MurphyA/hacker-news huggingface dataset:
by aeon_ai | 2025-09-12 13:14:31+00:00
I'm going to take a different tack on this one.

--- Point 1

Crime is real. Can we agree on that?

If you were in charge of identifying and locating criminals based on on-chain transaction data, what are the list of guidelines you'd put together to use PUBLIC DATA to determine suspicious behavior?

If you're competent, at all, the list would look like this. Let's not immediately jump to "self custody is gonna be outlawed"

----

Point 2

Bitcoin was designed this way. This data is public. This is HOW THE DAMN THING WORKS.

This article is written by a "Seasoned Bitcoiner", which is a term that reveals just how cooked they are. They haven't come to terms with the fact that the Bitcoin price is predicated on being the first, but certainly not the best public blockchain for realizing the goals of a global decentralized currency, whether you agree that's even a possibility or not.

Some people adopt ignorance -- Others were born in it, molded by it.
by arghwhat | 2025-09-12 13:16:40+00:00
No, it is not that. It highlighted an issue, and it makes it painfully obvious when a particular page is being extra ignorant about your privacy and trying to sell it to thousand vendors instead of a handful.

What I don't like about cookie popups isn't the popup (which isn't something the EU law dictated btw), it's that someone thought it was okay to have hundreds of advertisement vendors and data brokers on a single news article, and it's better to know so I can just close the tab and never interact with that webpage again if they're being excessive asshats.

They have failed at enforcing this properly though, in particular with the recent proliferation of "legitimate interest" abuse (it is only legitimate interest if it an implied component to a service I am directly requesting), and the general issue of popups illegally making rejection different from acceptance, intentionally making rejection slow, or even requiring payment to continue without cookies. And yes, the occasionally completely defective prompt.

I do agree that it would be neater if the browser handled this though. Would also be neater if the internet wasn't entirely sponsored by privacy violations. :/
by garciasn | 2025-09-12 13:16:41+00:00
An interesting what-if scenario; but, let's assume Sanders won and all else remained largely the same as it has:

Unless the Sanders Administration had a very favorable or majority Democrat Congress aligned with his progressive wing, many proposals would be outright blocked or heavily compromised. Knowing our limitation that everything else has stayed largely the same as history since, this wouldn't be the case. The hypothetical administration's attempts at sweeping reforms, such as healthcare and climate regulation, would very likely be significantly curtailed or overturned by courts or constrained by constitutional limits on separation. The GOP, even though they actively outspend Democrats when in power, obstruct via financial limits each and every Democratic-led effort while crowing about expansion of debt incursion; as such, spending on Bernie's proposed initiatives would raise concerns about deficits, inflation, and taxation. Even with tax increases, there would be pushback from wealthy individuals, corporations, and lobbyists.

Basically, nothing would change in any significant way except, perhaps, the SCOTUS would not be outright overturning DECADES of 'settled law' in favor of an absurd view of the world as it was hundreds of years ago.
by erikerikson | 2025-09-12 13:17:10+00:00
It's about weaving the ads into the LLM responses overly and more subtly.

There's the ads that come before the movie and then the ads that are part of the dialog, involved in the action, and so on. Apple features heavily in movies and TV series when people are using a computer, for example. There's payments for car models to be the one that's driven in chase scenes. There's even payments for characters to present the struggles that form core pain points that that specific products are category leaders to solve.
by the_biot | 2025-09-12 13:17:30+00:00
The non-compatibility has over the years become the defining feature of GTK/Gnome. The maintainers seem to go out of their way to break API, for no reason at all. That extends to Gnome applications as well.

I recently found a GTK API call that was deprecated in GTK 3.0, only for its replacement to be deprecated by 3.16. These are not thoughtful people, with a vision for the future. They are idiots that inherited something great (GTK 1), and have spent decades thoroughly fucking it up.
by endymion-light | 2025-09-12 13:18:12+00:00
This is great - Really love the approach of getting halfway - if I'm really tired and need to go to the gym or do a side project, I always give myself half the time I expect.

Want to go to the gym for an hour but feel too lazy? Half an hour and i'll leave. 99% of the time I end up sticking out as i've reached halfway, might as well reach halfway again.

It helps shift the mental load.

Although being the person that does the thing is something that I find a bit of a struggle with living in the UK. In general, I feel like there ends up being a bit of a pull down mentalility - "why are you spending time doing X side project", "why do you care about Y".

It's a mentality that's easy to fall into culturally, and i've really had to put effort to shift that and build up motivation. I've found getting past the cultural aspects, I end up finding so many people who feel the same way.
by moduspol | 2025-09-12 13:18:35+00:00
The quote is "single-use wallets, addresses, or accounts." If you download any normal Bitcoin wallet today, it'll use a series of words to derive a series of private keys that are used by the wallet. Each one gets a different address.

