> as a basic rule of thumb, any paper on cybersecurity that does not start the discussion with a reference attack vector and listed assumptions is probably garbage.
Actionable guidance for real world decisions is not the objective of academic research. The objective is to expand the human knowledge base (which hopefully translates to something practical at some point).
If the authors have the domain expertise to weigh in on PINs, but not on attack vectors, then that is what they should do. Let someone else draw the conclusions for IT managers.
Elementus | Data Scientist | New York | Full-time | Onsite | https://elementus.io
Elementus is the universal blockchain query engine. We develop tools for financial institutions, law enforcement, and regulators to help them see past the raw blockchain data and understand the social and economic interactions taking place on-chain.
We are hiring for a creative, curious data scientist who is comfortable in rapidly changing, highly ambiguous environments. The role will involve developing new methods and algorithms to extract insights from on-chain data (bitcoin, ethereum, and others).
We use Nodejs, C++, Python. Some background in graph theory, blockchain tech is a plus, but not required.
We recently closed a $3.5m seed round that included Morgan Creek, Fidelity, and Stage 1.
If this sounds interesting, we'd love to chat. Please contact me at max at elementus.io.
Unless there has been a new development, there are no approved crypto ETFs yet. There are crypto index funds with fees of 1%-2%.
That's not a bad option if you just want some diversity with minimal thought + effort. I think this tool offers a different option. With a little bit of thought and effort, you can save on the fees and customize the risk/return profile.
I do a lot of both writing and coding and I also follow this schedule. I find coding at night to be very efficient, but when I try to write at night, I end up rewriting the same paragraph 10 times before giving up.
No idea why these activities are so different, but I feel the thought process is very different. Coding requires active concentration. I find writing to be more of a passive activity. Too much concentration, and the words stop making sense -- something like this effect: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Semantic_satiation
It's also annoying to have the amp menu bar taking up space at the top. Screen real estate is scarce and another menu bar at the top is just confusing.
Depends on your purpose for running a node. I use it to validate transactions and to query transaction histories, for which the full state is necessary.
It would be nice if they could implement a version that allows this, without the bloat.
> Jamie Dimon's reaction is not IMO unreasonable given the hype and the contradictions inherent in the position of most bitcoin advocates - contradictions laid bare in this article (fast, decentralised, consistent, pick two).
His ultimate conclusion -- that bitcoin is a bubble -- is not an unreasonable one to reach. But his reasoning completely misses the point. It doesn't even make sense to evaluate the worth of bitcoin in isolation as if it were fiat currency. An argument that it's a bubble necessitates a viewpoint on value of distributed apps.
1. The amounts raised so far are small, a few $100k. That's tiny compared to what ICO lose in hacks.
2. These are not high tech crypto startups, as most ICOs are. This is some guy selling diamonds. The text from the website sounds ridiculous and makes no sense.
> "By acquiring at least 1 DRC you will claim the membership in the exclusive Diamond Reserve Club (DRC) with privileges such as access to the blockchain transactional databases"
Actionable guidance for real world decisions is not the objective of academic research. The objective is to expand the human knowledge base (which hopefully translates to something practical at some point).
If the authors have the domain expertise to weigh in on PINs, but not on attack vectors, then that is what they should do. Let someone else draw the conclusions for IT managers.