Good question! Perhaps not. Someone should test my idea with a known infected mkv file.

Get back to me if you do.

Thanks for reminding me of this possibility.

Here’s how I plan to solve it on my seedbox:

In the bash script I use to download and rename files using filebot, I added an mkvalidator step at the beginning. If the file doesn’t pass the check, it doesn’t go onto the next step.

mkvalidator

mkvalidator is a simple command line tool to verify Matroska and WebM files for spec conformance. It checks the various bogus or missing key elements against the EBML DocType version of the file and reports the errors/warnings in the command line.

Story of my life. What’s your ideal?

Shooting on a #Red. 🤣

Using my girl, Audrey to draw my attention works every time. 😍

deleted by creator

I am not furious. I just don’t like it when people lie and act like they’re not lying.

If you’ve retained control over your tokens then they’re not staked. I’m not sure how you think it could work otherwise.

deleted by creator

of course you don’t get rewards if you spend your staked tokens. How TF else should they do it?!

It is not locked in chains like Polkadot and Cardano. You can, quite literally, stake your coins then two seconds later spend them. They aren’t locked from being spent. That is called ZERO LOCK or LIQUID STAKING. THERE IS NO LOCK PERIOD LIKE THEY HAVE IN ETH.

At this point, I am done arguing about literal facts with an ETH bagholder.

Thanks for the info. Surely, crypto should be the most fertile space for world-changing innovation we have right now but it is being stifled by the very same moneyed interests that spread disinformation like the article that started this thread.

Never heard of it but I’ll look into it. Before I DYOR, What useful work is being done in that case?

Wow. I’m not going to take the time to reply to most of that but your most glaring bit of misinformation: that staking requires locking

Look up zero lock staking or liquid staking. You’re pretending that staking requires the inability to spend your tokens but this is demonstrably false when you look at existing implementations of PoS that don’t require it: Cardano and Polkadot are two off the top of my head that offer zero lock staking.

I agree with you but holding ETH up as a shining example of decentralization is a bit misguided, IMO.

Since they had to move to PoS from PoW, things have gotten SIGNIFICANTLY worse for their decentralization numbers. Another damning aspect of their staking tech is that, in order to stake to a pool, you need to lock your tokens away, making them impossible to spend for a specified time period. That directly compromises decentralization in that only those with vast amounts of wealth will want to lock their tokens away for long periods of time.

Anyway, most of the criticisms I have of ETH are more critical of the way they went about the transition between two radically different consensus algorithms than about Proof of Stake itself.

edit: I should have known that ETH bagholders would come out of the woodwork to present outright lies about ETH’s shoddy, compromised implementation of PoS.

I agree that PoS (due to its consensus algorithm being weighted toward stake) can be compromised by billionaires…but I’d counter that it’s also the best system we currently have. Can you honestly tell me that USD has a fair allocation? With that in mind, PoS is Far better than the centralized technologies you seem to be defending by attacking the one alternative.

If the engineers behind non-scam projects (that actually seek to revolutionize currency and wrestle control from the world bank) could accomplish one person one vote, they would…but the network game theory is run by that same principle: that it would be impossible for anyone but Jeff Bezos to compromise a sufficiently valuable cryptocurrency just as it would be cost prohibitive for Bezos to afford enough bitcoin mining rigs to give him control of the network.

Luckily there are actual metrics that help us pinpoint those kinds of compromised technologies (especially in regards to Proof of Stake). Personally, when vetting a Proof of Stake crypto, I like to look at “initial token allocation” as well and other metrics that help to quantify how decentralized they really are. How many unique wallets are there? What does their consensus algorithm look like? How easy it is for me to run a stake pool? Do I need a super computer (Solana)? Does it prevent that sort of centralization using game theory?

Just a small example of how you’re glossing over some fairly elegant engineering that enforces decentralization: Cardano has invented some pretty revolutionary ideas in this area. They have all kinds of added parameters that prevent one actor from controlling the network. When the algorithm is selecting the next pool to mine a block, a pool that has more than a certain amount of the token is disqualified for having TOO MUCH stake. It’s called “saturation”. I could go on and on about the technologies that aid decentralization and make it AT LEAST significantly more decentralized than any other system we currently know of but I’m sure you won’t even read it.

Initial token allocation, for one, is such an important metric for understanding decentralization. If a small group of insiders has the most tokens, the decentralization of the network is compromised. That’s why, when I look at a cryptocurrency that uses Proof of Stake, I always look to that before doing anything. It helped me to avoid FTX, Luna, Solana, and other crypto’s where a small group of insiders was given more than 25% of the tokens in the network before the public was even allowed to receive airdrops (which are a way of making sure that that one person, one vote principle stands at that crucial stage where the tokens are dispersed into the market).

edit: further reading about the most academically/game theoretically rigorous open source implementation of Proof of Stake called Ourobouros , created by the Cardano team but also adopted by the Polkadot team.

Proof of Work is the digital coal of our times. All of the Proof of Stake chains combined are far more efficient than all credit card transaction networks combined.

Edit: There’s also new tech being worked on like:

• hybrid proof of stake/proof of work

• “useful proof of work” where the work being done is something that humanity needs (like running a super computer that predicts weather patterns for example).

https://dl.acm.org/doi/pdf/10.1145/3548606.3559356

Yeah that sounds like a reasonable idea on top of inventory.

deleted by creator

deleted by creator

I can’t find it now but: A user posted something a month or two ago recommending this.

As I recall it, OP wasn’t proposing the commerce part. A true pub/sub Shopify would be absolutely plagued with issues for payment processing. OP was recommending a pub/sub protocol implementation of inventory broadcast. Retail outfits would presumably host their own instances and/or broadcast allied retailers’ inventories then federate with other instances to create decentralized inventory.

Anyway, it seemed like a really good idea to me as long as the devs proceed with the understanding that payment processing would not be part of this tech.

deleted by creator