So Bitcoin was a failure, in your view, except that whoever designed it
didn't have goals or their goals were random, because $TECHNOLOGY? Or
something like that. It's hard to make sense of some of what you're
saying. I think I agree with some of your less grumpy points – for
example, I
> The *goal* of the Bitcoin proof of concept was 'an electronic payment
> system based on cryptographic proof instead of trust, allowing any two
> willing parties to transact directly with each other without the need for a
> trusted third party.' So when the author of this avid-reader essay
>
hi nettimers,
in time for the talk at 34c3 [1], the FC⚡MC international media center
during the g20 in hamburg has produced its final declaration:
In the middle of the protest, something new emerged:
Final declaration of the FC⚡MC – International Media Center during G20
in Hamburg
On 4 July
And this morning on 34C3 in Leipzig ... lupus in fabula: Zooko on
"cryptocurrencies, smart contracts, etc.: revolutionary tech?"
https://media.ccc.de/v/34c3-9240-cryptocurrencies_smart_contracts_etc_revolutionary_tech
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OSs3wzoVpl0
# distributed via : no
I have only casual understanding of ML, but it was always
counter-intuitive to me that simple polynomial units can somehow produce
magical macro effect which no one understands but it "just works". If it
turns out that it's just a roundabout way of conditioning a linear
system, the magic goes
I'm not sure I understand this 'goal' concept. Technology is just tool.
New tech is more or less randomly created, with randomly focused goal by
its designer, and then gets used for other random goals, more often than
not unrelated to the original one. Like hitting a particle in the
On 29 Dec 2017, at 10:01, Florian Cramer wrote:
The *goal* of the Bitcoin proof of concept was 'an electronic payment
system based on cryptographic proof instead of trust, allowing any
two
willing parties to transact directly with each other without the need
for a
trusted third party.' So
On Thu, Dec 28, 2017 at 11:05:22PM -0800, Morlock Elloi wrote:
Longer version and remarks: current ML systems appear to be linear, so
it's possible to synthesize diversions even without knowing how a
particular system works. Systems can be fooled to miscatergorize visual
images (turtle gets
