That quoted paragraph also caught me up upon first read. After I thought about it I do agree that there is some level of trust in the protocol itself and actions of other actors using that protocol can influence that trust. But I suppose that the trust needs to be applied at some level. Trusting end-to-end encryption is a real trust. If someone comes along and finds a way to factor large prime integers the system would break and trust would dissipate.
It seems to me that its about realigning trust in this case. And its easier to trust a process that uses mechanics that force behavior to conform to the properties you desire than to trust a process that uses mechanics to enable behavior to conform to the desired properties. You still have to place trust in both implementations nevertheless.
In the case of Ethereum what is the trust? The protocol, the implementation? What is the trust in a bank? The same but with a bunch of human factors around the enabling the bank to function as you desire.
Settle appears to be a step back and try to solve the problem currency has in general by reverting to a barter system. The purpose of a currency however is to use a common valuation system.
Yeah, they figured at that early point in the chain's life, having one hacker control so much of all ETH in existence was worth saving it.
It was a hard coded contract change to fix the exploit. No rollbacks though, the funds that were already stolen, stayed stolen. They had to be 'stolen' back, recovered, using the same hack the hacker was using.
The whole thing was not created by an anonymous developer 10 years ago. The building blocks used in bitcoin have been around for many years before this in things like hashcash. Furthermore distributed consensus is a topic researched for decades. The term cryptocurrency uses crypto as a base which has been researched for centuries. Bitcoin is a novel constuction around crypto primatives relying on economic incentive to solve distributed consensus. There are clearly domain experts here.
Imunes looks more similar to Mininet[1]. The networking stack in Shadow looks simulated so you could do more large scale research. It seems that Imunes claims one use case is product testing so more likely they are targeting fidelity.
Both Emulation and Simulation are valid tools to perform network research.
Mininet is a network emulator designed to run real network software. It emerged as a leading tool to evaluate software defined networking solutions. Mininet leverages openvswitch which is the same software that would run on the networking boxes. So the TCP/IP stacks are emulated. This means that the system has very high fidelity making it behave close to the real system. Mininet runs in 'wall-clock' time. (or real-time)
On the other hand, simulation has a more difficult time achieving the same fidelity due to the difference in the execution modes. Discrete event simulation works by maintaining a queue of events. Each event has a timestamp that advances the simulation clock forward. Each event can create 0 or more events. The behavior of the network (adding delays / dropped packets / etc.) are simulated with models. This simulation allows a process to run real application code by invoking it from an event handler. A discrete event simulation uses virtual clocks which can be faster or slower than wall-clock time.
As a general rule we can say that simulation is more scalable than emulation (10s vs 1000000s of nodes) while emulation has higher fidelity (more accurately captures behavior of real system).
“ This study examined the effects of line length on reading performance. Reading rates were found to be fastest at 95 cpl. Readers reported either liking or disliking the extreme line lengths (35 cpl, 95 cpl). Those that liked the 35 cpl indicated that the short line length facilitated "faster" reading and was easier because it required less eye movement. Those that liked the 95 cpl stated that they liked having more information on a page at one time. Although some participants reported that they felt like they were reading faster at 35 cpl, this condition actually resulted in the slowest reading speed.”
I second easytether! I use this from my at&t Samsung s9 and it works incredibly well in USA. I have it usb to a pi which runs dnsmasq to operate as a router with both an Ethernet switch and WiFi access point. Toss on a UPS and plug it into my truck. When I’m driving it charges and they make 12000mAh batteries so it lasts a full workday. I’ve used over 100Gb from this setup per month for over a year. I also tried out a cellular hat for the pi and found that it was a pain to setup but in the end can replace the cell phone.
> Some of the risks are positively futuristic: they compete against decentralized exchange-like platforms, where market-makers trade directly with users. In a way, this is like any other software company that nominally competes against open-source clones; Adobe users could switch to Gimp, and Microsoft could hypothetically lose revenue due to OpenOffice. But the decentralized entities Coinbase competes against can have a life of their own even if they're not updated or maintained; Coinbase, a company with over a thousand employees, competes against incorporeal techno-economic zombies.
I dont think that this is what open source is about. I dont think that comparing Microsoft and OpenOffice is a relevant statement. I mean at least one means LibreOffice, and furthermore there is no competition to Microsoft, they satisfy different objectives.
Secondly, decentralization is not about moving business value from one entity to 'the masses,' it is about agreeing to a protocol and establishing that protocol in a trustless implementation.
