The cryptographic properties of an L402's HMAC provide stateless authentication/verification which sub services can then be provisioned with payments to compose API calls in novel ways.
E.g.
Prior to L402, services needed to conglomerate into siloed ecosystems because there's the need for statefull authentication (Backend: Is this user who is requesting inferences allowed to run this query? How much credit account balance do they have remaining? You third party app have to integrate with me if you want to my users to be able to make calls to your module)
Post L402:
A stateless service can compose a list of service calls (which all operate independently -- without the lack of competition, costs of integration, and politics of service<>module app ecosystem -- Read OpenAI etc) to potentially 100s of services to produce the broad number of API results needed fulfill the users request. Detailed explanation and examples are provided by the company who published the FOSS L402 spec here: https://youtu.be/6u1G8QIDuNU?t=206
How many coins were mined in 2023? How many transactions were completed in 2023? What percentage of each used this so-called "wasted energy"? 100%? 75? 35? Other?
At the end of the day you're just having a value disagreement with those of us who are Bitcoin proponents. You don't think the energy is worth what Bitcoin brings the world, while we do. Bitcoiners seem to jump through hoops to prove that they are leading the way in clean energy generation and consumption, yet to you *any* energy spent on Bitcoin will always be a waste.
This makes the only acceptable energy for Bitcoin to morally use be self-generated, clean, and has no impact to you whatsoever. A failure to recognize this fundamental belief will always lead to you belaboring your point. The only thing I can leave you to think about is whether you truly believe Bitcoin is the biggest "waste" of energy for you, or why there aren't as many conversations about the consumption of the rest of the 99% of energy demand (the CBECI estimates Bitcoin took about 0.1% - 0.9% of global electrictity demand[1]).
> At the end of the day you're just having a value disagreement with those of us who are Bitcoin proponents. You don't think the energy is worth what Bitcoin brings the world, while we do.
There are two different points:
* Bitcoin is useful in some way
* Bitcoin 'soaks up' energy that would otherwise be "wasted"
In this thread I am saying there is no such thing as "wasted energy" (regardless of the pros and cons of Bitcoin).
How many coins were mined in 2023? How many transactions were completed in 2023? What percentage of each used this "wasted energy"? 100%? 75? 35? Other?
And even if mining used only energy/electricity that would otherwise be "wasted", so what? If cryptocurrency mining was never invented in the first place, the energy production would be curtailed because it wouldn't be needed to begin with, and there would be no net loss.
So the production of some (unneeded) energy is curtailed, so what? Not needing energy in the first place is hardly a hardship on society (and the environment).
comments are focusing on the protocol's message content which is not the source of the ability to track broadcasters. The ability comes from detecting nuances in the RF signal:
>BLE [snip] imperfections are introduced by the shared I/Q frontend of the chipset (Figure 1). They result in two measurable
metrics in BLE and WiFi transmissions: Carrier Frequency Offset (CFO) and I/Q imperfections, specifically: I/Q offset and I/Q imbalance.
Section IV of the paper, "Challenges", is interesting reading. As expected CFO displays a strong temperature dependence, causing wrong identifications. Further, I/Q characteristics tend to be close for a given chipset, so I/Q imperfections are more or less identifying the chipset. It's easy to detect different models of phone, but harder to detect individual phones. It doesn't strike me as a serious threat (yet).
A fun exercise would be to synthesise the detection of all phones in the area. By monitoring CFO over a period of time for lots of phones distributed over an area, maybe it would be possible to build a temperature profile of the area under surveillance and compensate the CFO measurements for temperature. Whilst crystals do drift with temperature, the frequency of a given crystal is highly repeatable as a function of temperature.
From the CFO the listener could tell what temperature changes the phone is undergoing, but the units would not be calibrated. It you knew the temperature of the phone at a couple of different points then you could derive calibration coefficients to get an absolute temperature. If the CFO temperature dependence turned out to be repeatable between phones then knowing the model of the surveilled phone you might be able to calibrate with only one known temperature, or none if the CFO characteristics are the same for all phones (unlikely).