Then your wallet software is smart enough to treat all the addresses derived as a single wallet. When you go to make a payment, it makes it from the various addresses owned by the wallet. When you want to accept money, you can generate the next address in the series and give a fresh address to someone new.

The net result is that it's not clear from someone looking at the blockchain which addresses actually belong to YOUR wallet and which transactions are you sending money to someone else or yourself.

AFAIK this is how basically all Bitcoin wallets have worked for years. Electrum and Base (formerly bread wallet) as well as Ledger's wallet are the main ones I've used.

EDIT: Just to address this:

> What is the "normal Bitcoin" use case for funneling money through a chain of throwaway wallets?

It makes it so that someone publicly looking at the blockchain can't provably tell how much Bitcoin you have.

We still have to give addresses to people to receive money, so if we were only allowed to have a few, it wouldn't be hard to trace which people own which wallets. And then now you've got a big physical security risk because the world can see how much money you are able to give if they invade your home, kidnap a family member, etc. It'd be like having to put a sign out in front of your house that says, "$600,000 in cash is in here." And they could see the cash.
by cypherpunks01 | 2025-09-12 13:18:41+00:00
Strictly speaking, loading an address with many UTXOs has no effect on security of the receiving address at all (beyond increasing its public profile).

The security concerns start happening after an address spends a UTXO. Before a P2WPKH (segwit) address is used, only the public key hash is known. In order to spend from it, the full public key needs to be revealed. That's why it's recommended to use single-use addresses, because a quantum computing attack or elliptic curve vulnerability could be used against an address where the attacker knows the public key, but would not work against an address where the pubkey has not yet been revealed.

So, the main security change happens after you spend from an address the first time. Subsequently, there are theoretical vulnerabilities that could occur after an address is spent from many times, but really only if the signer is malicious like dark skippy, or faulty and doesn't properly follow RFC 6979 deterministic signatures, leaking some signature entropy which could be used to crack the private key. The latter has happened with some bad custom wallet implementations, but these attacks are even further in the realm of theoretical, not super realistic, require faulty software/firmware to be implanted into signing devices.
by conductr | 2025-09-12 13:18:51+00:00
This sounds similar to my experience. I didn’t miss my parents at all, I was comfortably independent at a younger age. Even on weekends when parents were home, I’d rather be out playing with my friends.

I remember leaving notes on the table saying “need $ for X” and I’d find cash there the next day. I needed them but we weren’t each others friends and didn’t need to spend an excessive amount of time together.
by diggan | 2025-09-12 13:18:54+00:00
On the other hand, doesn't all "wouldn't it be nice if it was like this?" look naive and wild before they were implemented/fought through?

Things like "Womens right to vote", "Civil rights" or even democracy was seen as completely backwards and naive at one point in history (and still is in some places), but today we kind of see it as something good to strive for, most of the times.

I'm not saying it's 100% the same for cryptocurrencies, but isn't there a chance it's something similar at least?
by franktankbank | 2025-09-12 13:19:39+00:00
I think we will be remembered for our chemistry, physics, engineering and materials science. There is going to be a lot that is forgotten because:

1) There is an eternal power struggle among people that is only obliquely acknowledged and seems willfully forgotten.

2) There is a lot of useless crap based on predatory psychological cues that will be weeded out through natural evolution.
by amelius | 2025-09-12 13:19:44+00:00
> if that were infinitely scalable, wouldn't we have a subset of super-smart models already at very high cost

The compute/intelligence curve is not a straight line. It's probably more a curve that saturates, at like 70% of human intelligence. More compute still means more intelligence. But you'll never reach 100% human intelligence. It saturates way below that.
by tech_tuna | 2025-09-12 13:20:05+00:00
Because of the internet, and social media and specifically Instagram in this case, I see my aunt's artwork regularly. I live a few hours from her and see her once or twice a year. She is quite eccentric and her artwork is amazing. It's kind of sad that this is the best way for me to see her work. . . or it's not so sad, and really just convenient.

We are in a golden age for discovering art that you really wouldn't get to see otherwise. I would not even call myself a hardcore art enthusiast but I stumble upon great art all the time on Instagram, as you mentioned, from around the globe.

It's really cool.
by saghm | 2025-09-12 13:20:25+00:00
There are degrees of unhappiness. There's no reason to assume a binary of loving everything about work or hating it so much that they'd be happier without it.

To be clear, this isn't intended as a criticism of your choices to step down from maintaining various projects; my point is that these choices are quite personal, and it's not always going to be obvious how to balance the tradeoffs. It's entirely possible that they are burnt out to the point that they might be happier in the long run if they did step down now, but it's also possible that they might be even more unhappy giving up something that they care a lot about and are willing to tolerate the less fun parts. I suspect you could provide a lot of valuable insight on these sorts of decisions given you experience, but even from having to make similar decisions for things with a tiny fraction of the exposure of the projects you've maintained, it's clear to me that there would need to be quite a lot more nuance in analyzing a situation like this, especially from the outside.
by croes | 2025-09-12 13:20:39+00:00
The bigger irony is that he completely ignores the contradiction between those tow bible parts, or will it be a loving stoning.

