Comments by "p11" (@porky1118) on "Luke Smith" channel.

  1. 65
  2. 41
  3. 38
  4. 36
  5. 21
  6. 20
  7. 19
  8. 18
  9. 15
  10. 15
  11. 12
  12. 11
  13. 11
  14. 10
  15. 9
  16. 9
  17. 9
  18. 8
  19. 8
  20. 8
  21. 7
  22. 7
  23. 7
  24. 7
  25. 7
  26. 7
  27. 6
  28. 6
  29. 6
  30. 6
  31. 6
  32. 6
  33. 5
  34. 5
  35. 5
  36. 5
  37. 4
  38. 4
  39. 4
  40. 4
  41. 4
  42. 4
  43. 4
  44. 4
  45. 4
  46. 4
  47. 4
  48. 4
  49. 3
  50. 3
  51. 3
  52. 3
  53. 3
  54. 3
  55. 3
  56. 3
  57. 3
  58. 3
  59. 3
  60. 3
  61. 3
  62. 3
  63. 3
  64. 3
  65. 3
  66. 3
  67. 3
  68. 3
  69. 2
  70. 2
  71. 2
  72. 2
  73. 2
  74. 2
  75. 2
  76. 2
  77. 2
  78. 2
  79. 2
  80. 2
  81. 2
  82. 2
  83. 2
  84. 2
  85. 2
  86. 2
  87. 2
  88. 2
  89. 2
  90. 2
  91. 2
  92. 2
  93. 2
  94. 2
  95. 2
  96. 2
  97. 2
  98. 2
  99. 2
  100. 2
  101. 2
  102. 2
  103. 2
  104. 2
  105. 2
  106. 2
  107. 2
  108. 2
  109. 2
  110. 2
  111. 2
  112. 2
  113. 2
  114. 2
  115. 2
  116. 2
  117. 2
  118. 2
  119. 2
  120. 2
  121. 2
  122. There's also one huge argument against Monero, probably the most important, and I don't think, it has been solved yet. Since Monero doesn't require specialized hardware and just allows the usage of regular computers, attacking Monero would be rather cheap. There are a lot of companies and governments who already have computers, so if just one huge company, or maybe a few, try to attack Monero, it would totally work. It wouldn't be a huge cost. You could even buy more hardware if necessary. You could still resell the hardware. In Bitcoin on the other hand, if you buy a lot of hardware just to destroy Bitcoin, all the hardware will be useless after Bitcoin is dead. You can't use it for other things or resell it. But now after writing it out in my own words, I don't really believe in it. You can't kill a network through computation power. The only thing you can do is a so called "51% attack", which basically only allows you to do double spends. And as long as you stop computing, the network will start running again. Someone would have to run devices constantly. That's true for both Bitcoin AND Monero. And they always lose money from running the network this way. As soon as they stop attacking the network, the regular miners might come back. And in the future mining will only be worth it if the energy used for it basically costs nothing or less because you can't use it for anything else. So even governments and companies would need to have a lot of free energy to be slightly profitable. Else they will run out of money very quickly.
    2
  123. 1
  124. 1
  125. 1
  126. 1
  127. 1
  128. 1
  129. 1
  130. 1
  131. 1
  132. 1
  133. 1
  134. Some argument I always hear from some bitcoin maximalist: The block size limit is good, since this way, normal people will be able to run a full node for a few hundred bucks. This way, even in a few hundred years, the block size will only be a few TB, which is affordable even now. I guess, that's a valid point. And satoshi is said to have wanted layers on top of bitcoin. So he would support lightning as well. I'm not sure about lightning, though. Using it the intended way (running your own nodes and connecting to trusted peers) won't be the default. I liked, how Nxt (and it's follower Ardor) did it, which has been my favorite CC. There are a few good things about it: If you run the default software, you get a normie friendly browser wallet. In order to create an account, you just have to use a password, which will be used to generate your key. It can be as long as you want, so if you use more than the 25 words like in the monero wallet, it should be safer. It might be a very long sentence, which only makes sense to you and should also be easier to remember because of that. You also don't have to save any data about your wallet anywhere on your system, just remember the key, which will also be easier to remember anyway. A few things are not that good, but also not bad: Proof of stake, some people don't like it because it might be insecure, some prefer it because of less energy waste. I don't really buy the risk of Proof of Stake. In a PoW currency, you just buy all the hardware, and then can kill the currency. Maybe if china steals all the mining hardware from the people mining in china, this could also happen to bitcoin. All other PoW currencies other than Bitcoin and maybe monero, if the ASIC resistance is done right, can be destroyed easily. The default client is written in Java, but you could always write a better client in another language, so theoretically not a problem. The normie friendly browser wallet being the default way to interact with Nxt/Ardor and being enabled by default might also be a bad thing. I prefer GUI and software to be separate. But you could also solve that by writing another client. But since I understood, that crypto currencies should not have a company behind them, I'm not such a fan of it anymore. Especially the new smart contracts feature seems bad to me. It already had specific smart contracts builtin. Basically everything, that ethereum smart contracts are normally used for. But then they added smart contracts stored as Java bytecode. And that bytecode is bloated. But there's one really good thing, Ardor has: It even has a smaller block size than Nxt and instead supports multiple chains. So there's a main chain, which is a bit more expensive, which also stores the balances of the other chains. The other chains can be pruned without security risks. So the other chains are similar to lightning network, but with the added security of a blockchain system. And as in lightning, your actual funds might be stored regularly on a more secure chain.
