>>17578
Oh! You mean you include in each message the input to the hash in the previous message. Sorry, I misunderstood. What you're referring to is known as proof of knowledge.

>Also, blockchains have consensus mechanisms such as PoS, FBA and PoW.
A blockchain is merely a data structure where each block is linked to the previous block (or some number of blocks) via a hash. It does not imply a distributed system. Even if there is a distributed system, the consensus algorithm can be as simple as "whatever the authoritative source says", which is pretty much how Git is typically used.

>>17579
>I said prove authenticity "given the authenticity of the first", not absolutely.
If that's all the assurance you want, you could also include your ECDSA public key in the first message and the signature for each subsequent message. Then you wouldn't need to keep track of which secret message you used as input to the previous hash.
Needless to say, neither method protects you if the site's operator decides to rewrite you messages.

>All in all, it seems like a pretty useless protocol compared to something like RSA or Lamport signatures. Oh well, it might end up being useful as part of something else, or in a different form.
Well, you're just using it wrong, I'd say. Proofs of knowledge are typically used to prove that you had a piece of information at an earlier time that you decide to disclose that information. For example, you might make public a hash predicting that the stock market will crash this week, and after it crashes you make public that information, which should hash into the previous hash.

Previous password: "Rose Mary"

>>17580
I've heard of proofs of knowledge. Though I dont think I've heard of them by that name.

> you could just use ECDSA
How fast is it to generate an ECDSA keypair and sign messages? IIRC RSA is slow compared to this scheme.

Next hash: 5fcb6406566e4cbe34ceb9ee0cc2cf02f729842c369936763b550101ae8c7354

>>17581
IIRC, almost all naturals less than 2^256 are valid Secp256k1 private keys, so picking a private key is just a matter of getting a few random bits. I think there were exactly two points on the curve that were unusable; one was an inflection point with only a single solution to the equation and the other's tangent was vertical.
Other curves may work differently, although I think all ECDSA curves are more or less the same with only the coefficients changing. As I recall, Curve25519's curve is somewhat different.

Signing a message with ECDSA is faster than RSA, but slower than getting a SHA-256 digest, because the process involves hashing the message. In particular, Secp256k1 uses SHA-256.

[Trivial zero] explanation, or trivial [zero explanation]?

Also, what the fuck are you talking about, OP?

>>17378
Genetics in general disprove evolution. The only way to ”prove” it is by making up scenarios in a computer or to insert billions of improbable mutation events wherever you cannot close the gaps.

>>17378
>I've never heard of genetic homeostasis. Kind of ironic that there is a genetic process that prevents speciation.
Think of it in terms of "if it ain't broke, don't fix it".

We simplify it so that people think that if something evolves a benefical trait then it will proliferate across the species and if it evolves an undesirable one it won't. The reality is many desirable traits die out before they can establish themselves in a species, and contrary to popular belief, many undesirables ones don't and do become established. The hallmark of evolution is that more desirable traits propergate than undesirable ones and this is in large part due to Darwin's theory, 'survival of the fittest', you are less likely to survive to adulthood (and reproduce) if you have undesirable traits compared to a specimen that has desirable ones.

To put it in human terms; just because you're stronger/smarter than someone else doesn't mean you're guaranteed to reproduce more than them (assuming you do at all).


>>17380
Still waiting on your theory.

File 162335204530.jpg - (83.33KB , 600x600 , Rab78d25602c96313a9264185a1b5ccdd.jpg )

>>16978
>>16981
>science is a religion for atheists
I for one am not an atheist, oh fool who has been brainwashed and indoctrinated for most, if not all of his life, by kosher filth. I'm an Agnostic.
>YOU GOTTA BELIEVE
Faith is by no means a bad thing, but its what you believe and have faith in that matters, NOT just believing in something. Also, The Bible never says where exactly heaven is. Facts don't change and numbers by their own dont' lie. Just because someone misinterprets some pieces of data doesn't automatically invalidate it.You by your faith in the worthless Jesus of Nazareth (as with Muslims having faith in and their praying 5 times a day to ""ALLAH"") are giving energy to human hating entities that don't really care about you in ernest; you have been manipulated and lied to by the Jews/Hebes and their Reptilian masters.

