Disqus - Latest Comments for iraszl

Re: Malaysian KEJARA/Road Safety System Test – Drive in Malaysia

iraszl — Fri, 27 Oct 2023 11:03:15 -0000

Lots of inaccuracies in this test. Don't learn from this!

Re: Watermarking Images with Active Storage

iraszl — Fri, 16 Oct 2020 12:51:17 -0000

I wonder how you would replace WATERMARK_PATH with an active storage attachment? I tried user.avatar.service_url but it won't work. :/

Re: Ex Github now building his own company

iraszl — Sun, 10 May 2020 09:20:17 -0000

Love the term calmup! :D

Re: NV Energy sends termination notice to massive Tonopah solar project, developer accuses Energy Department of taking over

iraszl — Thu, 10 Oct 2019 01:18:59 -0000

Nuclear waste is very little amount that we can handle safely. Nuclear is by far our safest and best option in every way.

Re: Is Bakkt Really Bullish for Bitcoin? Here's What Analysts are Saying - BeInCrypto

iraszl — Mon, 19 Aug 2019 00:52:03 -0000

If you consider the same security level, Bitcoin is faster than any alt: https://howmanyconfs.com/

Re: Active Storage Samples

iraszl — Sun, 17 Mar 2019 08:22:45 -0000

I wonder if you ever figured it out... Is there a javascript for this?

Re: Why I Believe Rails is Still Relevant in 2019 | DevBrett

iraszl — Wed, 06 Mar 2019 22:51:26 -0000

I would mention that once you learn Rails, it's worth looking into Rubymotion which allows building cross platform mobile apps.

Re: Bootstrapped Gavin: Satoshi Nakamoto’s identity revealed!

iraszl — Fri, 01 Jun 2018 13:59:26 -0000

Why would he vouch for the Australian fellow to be Satoshi then? Makes no sense to me.

It's more likely that Gavin has the the same thinking style as Satoshi whoever they may be, and this is why he was drawn to the Bitcoin project early on, which is why the analysis is fooled. Correlation is not causation. There could be multiple reasons for the above result.

Re: Bootstrapped Gavin: Satoshi Nakamoto’s identity revealed!

iraszl — Fri, 01 Jun 2018 13:57:00 -0000

Please.... Gavin gave the reigns to Wladimir van der Laan voluntarily. Nobody forced him to do it.

Re: GMO Has Mined Millions of Dollars in Bitcoin Already - CoinDesk

iraszl — Tue, 06 Mar 2018 12:28:54 -0000

More than 10x in hashing power this year? Looks like a lot of miners used Today will become completely obsolete soon. Litecoin Cash is about to get a bunch of hashpower.

Re: Study: SMEs Believe Cryptocurrency Payments Will Hit the High Street in Two Years

iraszl — Wed, 21 Feb 2018 13:03:36 -0000

Technically that's not true. Dash's block time is 2.5 mins, same as LTC, so it's not instant confirmation.

The only instant confirmation systems that are decentralized are Bitcoin's Lightning Network, and Ethereum's microRaiden systems.

I expect the Lightning Network to start running on Bitcoin, Litecoin, and other coins (including Dash) and that will provide instant, extremely low fee payments. People will be able to pay with whatever crypto they have, no matter what the merchant accepts. As long as it's on the Lightning Network, atomic swapping will take care of the conversion.

2 years is about the right amount of time we need until that happens.

Re: Bitcoin's New Code Will Finally Boast Full SegWit Support - CoinDesk

iraszl — Tue, 20 Feb 2018 09:24:22 -0000

No matter how tempting, there are certain things you just can't rush if you're going for maximum safety and stability.

Re: Quantum Computing

iraszl — Thu, 18 Jan 2018 11:24:53 -0000

It cannot solve it, but significantly reduce the difficulty by a near-quadratic speedup.
See here: https://physics.aps.org/syn...

Re: Quantum Computing

iraszl — Thu, 18 Jan 2018 11:21:38 -0000

There are quantum safe algos that the blockchains can hard fork to.