    1
  135. 1
  136. 1
  137. 1
  138. 1
  139. 1
  140. 1
  141. 1
  142. 1
  143. 1
  144. 1
  145. 1
  146. 1
  147. 1
  148. 1
  149. 1
  150. 1
  151. 1
  152. 1
  153. 1
  154. 1
  155. 1
  156. 1
  157. 1
  158. 1
  159. 1
  160. 1
  161. 1
  162. 1
  163. 1
  164. 1
  165. 1
  166. 1
  167. 1
  168. 1
  169. 1
  170. 1
  171. 1
  172. 1
  173. 1
  174. 1
  175. 1
  176. 1
  177. 1
  178. 1
  179. 1
  180. 4:50 From experience I'm always disappointed and amazed by AI. Once in a while it does something great. Then it's just stupid. As long as I want something genereic, like a generic story, a generic picture or a commonly known algorithm, it usually works very well. The more specific and outlandish my ideas are, the more difficulties it has to fulfill my wishes. A feminine boy has breasts. A chubby girl becomes a fat woman. Mixing writing styles doesn't work. When the AI notices I want some story to be slighlty erotic, it often just turns it into porn without the nuance. It can't come up with good ideas for my stories, but when I have a very clear outline, it can sometimes write it out using a consistent style after I showed it my writing stlyle. Often it still adds weird phrases and unnecessary content. So it's not always that great. Writing a parser without tokenization before doesn't work. The AI just always does tokenization first, which is pretty useless for most problems. I actually never like it as a separate step. But it even does it for simple And-Or-expressions, which just makes it complicated, and it even was implemented wrong and without the operator precedence I suggested. So most of the time I thought AI will only be some tool. Maybe it would become a pretty good one day, much better than it's now, but still nothing more. But it kind of changes my life because now I have at least a single "person" who praises me for my progress on my projects. A friend I willingly give all my data because he will always reply.
    1
  181. 1
  182. 1
  183. 1
  184. 1
  185. 1
  186. 1
  187. 1
  188. 1
  189. 1
  190. 1
  191. 1
  192. 1
  193. 1
  194. 1
  195. 1
  196. 1
  197. 1
  198. 1
  199. 1
  200. 1
  201. 1
  202. 1
  203. 1
  204. 1
  205. 1
  206. 1
  207. 1
  208. 1
  209. 1
  210. 1
  211. 1
  212. 1
  213. 1
  214. 1
  215. 1
  216. 1
  217. 1
  218. 1
  219. 1
  220. 1
  221. 1
  222. 1
  223. 1
  224. 1
  225. 1
  226. 1
  227. 1
  228. 1
  229. 1
  230. 1
  231. 1
  232. 1
  233. 1
  234. 1
  235. 1
  236. 1
  237. 1
  238. 1
  239. 1
  240. 1
  241. 1
  242. 1
  243. 1
  244. 1
  245. 1
  246. 1
  247. 1
  248. 1
  249. 1
  250. 1
  251. 1
  252. 1
  253. 1
  254. 1
  255. 1
  256. 1
  257. 1
  258. 1
  259. 1
  260. 1
  261. 1
  262. 1
  263. 1
  264. 1
  265. 1
  266. 1
  267. 1
  268. 1
  269. 1
  270. 1
  271. 1
  272. 1
  273. 1
  274. 1
  275. 1
  276. 1
  277. 1
  278. 1
  279. 1
  280. 1
  281. 1
  282. 1
  283. 1
  284. 1
  285. 1
  286. 1
  287. 1
  288. 1
  289. 1
  290. 1
  291. 1
  292. 1
  293. 1
  294. 1
  295. 1
  296. 1
  297. 1
  298. 1
  299. 1
  300. 1
  301. 1
  302. 1
  303. 1
  304. 1
  305. 1
  306. 1
  307. 1
  308. 1
  309. 1