I think that this is misleading, they didn't really "move" anything, they just used a current key that was locking 1.26B to lock the funds with a different key. So the network only processed this small amount of cryptographic computation. For the Bitcoin network, the size of the transfer (i.e., fee) can be the same for sending 1 BTC as 1000000 BTC

>"provide pointers to a more traditional decentralized P2P network like BitTorrent"

What does this statement mean, links to IPFS? trackers to bittorrent?

The metadata stored in the blockchain contains a hash to the header blob of data for the stream. Peers for this header and later data blobs are found on the lbry DHT. Once peers are found the blobs are downloaded over a tcp based protocol.

I agree that smart contracts are by far the most interesting thing about this kind of blockchain idea. However since it is permissioned (i.e., not a blockchain), then JP can just change the rules whenever they want. The novel idea that came out of blockchain was the permissionless aspect. While there are tons of problems with blockchain today, you have some assurance that the smart contract will operate as the terms originally sent to the chain. Having a JP run a blockchain essentially cant provide any more (meaningful) assurance than an existing written contract by JP.

Furthermore to say that interesting applications will emerge in permissioned blockchains is akin to saying ever since 2010 Neural networks will make a large impact. It may be true but NNs have been around for decades while Permissioned Blockchains (i.e., distributed ledgers) have also been around for decades. They are merely; append only, distributed, permissioned data structures/bases that have some level of throughput and information guarantees

Block chains are always permissioned in a way though. The developers create the rules, and if you have commit access, you can change them. It’s more open, but it’s still permissioned.

You are paying more but also receive a maintenance service which may or may not save you money and time. Similar to insurance.

Hmm you may be right in general but this post is about a vulnerability in a specification adopted by LE not a standard designed by LE.

TLS-SNI-01 and ACME were both originally invented by Let's Encrypt, and have still not (quite) been standardized by IETF.

Profession: Research Assistant (CS - Systems)

- [05:00]: wake up, coffee, breakfast, read

- [07:00]: arrive at work - look for papers and read abstracts set the good ones aside to do a second pass on later

- [08:00]: code / run experiments / simulations /etc (depends on what part of the project)

- [10:30]: check HN, news, internet stuff

- [11:00]: seminar / talks / meeting / lunch

- [13:00]: review papers put aside, write documentation, project report, etc.

- [14:30]: whatever needs more time from ^^^

- [16:00]: Go home, read, watch tv, bike, exercise, eat, play go

- [21:00]: Bed

Maybe it is all about funding, the established scientists will receive the greatest chance of getting a grant because they have their previous work to support their ability and direction. Challenging scientists may not be able to contest the established scientists because of this

this is such a good idea, it works well in the summer too

I suppose servers could be distributed worldwide, and run seasonally, except for the population imbalance between the northern and southern hemispheres.

We have a system to dump heat in the summer, and Dutch summers are sucky enough to not really make this a problem...