Can we return to the tail emission discussion in a hundred years or so? Only if there actually is some kind of evidence that it might be needed.

A recreational park for picnic and family get together

https://imgprxy.stacker.news/34IPUdtz8QXhJxLB4VLtDssSGn0rlPWuu4_xXORiLgU/rs:fit:600:500:0/g:no/aHR0cHM6Ly9tZWRpYTEuZ2lwaHkuY29tL21lZGlhL0wwU1VFVWRjWk9sc0JrbVZqOS9naXBoeS53ZWJwP2NpZD02YzA5Yjk1MjBjdmNlOTl2aDY1encxZzNidHRramJqbHdhbGk1cGl3aWtiaDE4anYmZXA9djFfaW50ZXJuYWxfZ2lmX2J5X2lkJnJpZD1naXBoeS53ZWJwJmN0PWc

All welcome improvements. I'm curious to see what effect getting rid of random rewards has. I'm guessing there will be more posting and zapping.

the article isn’t very clear, but it sounds like its malware that distributes and coordinates an ECDLP Solver. This looks like they’re targeting specific keys, not trying to break ecdsa generally.

In other words, they’re building a big botnet to try to find private keys for known (probably big-value) Bitcoin public keys

Day 164 of snailposting everyday 'til BTC hits $100k.

__@_'-'

I wish you the best. Many amazing bitcoiners who work at Swan. I don't think the average employee is bad. However there are highly suspicious numbers coming out of Swan that at the very least need clarification and supporting data.

Lets just take the roughest of rough numbers of what they likely spent in 2023:

1. lets assume $150k all in cost per employee even with salary, health care, social security, etc. (this is laughably low for a predominantly American startup) x 110 employees (heard Cory say they have over 100 people) = $16,500,000
2. $365,600,000 on mining capex
3. lets assume a low number for electricity cost and again assume their fleet is S19s so $0.05 per kwh times 221k kwh per BTC mined(https://www.coingecko.com/research/publications/bitcoin-mining-cost and I'm even being generous and assuming highest end s19) * 750 BTC mined Swan has claimed = $8,287,500
4. let's assume they are miraculously efficient with all of general and administrative costs and those amount to only $5,000,000
5. Swan publicly said it invested over $200M in 2023, lets assume there is significant overlap with 1-4, even though they state "Swan has raised around $165 million in equity funding in 2023, with $125 million for private equity and venture investments." which would seem to imply little or no overlap, and just call this a cool $100M https://finance.yahoo.com/news/swan-raises-40-million-build-130000173.html

Total = $495,387,500 and again its likely higher, but I'm trying to guess low and be conservative.

Even if I want to make the most charitable case, Swan and Swan Mining are not disclosing they are mostly funded by totally unknown investors and keeping current investors in the dark. If you have the money just say who gave it to you. Even past investor Ten31 doesn't know how they could've gotten this much money, and more people keep emerging publicly saying their numbers don't seem to add up.
Bottom line: They are claiming they spent something on the order of half a billion in 2023, where did that come from? If they really did why not just explain? Don't trust, verify people

Disclosure: I am not a galaxy brain, I am a pleb making good faith best estimates. I would love for Swan to release official disclosures that prove me wrong, and then everyone can put this behind us.

Day 161 of snailposting everyday 'til BTC hits $100k.

__@_'-'

Information wants to be free. If you're in the business of selling bits, then you're in the business of enslaving ideas and limiting the free flow of information. Only the violence of nation states can enforce a monopoly over the trade of information and grant the exclusive "rights" to profit from its distribution. So to play this game, you need lawyers and trade deals with other idea traffickers. If you try to sell information without the state's approval, they'll lock you up. Better to be a pirate and liberate the ideas from their paywalls for no profit of your own.

Or start a new market and solicit information direct from the originators (artists, writers, etc.) Include in your ToS whatever you like. But be prepared to enforce your monopoly using the long arm of states whenever a pirate wants to help "your" ideas be free.

Great post, thanks!

I definitely agree that ValueRank is just one useful signal (albeit a very valuable one). There should be dozens of experiments mashing up this signal with other data to create the ideal search engine (and there might be multiple winners depending on user preference).

What do you mean by "Scroll depth payment %"?

Yes I agree that it will be very hard to break Google's powerful network effects. But the beachhead of Hacker News type users is up for the taking. As the online vanguard, they will end up setting a lot of future trends based on the recommendations and integrations they make (so an API is likely very important).

What's more, I think "normies" can be brought over as well. There are several approaches that could work here:

1. As Google search results get worse over time, ValueRank gets better. Each person has some threshold where eventually they get fed up with bad info and are excited to find a better result elsewhere (perhaps shared by a friend). It won't happen overnight, but this has been steadily happening via word of mouth for privacy engines like DuckDuckGo.
2. The new search interface uses both a social graph and ValueRank, so people don't think of it as a search engine per se, but more of a discovery or recommendation engine fed by people they trust.
3. Users continue to use Google but are nudged toward better results via an online overlay like their Alby wallet (or some common browser extension)
4. People move to the new engine b/c they get paid to do so. Still need to figure out the exact economics of this, but I think it could work.

I had never heard of Ahrefs or Yep.com before. Thanks for the heads up! It looks like the answer could be something like Yep but with Lightning payments. Let me know if you end up experimenting with your own idea here :)