Care to elaborate? What did those studies show? As far as I know, properly handled humanure is quite effective. And it's better than letting excess nitrogen seep into the waterways.
Japan is a bit of a special case. They had extraordinarily high private-sector credit growth before their bubble burst. Now their private-sector debt has been dramatically shrinking, which would have led to deflation.
Basically, Japan's public-sector debt growth is offsetting private-sector debt shrinkage.
Did you actually find any examples of GrapheneOS phoning home?
GrapheneOS doesn't rely on any third-parties I'm aware of. The only service provided is over-the-air security updates. It doesn't even come with an app store (although you can install F-Droid).
For that reason, GrapheneOS alone fits all three categories you mentioned: It is Android, it is GrapheneOS, and it is fully controllable / doesn't ship bloatware.
>Of course this makes it so there is no incentive to close these vents completely.
Are you sure that follows from HB 189? To avoid tax the gas just needs to be certified that it would have been vented. I don't see anything that would encourage keeping small leaks.
>Natural gas that is consumed on the site and would have otherwise been vented or flared under the authority of the Wyoming oil and gas conservation commission has no value and is exempt from taxation as long as the natural gas is certified by the Wyoming oil and gas conservation commission as to have originated from a qualifying well.
Note that the GrapheneOS developer has indicated they are working on getting the Google Play Services apps to run sandboxed like normal apps, without extensive system permissions. This could be quite promising.
Note that the way this fork was pulled off was very ad-hoc.
Ethereum devs were unable to create a legitimate transaction reverting the DAO funds because they do not have access to the hackers' private key. The reversion was done with a "surgical state change" hardcoded into the client itself.
It's not about distributed governance; it's about abusing a dominant role in consensus. PoS is easier to capture, allowing the dominant party to censor and manipulate the settlement chain.
As for governance, with Bitcoin everyone is equally powerless to dictate how things should go. If you appreciate the fixed ruleset, you can choose to participate.
Ethereum is far more nebulous, being piloted by a foundation which hardforks the protocol at will.
Manufacturing ASICs from scratch requires a lot of capital, but it is fundamentally possible. There is no way to acquire a permanent, unassailable monopoly over ASIC hardware in general.
It is possible to acquire an unassailable monopoly over PoS tokens. You might be able to buy scraps from random traders, but will the >51% whale be willing to sell their core holdings when they can simply live off their staking yield?
>A permissioned blockchain is one in which the ability to add blocks is limited to a certain collection of entities
I agree. Ripple is an example of a chain which explicitly follows that model. PoS regresses to something like this because a 51% majority attacker can control consensus.
The key distinction is that PoW is permissionless, whereas PoS is permissioned.
Bitcoin is secured by hashpower, which is produced by physical capital outside the network. Nobody needs to ask for permission to start hashing and trade kilowatts for sats.
PoS networks are secured by on-chain assets. This means you can't "mine" it without first buying tokens from someone who already owns them. You need permission from an existing player in order to start participating.
Another aspect of this is 51% attacks are recoverable for PoW, but are a permanent takeover condition for PoS networks. If a single entity ever accumulates more than half the tokens on a PoS network, they are unassailable.
Hydro is an excellent pseudobattery but it's not available everywhere.