-fizzbuzz
> I wonder how Blockchain explorers deal with more complex scripts. For example on blockchain.com one can look up coins by putting an "address" into the search bar. But how would one look up coins that are not locked by a script that puts the coins under control of a certain key? Or a script that puts them under control of multiple keys?
Essentially, you "send" the Bitcoin to the hash of the script, then whenever a transaction spends those coins it must reveal the script (whose hash must match), as well as some data (normally a digital signature or two) that fulfills the script's conditions.
So, the block explorer doesn't get to deal with it until the coins are spent, up until that point all it knows is a hash, which is represented as beginning with a "3", to differentiate it from the simple single-key addresses that begin with a "1".
When it's spent, a block explorer could show the revealed script contents if it wanted.
Some mistake or miscommunication happened there, as Wikipedia does have a policy that people can be cited for information about themselves, the policy is called SELFSOURCE. See: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WP:SELFSOURCE
Perhaps the issue was that Philip Roth was unable to sufficiently demonstrate his identity? Of course, Wikipedia can't take a random editor's word when they say "I am this person and this is the truth", then anyone could say anything. There has to be some citation, for example I've seen someone cite a tweet for simple biographical information (e.g. "today is my birthday").
Well it's a continuous process: today the fees make up maybe three percent of revenue, but that fluctuates as transaction space demand changes, and as the coinbase halves every few years.
But your point is good - miners are not really in a traditional supply/demand relationship with transactors, because block space is perfectly inelastic. There will be 7 slots per second (amortized), no matter what. Although... a petulant miner could artificially restrict this supply, by perhaps declaring that they'll never mine a transaction that pays less than X fee. This would only apply to the blocks that they mine, but the effect on overall supply could be nontrivial?
I've heard the metaphor that "writing your ledgers in pen instead of pencil doesn't make transactions irreversible" - meaning that in the same sense, actions on the blockchain could be coded to be irreversible.
The difference is in the authority of who gets to reverse transactions. For example, Tether can freeze and generally arbitrarily control USDT token. USDT therefore isn't really a cryptocurrency, since now a central authority can seize it. It seems to me that this authority undermines why one might want to use crypto in the first place. I don't think you can have it both ways.
Clearly there's much more to it. For example, cryptocurrencies with those two properties you mentioned are a dime a dozen. I could make one right now by git cloning bitcoin, changing some properties, then running it. And in practice there are thousands with high volume exchange-value. Digital currencies, when combined with ubiquitous exchanges, have such substitutability that I'm not sure there's much of a "network effect" or "lock in", when it's so easy to swap and pay with any of them. "value decided by the market" might be flimsy in this case.
I don't think that's true, fees are not proportional to that. Fees compete for a finite and precise limited space in blocks. There's no limit to how high fees could grow in this competition, because only the 7 most lucrative transactions get mined per second.
I think it is vaguely accurate to say that fees and mining costs are linked, *however*, currently the coinbase block reward is a bigger deal. Example: most recent block https://www.blockchain.com/btc/block/743055 created 6.25 bitcoin out of thin air, plus 0.186 bitcoin from all its fees. In the future, when fees make up a larger share of this, miners will indeed start to get income from fees. Then, we will see an interesting dynamic where automatic difficulty adjustments and competition between miners entering and exiting the market will result in miners electricity costs aligning with bitcoin transaction fees. In other words, every unit of value that goes into a bitcoin transaction will result in that much value being spent by a miner on their electricity bill.
No need to speculate on how big or small the gaps may be, the article looks at the actual random gap values used on Wikipedia.
Quote: "The least viewed article in the sample, Erygia sigillata, has a page_random value of 0.500764585777. The article Katherine Hanley is right on its tail with a value of 0.500764582314, which is just 0.000000003 less, or 3e-9 in scientific notation. This is 98% smaller than the average random gap. In other words, Erygia sigillata is an extremely unlucky article as far as the “Random article” button is concerned! It’s 50 times less likely to be landed on than an average article."
"I then started the tracker. After about an hour, it peaked at about 1.7 million distinct torrents across 3.1 million peers!"