this. the only way I can make profit with my web service is by using a third party low budget CDN as a caching layer. Even with that, S3 data transfer remains my biggest cost.
if I could spare the time, I'd make a custom caching layer so that S3 is never hit at all except for upload, and is used only for disaster recovery.
I haven't done the math, but depending on your bandwidth requirements - you could try spinning up a couple vms at DigitalOcean/Linode/somewhere with bundled bandwidth, and then just run nginx as a cache with s3 as the backend.
No, they chose not to interview him at the embassy or via weblink, because had they done so, the case would have been closed. They rather keep it open.
Accused criminals don't get to set the rules. There are many jurisdictions where criminal trials in absentia are not possible, legally. That's mostly to the benefit of the accused.
How? if they can get a conviction they should get the conviction. For eg, Vijay Mallya from india was convicted of a crime and india is now seeking his extradition. how does it make sense that you keep the case open?
Mostly it's due to the accused's right to confront the accusations and be heard. There is also a lot of ugly history of using trial in absentia to, for example, get rid of political enemies: quickly convene a trial and convict them while they are abroad, avoiding a long trial allowing them to make their case and forcing them into exile.
He is charged with different crimes and therefore there is a warrant out, and a request for extradition: "When he failed to appear, the Supreme Court said the contempt case would only proceed further after he is produced before the court".
There are also multiple court verdicts in favour of banks and business partners, but those are all civil law, not criminal.
The police in Sweden and every other country would save so much money if they could just ask the suspected criminals to be interviewed over skype instead of having to fetch them and take them to a police station. Or why not ask the person to be interviewed where they want it to happen and the police can come to them, with the prosecutor.
We could also save so much money if the criminals would not need to go to prison for which we pay, but decide where they want to stay and inform the police.
That's what we do for billionaires like Martha Stewart and some millionaires. Anyway there is a huge difference between suspect, person of interest, and convict.
people like to point out the weaknesses in this every time it is submitted, but the fact is: it's the only example in its class, and that makes it interesting.
it would be amazing to see a funding drive and some experts improve it, but for whatever reason, that is not happening. it seems like any kind of desktop skype alternative takes a back seat to mobile apps
Cryptocurrencies can be scaled to VISA levels on chain with today's hardware. And probably much further with future hardware advances. Is that "enough"?
The only argument that is ever presented is that huge blocks harm "decentralisation" - not that it cannot be done.
SegWit is controversial because it is a key part of Core's off-chain scaling roadmap, as opposed to alternative, on chain scaling. It's pure politics: If SegWit "wins", we go down a certain route of scaling and cement Core as being the only group that has control over Bitcoin's future. There are some technical arguments against SegWit but they are largely unrelated to what makes it so controversial.
> Blockstream employed 5(?) Core devs, some of them part-time.
If you omit the arguable "blockstream have paid", the rest of the sentence is correct: almost every developer of bitcoin core pushes Segwit without clear consensus from the community.
They define "consensus" as a consensus between those who reside in (and who have not been ejected from) their tightly controlled forums.
> Censorship is horrible, but do you have proof that Blockstream supports it?
Adam Back and Greg Maxwell (CEO and CTO) regularly participate in the forums that support the censorship, i.e. /r/bitcoin, and rarely post on /r/btc
(for a starting overview of the censorship, see here: https://medium.com/@johnblocke/a-brief-and-incomplete-histor... )
Is the CEO and CTO choosing to participate often and primarily in a heavily censored community not "support"?
You realize a lot of people pushing the supposedly nefarious agenda you're saying here own a lot of bitcoins, and even belong to companies where timelocked bitcoins act as an incentive program, right? The conspiracy theories surrounding Core's agenda never have sensical incentive structures. This is why nobody listens to the conspiracy theorists when it comes to designing a protocol that relies entirely on incentives adding up.
It is nothing sinister though. It is just when Mr. Maxwell and Dr. Back started Blockstream they expected the 1 mb blocksize to stay 1 mb. On this assumption they built their company and sold their services as "Core" maintainers.
The Fork to a chain that does scale on its own seems inevitable and was fully expected by the original developer. It seems like an uphill battle for Core to convince people to NOT upgrade the network.
The "sketchy" off chain stuff is not sketchy either, it is just off chain. If you mean that they may be able to profit from it, I don't see why that is evil or even wrong, it is just their business plan.
That is incorrect. Literally nobody expects blocksize to stay at 1MB permanently. If they did, SW wouldn't exist, since that is a blocksize increase to about 2MB.
Actually by the numbers, gmax posts almost more than anyone else in r\btc. So that's just incorrect.
Neither does Blockstream "employ" the developers in a bitcoin-development capacity. The number of people it employs to develop Bitcoin is something like. 1.5. That's out of hundreds of people.
The apparent consensus amongst the literally hundreds of individuals who have contributed to core should be demonstrative of the fact that a majority of technically-aware developers think SW is the safest and best way to increase on-chain capacity—this is a developer majority just by the numbers themselves.
As a Tox user, I'd love to see some of these cryptographers calling it out actually contribute lines of code. Tox fills a niche. It might not be perfectly secure, but there is also far more to software than the crypto. UI stuff takes a lot of grunt work.
Please, improve this. As a user I want Tox to be secure. But also, as a user, I'll use it rather than Skype even if it does have some concerns. It's a genuine, open source, Skype replacement that more-or-less works. The encryption stuff is just the icing on the cake.
It would be a great project even with zero encryption.
Specific recommendations for a different protocol that does not have this concern were made, and a detailed bug report with repeated explanations of the issue were provided. Why is the onus on me to also go fix the problem, when it's repeated in the issue that the authors are mostly interested in stabilizing the codebase first? (That is not a criticism, but rather: not only do I not feel this is my responsibility, the way I read it, the maintainers don't want that contribution right now.)
No, every Toxcore and Tox client welcome any contributions of any kind. Toktok especially. The sentiment I think we were going for is that we don't have the time when we're already working on the road map we started with.
I think it's a recurring comment (If you know the problem, why don't you fix it), because it's really easy to drive by, shit all over someone's project (that they've put a lot of time into) then move on, leaving everyone who still cares about the project to feel shitty. This is in to way directed at you. You've been nothing but helpful, supportive, and understanding! You're most certainly one of the good ones. But not everyone else got that award for today.
Most people in the Bitcoin community have a pretty shrewd idea who is responsible for the DDoSing. But no proof, of course.
(Hint: Certain libertarian leaning early adopters who want Bitcoin to remain as a government-proof store of value, viewing any small reduction in decentralisation to be a terrible thing, and not caring about its use as an actual payment network)
