There are quite a few projects vying for owning the next generation of block chain. Generally known as ffm tech (fast,free,and minerless). They depend on some variation of PoS, hierarcal blockchains, and Byzantine consensus algos. Basically there's lots of serious work going into making blockchain ledgers scalable to permit money-like usage.
Some examples are Raiblocks and Ethereum's Plasma protocol.
You generally get around the "nothing at stake" problem by requiring validators (consensus-forming nodes) to submit a deposit that is subject to deletion upon proof of bad behavior. For example, if I get two conflicting messages signed by you in Ethereum's Casper network, I can present that data as proof to the Casper smart contract where you lose your deposit.
The solution in Casper: if you approve more than one block at the same height, someone can submit both your approvals to the winning chain, which destroys your stake on that chain. The submitter gets a reward. There's a long delay to withdraw your stake so plenty of time for someone to submit.
It's fine for your favored chain to win. And maybe you can get a group of validators to cooperate and make that happen. But they better have bet on only that chain, or they will lose their stake.
If the validators are conspiring on a secret chain, and they're betting only on the secret blocks, the public blocks won't be finalized.
Bitcoin/Monero/Zcash are already incredibly useful by making things like Wikileaks possible, which was previously shut out of the world financial system from US Govt pressure. This contribution to international politics alone has changed the world.
Does anyone see WikiLeaks as a good thing anymore? The concept is interesting but WikiLeaks is beyond worthless and Julian is just an attention seeking whore, being played by global superpowers
You're getting downvoted, but this piece from the Atlantic really made me deeply suspicious of Wikileaks' motivations. A chilling quotation from the article:
>“Hi Don. Sorry to hear about your problems,” WikiLeaks wrote. “We have an idea that may help a little. We are VERY interested in confidentially obtaining and publishing a copy of the email(s) cited in the New York Times today,” citing a reference in the paper to emails Trump Jr had exchanged with Rob Goldstone, a publicist who had helped set up the meeting. “We think this is strongly in your interest,” WikiLeaks went on. It then reprised many of the same arguments it made in trying to convince Trump Jr. to turn over his father’s tax returns, including the argument that Trump’s enemies in the press were using the emails to spin an unfavorable narrative of the meeting. “Us publishing not only deprives them of this ability but is beautifully confounding.”
A site that engages in leaking evidence of our government's wrongdoing is necessary. But it seems that they're starting to take a far more politically biased role and that the Wikileaks of the past is no more.
Yes, Wikileaks has a spin (it’s run by people after all), but they’ve only posted factual documents. To give public full picture, we need more Wikileaks-copycats with a different spin.
Beyond worthless? That’s a spat in the face to all whistleblowers, journalists and lawyers who WikiLeaks worked together with to reveal dirty state and corporation secrets.
Did everyone forget Afghan and Iraq war documents already? Cable leaks? Journalists who were risking their lives?
WikiLeaks to this day hasn’t released a single inauthentic leak.
>Did everyone forget Afghan and Iraq war documents already? Cable leaks? Journalists who were risking their lives?
Have you? Wikileaks is irresponsible as hell. Their leaks were unredacted and put the lives of informants at risk as well as exposing the names of people who have been victims of sex crimes and persecuted by corrupt governments.
People like Glenn Greenwald and the journalists working on the Panama Papers illustrate really well how irresponsible and biased Wikileaks is.
They decided to become a political organization and obliterated their credibility.
If they release something is it real... probably. Is it free from spin? probably not. Are they releasing things in a fair and even fashion (i.e. everything gets released unless there is a damn good reason not to, like people could end up dead)? I doubt it now.
It seems some people view apolitical as leaking things damaging to people they don't like, and political when leaking damaging things against people they do.
i'd expect that kind of stupidity from reddit, but here? Has mainstream media truly got such a hold over everyone? that they can destroy the reputation of a service (and a political refugee) while doing absolutely everything they accuse the service of doing, except blatantly and malevolently?
Starting to wonder whether the west deserves a service like Wikileaks; maybe we should be condemned back into the days where whistle blowers were quietly dealt with and the population could live in dumb ignorance.
>that they can destroy the reputation of a service (and a political refugee) while doing absolutely everything they accuse the service of doing, except blatantly and malevolently?
Can you show me where the NYTimes told Chelsea Clinton her mom should claim the election was rigged and refuse to concede?
Wikileaks destroyed it's own reputation with irresponsible releases with unredacted names, clearly timed releases to act as damage control for specific candidates, and generally just being unprofessional as hell.
They are the only place a whistle-blower can go, without being hung out to dry; Your main complaint about them is that they sometimes, supposedly act like the rest of our media...
I don't know how you can make that claim with a straight face. Wikileaks has played a ridiculous coy Was-he-or-wasn't-he game with regard to Seth Rich to the detriment of his family and national discourse.
Meanwhile, whistle blowers have gone to major media organizations again and again without being hung out to dry. The Washington Post didn't hang out Deep Throat to die - his identity got revealed by a family lawyer 3 decades later. Süddeutsche Zeitung didn't out the Panama Papers leaker. Most of 2017 has been spent with major stories covering the airwaves based on whistle blowers from within the White House. Edward Snowden's name got revealed at his own request.
Let's not be disingenuous and act like there aren't responsible organizations and journalists dedicating their lives to aiding whistleblowers and publishing the news in a responsible manner.
I don’t think there’s any debate that the information WL releases is factual. The only complaint I hear is that they are not shining their flashlight where some particular entity wants it shined. The obvious answer is more flashlights, not to smash the bulb of the single light we have.
There were very few complaints about WL until they exposed Clinton.
The complaints might have started then, but Assange was all that was left of Wikileaks at that point simply a joke attempting to regain some form of legitimacy.
In my opinion, the man never had any values and just lucked out exposing some legitimate info, in an irresponsible manner. Finally he just went off the rails believing his own press.
You aren't being very objective about Assange. He played bait and switch throughout the election cycle acting like he had some kind of big reveal that he never revealed and he picked sides with Trump. He's got an agenda. It's not wrong to have an agenda, but he's manipulative.
I don't have an particular allegiance to "that rag". If you don't want to present the full picture, that's your issue, but you obviously have a dog in race.
You could argue that Ethereum is a useful application because it allows for about fifty other major coins to work, becoming like a provider for virtual currencies.