All economic goods experience production pressures when their replacement costs are lower than their market prices. When the marginal production costs of a money is effectively 0 and the market price for new money is >0 (Seigniorage), the long term supply will tend towards infinity. Hence money systems have developed with competitive Seigniorage; e.g. producing marginally more money is in direct competition acquiring the money from a private owner (bitcoin).
>Prediction markets would influence the processes they're supposed to be impartially observing.
Who said anything about impartiality (/cordially a strawman)?
Changing behaviors is a feature not a bug. Your health insurance writer (who's bought "No optimalsolver will not get sick") loses money if you do in fact get sick. Your fire insurance writer has an incentive to provide you free fire inspections because it reduces their payouts. A farmer plants a lucrative but fragile crop because a meteorologist can better price weather risks than they can.
Swapping exposure across space and time is a productive act.
Swapping exposure is only productive if you have many guardrails outside of the system that absolutely constrain what actions players inside the system are allowed to do. Otherwise, and this has been borne out it in reality, you end up with very distorted incentives.
This is covered today by what we call fraud (whether that be insurance fraud or market manipulation fraud), which tries to set bounds on what acceptable behavior is so that you can try to eliminate pathological edge cases. I don't see how this would be handled if everything at a top-level is handled through prediction markets.
More important than guard rails (which makes a value judgement on what actions are "allowed") is a way to determine how to settle the thing that bets are being made on ("did these actions that have stakes on them, actually happen"), auger[0] does this by:
"Once a Market’s underlying event occurs, the Outcome must be determined in order for the Market to Finalize and begin Settlement. Outcomes are determined by Augur’s Decentralized Oracle, which consists of profit-motivated Reporters, who simply report the actual, real-world Outcome of the event. Anyone who owns REP may participate in the Reporting and Disputing of Outcomes. Reporters whose Reports are consistent with consensus are financially rewarded, while those whose Reports are not consistent with consensus are financially penalized."
Where the market here can take these states/phases:
> Pre-Reporting
> Designated Reporting
> Open Reporting
> Waiting for the Next Fee Window to Begin
> Dispute Round
> Fork
> Finalized
A derivative (a contract which is representative of some good, right, entitlement) based on the outcome of an event occurring or not.
Event derivatives are all around us. You buying fire insurance grants you the right to sell, to an insurance writer, a smoldering pile of wood (worth $2) at a price of say 30% of the unburned value of your home (similar to an OTM put option). An accidental-death insurance contract being worth a negligible amount until the subjects death.
What people often get wrong about EDs is
1. Whether or not they accurately predict events: they don't; they reflect the price, or odds, at which a market is willing to swap exposure. e.g. One pays a insurance costs because it's more profitable to swap risk than deal with exposure.
2. Confusion around incentives: Yes, each party swapping exposure will change their behavior -- which is a feature, not a bug. A company buying fire insurance can now enter into commerce otherwise prohibitive unlocked by swapping fire risk with an insurance writing company who has incentives to prevent a fire risk -- and do so at scale, coordinating multiple parties.
3. Lack of information about unfettered demand for the products. People claim there's no demand for EDs but neglect to take into account regulations: prevent people from purchasing them freely, political manipulation of prices when buyers are unhappy with the market price for risk, regulatory capture creating anticompetative producer protections, observe that because because of bans the inferior counts some EDs have been forced into are insufficient.
The global policy failure of covid has been around risk pricing, risk-exposure swapping, and effective, at-scale incentive coordination.
An exercise: An assassination market opens for the price of your head. In which case(s) should you be most concerned for your life:
[A] Exposure available at .99 on the 1
[B] Exposure available at .01 on the 1
[C] Exposure available at .5 on the 1
@HarryDCrane on Twitter is an applied researcher in this area, read him if you're interested in more -- I know I have.
