I tried it a few months ago and ReFS ate my data. No indication of why in event logs or SMART data. It had IsPowerProtected set because I have a UPS and I had a unclean restart, I would expect it to lose data, but not to corrupt the filesystem metadata. I had a backup of the data but wanted some recent changes. Refsutil (the official Microsoft tool) didn't help because it has not been updated for the newest ReFS version. I couldn't read most files because I had integrity enable and files failed the check. Hetman's Data Recovery was able to recover most of the data. In later testing I found out that IsPowerProtected is just very unsafe. I have since put some time into testing and sometimes fixing https://github.com/openzfsonwindows/openzfs , it is not ready for use yet, but it is making great progress.
They are bad, but it is better than nothing. I think if you are completely deaf they probably are not good enough. For myself, I have some hearing damage from working with fire alarms without hearing protection which makes it sometimes hard to understand speech with some background noise, it also doesn't help that English is not my native language. These subtitles make some videos that are hard for me to understand much better than without, because I am able to combine the hearing that I got with the subtitles to figure out what is being said. So yea, I hope they could improve them, but without them my experience is definitely worse.
BCH for small transactions with 0-conf is not slow as hell. When you require confirmations a system like Bitcoin has a quite random time between blocks, but 10 minutes on average.
IOTA has an absolutely unprofessional development team, doing things like saying critical security vulnerabilities are there on purpose so they can point it out when someone forks or saying that the network being unusable due to a DOS attack is fine because they can use it for testing. Don't forget the time they turned off the network for 2 days without any prior notice (yes, they can do that). I'm all for new technology, but Bitcoin is 9 year old proven technology at this point, while IOTA and RaiBlocks are both new and unproven. Let them mature a bit before suggesting people rely on them. Would be quite bad if someone turned off IOTA when you need your money, wouldn't it?
I was shifting both bitcoin and bitcoin cash from an old wallet. I didn't notice any real difference in transaction time.
I agree with you that bitcoin derivatives (with blockchain) have proven themselves with a robust security implementation. But if you look at adoption, none of the cryptocurrencies really proved itself. Bitcoin was even dropped by some (such as Steam). And with the high transaction fees, you couldn't really blame them, it just makes no sense.
I also agree with you that RaiBlocks hasn't proved itself yet in security and scaling. But in my opinion, instant and free transactions is a total game changer. If these technologies are able to stand, it's a total game changer for all cryptocurrencies that focus on fast transactions and low fees. That includes Bitcoin Cash and Litecoin.
As for IOTA, I consider that tech in alpha stage. They are not trying hard to make it usable, but it seems they are putting all their focus on trying to build up a standard for the industry. All the partnerships and relations they have going on make sense. Is it usable for end users? No. But RaiBlocks is. And instant feeless transactions indeed could have nice synergy with IOT.
These are definitely interesting times. But I wish more focus would be put on applications and use cases than on the market cap of each coin.
How is it a scam to keep it working like it was intended to work? I did not buy into Bitcoin to hold it forever, I bought it to use it as cash. Therefore I do feel defrauded by the current developers, until just yesterday they advertised one thing on their website but delivered something different.
I have kind of mixed feelings about removing ASIC boost. I do feel it is everyones right to innovate and get an advantage, then patent that advantage. It takes money to do that R&D, so it should be protected. Others can do so as well, or operate from countries where these patents are not respected. On the other hand, others have so far been unable to get their own advantages, so maybe it is time to hardfork (yes, hardfork, SegWit does not fix it, not until > 90% of transactions are using SegWit) to prevent getting this advantage.
Transaction malleability has nothing to do with the security properties of zero conf, it only allows you to change the signature of a transaction, not the contents. So if you malleated a transaction, you would still end up with a transaction paying the merchant, in no way vanishing like you describe. What does affect the security is if miners violate the first seen rule, which is not a consensus rule, to include transactions that were seen later but have higher fees into their blocks. This allows you to essentially replace a transaction by bribing a miner with a higher fee. Generally the risk of this is seen as low, generally lower than the risk of credit card fraud, so for low value transactions it is generally fine. Malleability breaking the withdrawals of an exchange is a problem with that exchange, not with Bitcoin Cash.
As for developers removing the malleability fix (SegWit) to break the LN, that is just a plain lie. First, SegWit was removed because it is just an hack that can be achieved in much better ways. SegWit is such technical debt because it did in a soft fork what should have been done in a hard fork. Second, you can see on the development mailing list that fixing it has been discussed well, and a fix for third party malleability is actually already active. You can also see that nobody is against 2nd layer systems like Lightning Network, and it will be supported if and when it is actually useful.
The EDA that was in place in the first 3 months was indeed a big mistake and has since been replaced with a well performing fast acting DAA, but it is not the reason people push for 0-conf. 0-conf was a pretty well used and working feature of BTC before the blocks first became full. It is only logical to use it again on a chain that does not intend to let its blocks become full.
If you wanted to use a secondary nVidia card for PhysX, all was fine until nVidia changed their driver to disable PhysX when it detected an active AMD card.
That was my problem first too, but you can make it require the token on mobile too. I have it set up that way and I need to tap my Yubikey NEO to authenticate using NFC on Android. Works great.
