I will never forgive Bloomberg for their atrocious handling of Apple/Amazon/Supermicro "hacking" case where they didn't retract their claims despite no proof or evidence. I never cite that publication, it's toxic to me.
No one in the media seems to still question if cryptocurrencies are serious investment assets despite little actual proven utility beyond being a speculative investment asset.
"A blockchain is a growing list of records, called blocks, that are linked together using cryptography.[1][2][3][4] Each block contains a cryptographic hash of the previous block, a timestamp, and transaction data (generally represented as a Merkle tree). [etc]"
Do you have a definition that git doesn't fit into (without getting too pedantic, e.g., git being a DAG of records rather than a list)?
I don't understand what your question is. Are you saying that all blockchains must be turing complete and that git isn't therefore it's not a blockchain?
I didn't mean it as a question. What I meant was that blockchains can be Turing complete and git doesn't have that level of sophistication as a system.
I didn't think blockchains had to be turing complete. What definition do you use that requires that? I can't see that the original bitcoin paper implies such a requirement, but maybe it can be derived somehow.
Sure it wasn’t in Satoshis paper but most of the largest block chains are now essentially virtual machines and transactions can be arbitrary code written for those VMs, where the fee is the computational cost for the nodes to run that code.
I still don't understand where this is going. If you're saying git is not a blockchain because it's not turing complete that means all blockchains must be turing complete. I don't think that is true.
Wow, that is amazing! What portion of your investment was returned? You don't have to say the actual amounts if you don't want, but I'm curious about whether you got 1/10, 1/2, or all of your investment back.
I was going through a health tech startup incubator at the time, and it became a bit of a meme where we'd poke fun at anyone who bought into Theranos. Some went as far as putting together a slide deck to debunk the claims about running labs on such tiny volumes of blood. This was when and where I learned about the heterogeneity of blood.
It was an obvious farce. If they had real tech they could have simply done a million comparative tests on the military/VA or at free clinics and showed the relative accuracy.
No of course not, we as a society do not learn from history very well.
It's not like this woman is the first con man ever to defraud investors. And she won't be the last.