Re: Bitcoin’s Recent Volatility Risks Deflationary Spiral

iraszl — Tue, 12 Dec 2017 11:06:48 -0000

Actually soon Bitcoin holders will be able to make money by locking up their BTC in payment channels on the lightning network, which is a second layer on top of bitcoin, and will provide nearly infinite scalability. By locking up your coins, you can route other people's payments and collect small fees in return for this service. The more BTC you have, the more fees you can collect for providing liquidity to the global payment network.

Re: A New Bitcoin Scaling Solution: Better Infrastructure For Micropayments

iraszl — Fri, 24 Nov 2017 08:41:09 -0000

BCH doesn't have zero conf. You can double spend manually on BCH, just like you can on BTC. Unless you're willing to lose a small fund, don't accept zero conf. This is false info spread to pump BCH.

Re: A New Bitcoin Scaling Solution: Better Infrastructure For Micropayments

iraszl — Fri, 24 Nov 2017 08:39:25 -0000

Such gravitational force by big business is not a problem, since they provide a valuable service: instant transactions for almost free. It will still be more decentralized than mining pools Today.

Also, nobody is limited not to open direct channels between 2 or more parties, and avoid hubs and LN fees altogether.

Finally, if you don't like LN, you can still send regular BTC transactions on chain, which will be cheaper because high volume transactions will have moved to LN at this point, freeing up over 90% of the on-chain capacity (according to estimations).

Re: A New Bitcoin Scaling Solution: Better Infrastructure For Micropayments

iraszl — Thu, 23 Nov 2017 17:43:16 -0000

LN is really cool not only because it's instant confirmation and enables ridiculously low transactions like 1 satoshi (or even a fraction of satoshi), or because it preserves decentralization. It's also a great addition to the Bitcoin ecosystem for several other reasons. One of the most interesting applications is the incentive structure that will enable bitcoin hodlers who currently passively store bitcoins to put those funds to work by keeping channels open for other people to go through and collect tiny fees in return. Bitcoin will become more like stocks in a sense that there is economic activity behind stocks.

Re: Trump White House Doubles Down on US Commitment to Blockchain - CoinDesk

iraszl — Mon, 09 Oct 2017 08:36:18 -0000

Will the US going to build businesses on top of computers (including smartphones) and network infrastructure 80% of which is made in China? Oh, wait... ;)

Also, Japan and Russia are building high-tech ASIC chips and mining facilities too, so the Chinese dominance in mining may be temporary.

Re: Trump White House Doubles Down on US Commitment to Blockchain - CoinDesk

iraszl — Fri, 29 Sep 2017 11:26:15 -0000

A blockchain is only valuable if it's secure and decentralized. Without this it's just a 'google spreadsheet'. Decentralization and security can only be achieved if it carries a value (like Bitcoin), because of the incentives the token creates for various people and organizations. You can't enforce a blockchain to be used by government mandate for example, because by definition it becomes centralized and thus useless. Thus, you have no other option, but to build on top of Bitcoin, because it's the most secure and decentralized chain. Also, for added security you should mine it, and run it yourself (meaning the US government) to reduce the chance of 51% attacks. Opting for anything else would make your application more vulnerable to attack.

Re: Harvard Researcher: Based on Moore’s Law, Bitcoin Will Hit $100,000

iraszl — Wed, 23 Aug 2017 09:50:04 -0000

Past performance is no indication of future gains. There is no good reason why there should be a correlation between processor performance gains (Moore's law) and bitcoin's value. So, I don't think this analysis is sound. Having said that I agree with the conclusion for a different reason.

Bitcoin's value grows because of Metcalfe's law. (Btw, neither is an actual law.) The more people use bitcoin the more valuable the network is, and it's not a linear correlation but an exponential one.

