Pointing out existing technologies that might be more appropriate to use is valid feedback. I don’t think that detracts from how neat the project is.
Some of the big questions I always ask myself before I set about writing code for something are: Can this be done with older and more mature tech? Is this already more or less solved by another project and what value am I adding?
Highly subjective. What some would call ossified, others might call “mature,” “reliable,” or “battle tested.” Sometimes bits don’t rot—they just go out of fashion.
on the same page with banks faking Libor, his main argument is governments can ban banks working with bitcoin and everything is dead in the water, first of all, a global enforcement of it must be done, seconds there are even constitutional rights here at play, and you can buypass banks all together, and in Japan is legal tender.
If bitcoin can challenge banks & money printing machines even a little then it kind of achieves its goal, and I think is happening already otherwise you won't see so much bad press, don't tell me bankers are just trying to inform, they are really worried about me losing money speculating on bitcoin, they didn't cared when they crashed the economy in 2008, also I saw a news story the other day, the poland central bank or so, paid 30k euros to a famous local youtuber to trash bitcoin.
How can you get infected by just visiting a fake website, where they on windows, are we doing such a poor job, we like to brag with nice titles, architect etc, but the industry is quite shit, if you can get infected just by visiting a site.
Every current PC system can be broken, no matter which operating system it is running. Intelligence agencies use 0-day exploits and test the software they use against known antivirus software and intrusion detection systems.
There are also plenty of companies such as Lench/Gamma who overtly advertise their ability to penetrate any system. You can only buy or lease their software as a state actor, though.
> You can only buy or lease their software as a state actor, though.
there is a wide spectrum of actors in this space and besides the well known (Gamma/HackingTeam) also include many smaller firms that do not shy from working in a gray area and cater to both criminal enterprises, unstable regimes, warlords. Especially smaller fish fill the niche (AREA[¹], Negg[²], ...)
Though any of these providers they don't just give you a software because "solutions* would (due to their nature) rarely work out of the box. Instead they come with a consulting service contract to ensure the system is correctly used (to facilitate breaching the target). So "state actors" isn't restricted to spy-agencies but low-level law-enforcement who lack the budget and technical know-how for maintaining or creating these tools. So these systems are kind of a poor-mans TAO.
"After installing malware on the engineers’ computers by luring them to a fake version of the LinkedIn website, GCHQ was able to steal their keys to the secure parts of Belgacom’s networks and begin monitoring the data flowing across them. "
The computers of engineers are great targets for hacking. Dozens of package managers across languages and operating systems, as well as GitHub, provide easy vectors for getting complex code to execute on computer of the dev. Devs are used to running code from the terminal, and typically have many interesting files in their file systems that could assist with lateral movement or even lead to compromising of the build system (!!)
Despite this, devs are still generally very cavalier about running code from the internet on their machines. Often times they have no choice of security mitigations because their package manager is compromised by flaws in its design.
Monitor their communications so you know exactly what software they are using, then drop a 0-day on the forged site (I find it very unlikely that GCHQ don't stockpile Firefox/Chrome escapes and Windows/Linux priv. escalations etc.). There's little an individual can do against such a targeted attack without completely airgapping the machine which A) probably isn't viable for a network/software engineer and B) GCHQ are probably determined enough to gain physical access if they deem it necessary.
I guess if there is a 50% or more chance that someone will pay more and you would make money then it makes sense, you can't win if you don't risk, those who stay on the side find comfort in calling those who risk, lucky when they win and stupid when they lose.
that was my opinion too, I even thought what a stupid name Go, is another Google thing shoved down our throats, but then I worked with it and from node.js where you install a few packages and you see npm install saying 1201 packages installed, from java where you do a change and wait 30 seconds to recompile, just to see you got it wrong, and you get a huge stack trace and you need a huge frameworks for basic web stuff, from net core that I can't get it to work on mac for the love of good, I can't think of a better language at this moment, it allows me to go to machine language go without any VM or interpreter.
Still the writer is telling the story as an absolute truth, if he claimed could double money, why that guy kept sending him money without getting back anything doubled?
And 3 years, the sentences, way to little, something doesn't add up, I'm inclined to believe that he actually was some kind of scapegoat, that yes he received money from the bank, but a cover up, also the bank didn't noticed, so much money going out without justification?
money doubling is a tried and tested scam. They used to do it a lot in EVE Online. You don't just have one mark and that's how it worked. Likely he was doing lots of money doubling with others that was feeding this one to finally get the $200 million. Its possible he even transitioned this particular mark into a different scam where he just got direct access to their funds and was able to sign stuff off without authorization.
I assumed he was giving back doubled amounts at a small scale using borrowed money or whatever, then when he got a large sum he ran. But even if that’s what he did, I don’t know how he jumped from small amounts he could borrow to $242 million. I guess we will never know for sure how he did it.
your logic is funny, is like having a busy site with a postgress db, and saying postgress is at fault, look at my mysql wordpress site with 1.3 visitors per day, how fast it is.
Ethereum will colapse on itself sooner of later, no one managed to sync a node recently.
Where exactly is my logic funny? Mined blockchains scale linearly. Increasing block size, etc. can increase speed temporarily but can still only scale linearly. Busy site or not, the ledger needs an architectural change to handle exponential growth. Your busy Postgress db would also need to change in architecture from a single resource to something more distributed in order to scale exponentially. A less busy website of the same architecture also wouldn't handle exponential growth. What am I missing?
Edit: To clarify, yes, some mined blockchains feel faster now simply because they are less busy. They are still doomed to Bitcoin's fate at scale unless distributed systems techniques like sharding (or Nano's block lattice) are used. I'm not saying that the less busy blockchains are any better.
Fair enough. In theory Nano's design can handle something like O(2^n) transactions per second where n is the number of nodes, while mined blockchains can handle O(n) transactions per second where n is roughly the block rate multiplied by block size. In practice who knows. The former has a fighting chance, at least.