No you will probably become a shitty technician working 12 hour shifts everyday and earning 3$ per hour

>>17119
we can see the precursor for the robot revolution right now. people should put down the screens. there is evidence they are being used to brainwash and manipulate people against their best interests. it could be argued that it is the most powerful weapon of warfare being used on the stage today simply because of it's pervasiveness and almost ubiquitous use across all the world.

and what happens? the owners of the screens win because they have power over the mind. the robots will also have power over the mind in that they will do hard jobs easily which feels nice not to have to do hard jobs. but in that pleasure will come the pain of losing your usefulness to society and your being discarded and the horrible pain of withering away.

do you ever ask yourselves why we are here because what is happening here cannot possibly be of any merit or value? it's just evil run amok and why else should that be other than to teach a lesson?

if i had power i would squash it out and so would any other. but in my leadership my errors would come to light because i am not perfect. and in those failures would i be the cause of pain and sorrow and misfortune.

the answer is that none of us can be god. and we have to have the power to become god, yet never once touch the temptation of it, to ever return to our souls.

or maybe nothing matters in which case fuck you all, i'll believe my story because it makes me feel better. you can do coke and fuck whores. everyone has their drug then, right? pretty sure your habits fuck you up just as much as believing there's some purpose to your suffering.

>>17210
Man, you sure are a capitalism bootlicker if you think your only worth to society is your slave labor. Or perhaps you lack the imagination to figure out how you can improve the lives of those around you other than punching a clock and earning a paycheck.

>>16962
Ah, found info:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ryke_Geerd_Hamer#Olivia_Pilhar_case

what the fuck

wtf?

shoo, shoo kalyjew

File 150114583073.jpg - (6.34KB , 120x90 , _.jpg )

File 161081567771.jpg - (103.07KB , 800x600 , Winter.jpg )

File 146584018745.png - (8.12KB , 225x225 , images.png )

I'm guessing HVAC repair would be the best STEM major for you. Really though, study what you want to learn about. Look at your college's 300 (or 3000) level classes and above. Decide which ones you want to do. Find twenty of those in the same major and that's your major. If you can't find a job after you graduate sign up at your local state U for a master's certificate in something you can get a job at. (not master's degree, certificates are 5 -6 classes, about a year / tear and a half of night school)

What

>>16245
Why is this so complicated?
You want to find a nice girl to marry and a job that people are going to need you for.

You don't need to tell everyone your second degree is mathematics. If you think a second degree in mathematics is going to help you do something people need, then go for it. But the degree itself is just bragging and misleading. It's not the degree. It's you.

You are the ship you need to sail. We do not all sail the same. Master your craft, whatever it is, and people will like you.

It is a planet from a philosophical perspective but not the scientific perspective..
So before science was mature, it was probably called a planet.

>>17198
>It is a planet from a philosophical perspective but not the scientific perspective..
>So before science was mature, it was probably called a planet.

Back before we knew of other planets there were three* entities in the sky, the sun, the moon and stars. The sun and moon are pretty unique in the sky, it's hard to get them mixed up with anything else. Stars were a different matter and came in two varieties, (fixed) stars and wandering stars:

- (Fixed) stars are the stars we know today, static points of light that barely move relative to each other even as the night sky itself moves.

- Wandering stars were "stars" that appeared to move across the night sky. These are what we have since identified as planets, comets and such.

*in some early cultures clouds were also treated as part of the same sky.

because it has completely submitted to earth's gravity.

Why not cover it with plastic. Pour water in to the depth you need. Pour the water into a measuring cup and maybe add a little more for the wetted volume on the water not in the measuring cup. Fast, cheap accurate.

Bumpers.

volume = height * (length*width - nHexagons * areaOfASingleHexagon)

The area of a hexagon is 3*sqrt(3)/2*a^2, where a is the length of one side.

But really you're going to make too much epoxy, so just get it close and then add a little more to be safe. I'm guessing you've done this before, but if you don't degas your epoxy before you pour it, you're not going to get the results you want.

>>16973
Why the everloving fuck would you subject anyone to the imperial system and then use a conversion calculator when he can measure in centimeters and then end up with volume in cubic centimeters, which is already equal to the volume in mL by definition?