If there are only 2 bitcoin users, the number of connections can be made is only 2: A sends to B, B sends to A. If there are 3 users, suddenly you have 6 possible connections (A->B, A->C, B->A, B->C, C->A, C->B), double the number of users. With 4 users, 12 connections are possible, triple the number of users. With 5 users, connections possible is 4 times the number of users, and so on. You get the idea. Currently Bitcoin has a few million users, which allows for billions of possible connections, thus making the network really valuable, to transfer value over the internet.

The same happened with the telephone lines, email, www, and facebook, etc. The Bitcoin network at one point will reach a saturation level where it will suddenly becomes a practical necessity to participate, rather than an option (as it is today). Foundational work to make Bitcoin scale to global levels is underway right now with Segwit activating Today, and the Lightning Network soon after. The tipping point for global adoption is many years away, but at that stage Bitcoin will be worth 25-100x as much as it is Today, hence the 100,000USD / BTC valuation is reasonable.

There is another effect in play in addition to Metcalfe's law. The more the valuation of Bitcoin is, the more use cases it can serve. Think of it this way. When Bitcoin was only worth a $1, the total market cap was just a few million dollars, so no entity could use the network to send $10M on it because they would have to own virtually all available bitcoins to do so. The biggest practical transactions were in the hundreds of dollars. At best you could buy a laptop with it, but not a luxury car or a house. Once the valuation grew to $10-100, the possibilities opened up to send hundreds of thousands of dollars.

Now, that the valuation is in the $4K range, it allows people send millions of dollars instantly, safely, and at a very low price, opening up a bunch of use cases for the network to be even more valuable and thus driving up the price further. At a $100,000 / BTC price, Bitcoin will be able to serve the largest business transactions.

And the growth doesn't stop here. At this stage, countries will likely start buying BTC as reserve to back up their national currencies, BTC will be used to secure the largest IPOs, etc.

Re: Never get a cold again

iraszl — Wed, 18 Jan 2017 21:18:22 -0000

Hey, thanks for the compliment.

Sorry, I'm afraid you're incorrect on the GMO issue, but it's not your fault. Most people don't realize that they should not look at cherry picked data to support an idea, but only trust meta studies. This concept is new to most layman.

It is normal that a certain percentage of studies on a subject will prove something to be one one way, even if in reality it the other way. This happens for various reasons, like incorrect research methodology, corruption, mistakes, or even real effects within a certain set of circumstances, etc.

This is why science relies on meta studies, not on single studies. Meta studies are based on hundreds or sometimes thousands of studies that even out the incorrect data that inevitably creeps into the research. It's the best way to decide we know of to get an answer to a question.

Multiple meta studies done on GMO are supporting it to be as safe as other hybridization technologies. There is not a single meta study that could show GMO to be unsafe. Beyond reasonable doubt we can be sure that GMO is harmless.

Science is never done of course, Today's results may change in the future once we have even more information. We may find long term effects, or some other currently unknown interactions that may prove GMO to be unsafe. However, as it stands Today, we don't have such information, therefore it's irresponsible to say it's unsafe.

Re: Clio Judging Diary: What David Kolbusz Is Planning Creatively at Droga5 London

iraszl — Tue, 02 Aug 2016 02:51:01 -0000

It's an interesting experiment for an agency to do their own thing, instead of working for a client.

Re: Bitcoin ‘Whales’ Vote in Favor of Larger Tx Blocks

iraszl — Wed, 27 Jul 2016 21:44:36 -0000

bitcoinpotato, what you're saying is not correct, I think.

You can't keep moving your BTC to new addresses and cast a vote every time. The old votes won't count in the system. Only the latest one will.

Also, if you were to divide 5000 BTC into 5000 accounts with 1BTC each to vote, the system counts them the same. Again, this is not a way to play the system.

Re: U.S. Election Puts $1,000 Bitcoin Within Reach

iraszl — Thu, 09 Jun 2016 19:11:20 -0000

Halving is unrelated to the election though.

There are many other reasons besides halving why generally a $1,000 price is a reasonable estimate for short term.

Pretty good summary here: https://medium.com/@Technom...