> Background: There is continuing public and scientific interest in the possibility that exposure to radiofrequency (RF) electromagnetic fields (EMF) from mobile telephones or other wireless devices and applications might increase the risk of certain cancers or other diseases. The interest is amplified by the rapid world-wide penetration of such technologies. The evidence from epidemiological studies published to date have not been consistent and, in particular, further studies are required to identify whether longer term (well beyond 10 years) RF exposure might pose some health risk...
> Conclusions: A prospective cohort study conducted with appropriate diligence and a sufficient sample size, overcomes many of the shortcomings of previous studies. Its major advantages are exposure assessment prior to the diagnosis of disease, the prospective collection of objective exposure information, long-term follow-up of multiple health outcomes, and the flexibility to investigate future changes in technologies or new research questions.
So basically people are worried, but there isn't any evidence found that supports the theory that there is an issue.
A total non-conclusion that talks about how to conduct a study. Oh, and people who use phones a lot might get fat. Implementing regulations or guidelines with a complete lack of supporting evidence looks to me like a complete waste of money.
That’s cool with me. I’d rather have fees more closely associated with the thing I’m buying. I don’t like being charged extra for taxis because landing fees are lower.
These days, in Queensland, it's illegal for children under 12 to walk to school on their own. (Although, for better or worse, both the letter of the law and its enforcement are unclear.)
Yes, I remember when that law was introduced. I vaguely remember that it was in response to a child being murdered after being picked up while waiting for a bus.
It's certainly a different world now. But I have a 10-year-old, and he goes to the shops around the corner to buy milk and/or bread. There'd be no way I could trust him to make public transport decisions at this stage though. Maybe a year or two more.
I agree. They should be immediately closed. The problem with them is that crypto is a collision between tech and money. It, unfortunately, brings out the worst part of people wanting to get rich. I like yc because it isn't like that, but it just gets brigaded these days.
I would completely respect a complete ban of all crypto discussion on yc. I like the fact that it isn't that.
The op is talking about accounts like yours Frogolocalypse. You only comment on crypto related articles on HN and it's always the same talking points over and over.
Edit: I see further down the page someone even called you out for spamming this thread and others with identical comments over and over.
> Bullshit. Whingeing shitheads that never contribute where it counts. Coinbase has done fuck all to contribute to bitcoin development except be cheerleaders for every asshole fail train driver who has tried to destroy it. If they gave a shit they would have contributed to lightning development.
Decentralized ones are rare. There are lots of centralized blockchains. The centralized ones, with their cheerleaders of pump and dump get rich quick schemes, are constantly trying to convince the unaware that they have the same security model as the decentralized ones. They don't.
Unfortunately, pointing out the fact that this sort of faux scaling will lead to centralization is never going to be popular among the tech illiterates at this site who believe Roger Ver over listening to people who actually work on the bitcoin code.
It's kind of weird really. They think they can make reality go away because they make sockpuppets and try and force an outcome that will make them rich. By being really loud, and not really understanding how any of the technology works. All they do is copy paste things from people they think are smarter than them. Sadly, they are being played by much more experienced shysters and charlatans. Reckon it's mostly kids though.
"The current system where every user is a network node is not the intended configuration for large scale. That would be like every Usenet user runs their own NNTP server. The design supports letting users just be users. The more burden it is to run a node, the fewer nodes there will be. Those few nodes will be big server farms. The rest will be client nodes that only do transactions and don't generate." - Satoshi Nakamoto
bcash handles a fraction of the transactions of either bitcoin or litecoin. If you want a cheap option, litecoin is great. It's been around for years, and isn't controlled by the chinese government. In bcash, the nodes, the developers, the miners, and now the payment processor, are all owned by the same chinese company.
Currently litecoin is processing about four times the transaction count of bcash. They also have a block creation time of 1/4 of the time (2.5 minutes) to bcash or bitcoin (10 minutes), so if speed of confirmation is an issue for you, then they might meet your use-case. It obviously doesn't have the decentralization of bitcoin, but at least it isn't controlled by a single chinese company.
bcash still has lower fees. I am using exodus and I am getting quoted 2 cents for bcash. Litecoin I am getting quote of 22 cents while bitocin is like 5 bucks.
Though I would agree that litecoin is better than the original bitcoin. However, litecoin does not beat bcash, IMO.
There are lots of altcoins that have low fees. When you are getting a single company to process your payments, it is always likely to be at a lower cost. The only question is why they're even bothering to store the information in a blockchain. It would just be easier if they used an SQL database. Without the decentralization, it is the same risk profile. They know who you are, what you're spending your money on, and they can black-list your spending addresses with trivial ease. Like paypal. Just less efficient.
Those altcoins don't have the userbase that bcash has. Bcash actually has an active community that is pushing to integrate bcash into mainstream commerce and that's what I like. Store of value is nice but medium of exchange is what really appeals to me personally.
The number of transactions on the bcash blockchain gives a different impression of the 'user base'. If you want a faster blockchain with a larger user base, use litecoin. It isn't as secure as bitcoin, because it isn't as decentralized as bitcoin, but at least you don't have all of your purchases recorded (who you are, what you buy, who you buy it from, when you buy it, etc.) by the chinese government. Oh, and you don't have to worry about the chinese government blacklisting your wallet so that they can never be spent either.
Can you please explicate the means by which the chinese government could effectively trap your cash in your wallet. Couldn't you give money to any number of intermediaries?
It can be trivially done by the existing miners not committing transactions to the blockchain that they control. Because a single company, bitmain, controls more than 50% of the hashing power of bcash, they would only build on blocks that don't contain transactions from their blacklist.
That is what bcash is right now. A captured blockchain. You transact on it at the sufferance of the chinese government. If you think they won't exert that power, if they think it suits their interests, I'm not sure understanding this will convince you.
Doesn't look like any pool is dominating unless Bitmain controls many smaller pools.
However, I'd argue that any domination is a side effect of Bitmain being the 1000pound gorilla in BTC to start with. THeir BTC pool is at 20%. (there are a LOT of people unhappy with Bitmain's business practices).
I mean there is no cost effective hash/kw alternative to Bitmain S9s.
The scary thing is that my friends and colleagues are buying S9s because no real alternative exists if you want to mine BTC(and I suppose Bitcoin Cash too)
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1877782110...
> Background: There is continuing public and scientific interest in the possibility that exposure to radiofrequency (RF) electromagnetic fields (EMF) from mobile telephones or other wireless devices and applications might increase the risk of certain cancers or other diseases. The interest is amplified by the rapid world-wide penetration of such technologies. The evidence from epidemiological studies published to date have not been consistent and, in particular, further studies are required to identify whether longer term (well beyond 10 years) RF exposure might pose some health risk...
> Conclusions: A prospective cohort study conducted with appropriate diligence and a sufficient sample size, overcomes many of the shortcomings of previous studies. Its major advantages are exposure assessment prior to the diagnosis of disease, the prospective collection of objective exposure information, long-term follow-up of multiple health outcomes, and the flexibility to investigate future changes in technologies or new research questions.
So basically people are worried, but there isn't any evidence found that supports the theory that there is an issue.
And the study?
https://academic.oup.com/ije/article/46/3/775/3038111
A total non-conclusion that talks about how to conduct a study. Oh, and people who use phones a lot might get fat. Implementing regulations or guidelines with a complete lack of supporting evidence looks to me like a complete waste of money.