Trump never changed, you think he gives two shits about you?

He’s a big supporter of the vaccine which many on here is opposed to, the irony

One of my neighbors met him, as in person.  He said the man is good and loves our Nation.  I know my neighbor for decades now and I trust him and his judgement.  As for the vaccine?

Mr. Trump did not force me to take it or lose my job.  Mr. Biden did.  Mr. Trump did not virtually sign my death certificate but Mr. Biden did with that order mandating the vaccine.  I have been where you have not but will one day go.  And when you do die hopefully it won't be due to a demented idiot like Mr. Biden but by natural causes (i.e. age) and surrounded by loved ones including your family and friends.   I fear this last time has further damaged my brain but I know for fact that I am NOT stupid enough to think poorly of Mr. Trump and never would I say Mr. Biden and his "peter principled" VP are worthy of governing this Nation.

I know more folks that have met and shaken hands with Mr. Trump and they all speak highly of him and his family and again, I have known many of them for years if not more than a decade.  I know people that have met Mr. Biden and since we're going down the dirt road, Mrs. Clinton.   You have no clue.

Was I offended by your words? Nope.  But being a Conservative American I was disgusted by them and with your for you fetid and feeble inferences. 

I am not smart but neither am I a cuckolded maroon of a Democrap.  I will speak up in favor of Mr. Trump because I know him to be for American and her citizens.   Mr. Biden is for Mr. Biden and against America and her citizenry.  Biden is bullshit.

FUCK THAT NOISE.

https://www.espn.com/espn/otl/story/_/id/13533995/split-nfl-new-england-patriots-apart

 

Goodell had imposed a $500,000 fine on Belichick, a $250,000 fine on the team and the loss of a first-round draft pick just four days after league security officials had caught the Patriots and before he'd even sent a team of investigators to Foxborough, Massachusetts. Those investigators hadn't come up empty: Inside a room accessible only to Belichick and a few others, they found a library of scouting material containing videotapes of opponents' signals, with detailed notes matching signals to plays for many teams going back seven seasons. Among them were handwritten diagrams of the defensive signals of the Pittsburgh Steelers, including the notes used in the January 2002 AFC Championship Game won by the Patriots 24-17. Yet almost as quickly as the tapes and notes were found, they were destroyed, on Goodell's orders: League executives stomped the tapes into pieces and shredded the papers inside a Gillette Stadium conference room.

Pats' first three superbowls = Houston Astros 2017 levels of cheating.

 

That article mis-describes what a mining pool actually is. You need to be careful not to confuse or obfuscate concepts without thinking it though a little deeper.

A mining pool consists of a large number of individual miners, who mine independently, but combine to share blocks when discovered (giving more consistent and predicable flow of income). This does not mean an entire pool could be coerced into a 51% attack. Indeed it would be virtually impossible given how many miners are in a typical pool of miners, and secondly because there would be no financial incentive to do so (indeed quite contrary to any financial incentive) to do so any individual miner. This is part of the beauty of the proof of work model. Every aspect of the ecosystem is incentivized through self interest, to benefit the strength of the network. So yes, a pool itself is "centralized" to the extent the share block rewards, but they consist of thousands of decentralized miners who act independently and in self interest. So, what you need to do is look at the power of each individual miner, and then bare in mind that new minders as constantly coming along, either to mine alone, or joining a pool. Think of a pool really simply as shared payments.

I'll give you a simple example. Lets say we have 9000 orange growers in the US. 4000 of those decide to join an producers collective - ie they all sell to a single aggregator who in turn gives a guaranteed price and is a consistent buyer. Does that mean that if the aggregator tried to order all 4000 producers to destroy their crops, that each independent grower would do that? Of course not. Why? Well because even though the "pool" is a centralized entity, it consists of many decentralized players. Indeed any smart individual grower would immediately would know that their oranges immediately become more valuable if others were to disappear. Classic economic game theory.

Mining pools actually incentivize more miners to enter the mining business, as they can get a consistent and immediate return on capital, and then grow without large outlay, due to the predicable and immediate shared income. As a result, they are a positive force to the strength on the network.

The second (and 3rd layer) technologies are built on top of Bitcoin, not into Bitcoin itself (but yes, it is correct that Bitcoin can be modified to be optimized for such 2nd layer solutions). This is core to the ethos and tenants of BTC. BTC, as open source code can be modified (and indeed is regularly tweaked). This is indeed because bitcoin is decentralized - it has no centralized leadership (unlike ETH, which can essentially be "selfishly" be changed to the benefit of those with larger stakes - which of course was the whole problem with fiat currencies BTC was designed to defend against, where some small minority in the financial system are advantaged over many others). Proof of stake on the other hand, is a perversion of the fundamental concept of a decentralized currency. All are not equal under ETH, On the other hand, all stakeholders in the BTC ecosystem are incentivized to ensure that any upgrades to the network are backward-compatible and its ultimately up to the community as a whole to approve of any so called "consensus changes" (the taproot upgrade being one such example). And any change to the BTC code inures the benefit of all Bitcoin holders in a proportionate and equal manner.

I mined for years on various mining pools. When you mine to a pool you are using their servers to discover blocks along with everyone else on that pool. A mining pool can be a single point of failure. If the mining pool's servers are taken offline then all the machines that were mining on that pool will be offline. I've seen this happen personally. The rigs will be mining happily and all of a sudden stop due to errors connecting to the pool. The rigs will then idle and temperatures will drop fast. Those rigs are then offline to the mining pool, even though they have a functional internet connection.

So attacking the pool or removing their electrical power could effectively remove 25% of the hash rate from the Bitcoin network. If the mining pool is dishonest then all rigs that are on the pool will be dishonest, even if it was not their intent. Sure, why would they want to do that? The pool will destroy their reputation. And they would be wasting their electrical consumption along with everyone else that unwittingly mined on the pool. But what if a terrorist blows up their warehouses where the servers are located? I know most pools will have servers on multiple continents. But it could be possible for an attack on more than one continent.

Ethereum validators also don't have an incentive to be dishonest. A dishonest ETH validator will actually lose their ETH holdings. Potentially 32 ETH per validator. That's a much more severe penalty compared to just wasting electrical power to attack a network. And there are tens of thousands or even hundreds of thousands of people watching the Ethereum network 24/7. If any dishonest validators exist they will be rooted out fast. The changes could be rolled back if they ever succeeded with an attack. So why would anyone risk attacking the ETH network if there's no real reward for doing that but an expensive penalty?

Maybe Goodrum can give him advice on certain business ventures