So ... there is a market in killing me. At 99c on the dollar means (I think) that if I lay a bet that someone will assassinate me (by xmas) I sill have to pay 99c to get a dollar payout.
At 1c to get 1 dollar - That to me implies no-one thinks I will be killed (either I live in the Oval Office so it's very hard or frankly no-one wants to waste the bullet)
At 99c to get 1 dollar it's a near certainty. I am already tied up in a basement somewhere.
This is the discussion around prices/exposure swapping/speculation I wanted to occur.
If someone has the ability to buy yes exposure at 1 cent, subsequently kill me, and then collect 100 cents that's pretty high pay out odds. The potential hitman has 99 cents of margin to use to kill me and still be profitable.
If the hitman buys at 99 cents, he looses the majority of the bet if he doesn't kill me. The person who took the other side has significant margins to protect me (from their prospective they bought no at 1 cent).
at 50 cents we both loose or gain the same amount of money.
I think I'd be more concerned for my safety in case A,B than in case C.
The other dimension of derivatives is how much "Open Interest" (OI) -- or the quantity of contracts/exposure -- that exists for a contract. I think I'd be concerned for my safety if there was any appreciable "yes" OI for the contract that wasn't me. So my strategy would be to buy up all "yes" contracts -- e.g. the people who want exposure to me dying or believe I will die -- so no one has an incentive to kill me.
>Now you know what it is like to be a black person
What makes you think this person isn't black?
Maybe the first step we can take to ensuring all people are treated with dignity and respect is to not assume Group X is that group other there, an other. Maybe we can instead assume Group X is everywhere.
Let's think of cancers as biological errors in the growth instructions for cells. ITT, people are pointing out that ionizing radiation can cause genetic perturbations to cause cancers. Let think of that as a bit-flip in the genetic code. Then commenters posit that "if non-ionizing radiation isn't strong enough to cause genetic perturbations, it can't be responsible for sources of cancer". Biological systems respond to environmental stressors by trying to resist them and regenerate. Each regeneration genetic code is copied. Each copy has some probability of an error in it. Let's call this genetic bit rot. So it seems plausible that if non-ionizing radiation induces elevated genetic regeneration, it could cause an increase in genetic degeneracy such as cancers etc.
Also stressors are does dependent, e.g. despite earth's atmosphere being 78% by volume Nitrogen: the marginal effect on your health of marginally more nitrogen isn't stable/linear. I wouldn't recommend you increase it so much, so to some degree we need to discount opinions that "we exist in a EM/RF soup ergo an iota more isn't hazardous).
Let's also not confuse the ensemble and individual components. As RF electronics, protocols improveve, so does the minimum necessary energy. That is "the minimum necessary energy for 5G radios" <= "the minimum necessary energy 4G" isn't the comparison we should be making. What we should be assessing is going from effectsOf(2G,3G,4G) < Safelevels to effectsOf(2G,3G,4G,*5G*) < Safelevels. e.g. adding another layer of EM energy
I have no idea if the health assertions in this article are true or not but rather than unjustifiably upgrade an opinion of "I don't see how that could be the case" to "that *can't* be the case" I'll stick with the skeptics response of "I don't know".
"""Then commenters posit that "if non-ionizing radiation isn't strong enough to cause genetic perturbations, it can't be responsible for sources of cancer"."""
The commenters are factually wrong. This is based on a assumption made by physicists about biology which is completely unsupported. It happened back when people claimed living near power lines caused cancer (they don't- people who live near power lines tend to be poorer and have worse health outcomes) and the physicists "proved" it was impossible.
Unfortunately for the physicists, they didn't actually understand medical biology and now research indicates there are other mechanisms which lead to cancer that don't require ionizing radiation.
Conflates two orthogonal issues: Identifiable payment vectors and publishing preservation / ability to be censored.