I'm glad you wrote "was not literally advocating the stoning of homosexuals", because I never claimed that and it seems you realize that there could be an non literal advocation.

His work definetly doesn't justify his murder, it would be ironic if I think so because I'm against the death penalty, but he helped create the battlefield he now died on.

I guess the only reason why the current murderers are more likely from the left side of the political spectrum is because the right-wingers are in power. They can send the military or ICE to get rid of their opponents. If that changes we will see more right wing murderers.
by diggan | 2025-09-12 13:20:51+00:00
Demonstrating that if you wait long enough (14 years in that case), you can get away without loosing the funds, even from the state?

> On July 10, 2009, Chadwick was ordered released from prison by Delaware County Judge Joseph Cronin, who determined his continued incarceration had lost its coercive effect and would not result in him surrendering the money.
by bluGill | 2025-09-12 13:21:57+00:00
We don't. I'm not going to try this. You appear to not want to either, and that is fine. He is trying this, and I see no reason anyone should prevent him from trying. (I'm open to changing my mind if someone comes up with good justification, but in generally I like the freedom message and so place a high bar on what a good justification would be)
by ferguess_k | 2025-09-12 13:22:24+00:00
I also bought a few consoles (GB, NES, N64, PS2) that I was never allowed to own/play, except for NES which I didn't own but did play due to its popularity. My parents were pretty strict with my studies and piano practices so I didn't even have much time with TV, and games were considered as not only wasteful, but also evil.

The thing is, I never played those consoles after purchasing them. I don't have any nostalgic feelings towards except for NES. I actually felt sorry for myself because I discovered my inner kid died a long time ago when I tried to wake him up.

I'll probably give them to a friend's kid if he so wish, or donate to some local museums.
Show HN: I built a Bitcoin DCA bot – here's why
by yeahoffline | 2025-09-12 13:23:05+00:00
I started DCA’ing into BTC many years ago. I kept missing buys, buying emotionally into pumps, and forgetting during chop. So I wrote a simple script that hit an exchange API once a day with a fixed amount. Friends asked to use it, so I generalized it and added a DB to manage multiple users.

Why I didn’t use existing tools: Most options I tried were either locked to one exchange or did fixed-amount DCA with naive execution. I wanted multi-exchange support and a way to scale buys during dips and preserve capital during rips. I also kept running into inconsistent API rate limits and small-order quirks, which made me prefer building.

Why turn it into a service: At first it was just JSON configs on my machine. More friends kept joining. I added a basic self-serve UI so I wasn’t SSH’ing to change params. Hosting costs stayed small, but my time did not. At that point it made sense to package it.

“multiplier DCA”: Instead of buying a fixed amount on a schedule, the bot computes a multiplier in the range 0.1–3× and scales the order size. During dips it buys more; during euphoria it scales back or skips. Inputs include standard indicators plus some AI and social context; guardrails cap the multiplier and enforce cool-downs so you don’t blow a week’s budget in the first leg of a dump. The goal isn’t to “time the bottom,” it’s to shift size a bit toward better prices without starving future buys.

Results so far (caveats included): On a public, static backtest over the last year, the multiplier approach accumulated ~30% more BTC than fixed DCA, with slightly higher total spend. Backtests aren’t reality; live trading taught me to add pacing and cool-downs.

Tech stack and latency: Watcher → queue → workers. Node.js services with AWS DynamoDB/Aurora for state, SQS for queues, Lambda workers for execution. Typical timings: ~20 ms to scan, ~10 ms to enqueue, ~100 ms–2 s for the trade depending on the exchange. We didn’t optimize for HFT; this is DCA, not microsecond arbitrage.

How long it took: The first script is ~6 years old. The multiplier engine grew out of a friend’s suggestion to size into dips. I iterated for years, added a UI this year, and opened it to more friends.

https://dca.bot

I’m here for feedback and AMA—architecture critiques, multiplier design, failure modes, exchange abstractions, whatever’s useful.
by mcphage | 2025-09-12 13:23:23+00:00
> He said things that upset the left, leftists are now celebrating.

Maybe, but was he killed for denigrating black people? Gay people? Jews? Transgender people? Immigrants? Professors? Doctors? The list goes on.

He also pissed off the right, too—Laura Loomer recently calling him a traitor. So, I guess we’ll find out.

> According to investigators they found his ammo, which was engraved with "transgender and anti-fascist ideology"

You might want to look into that again.
by lordofgibbons | 2025-09-12 13:23:30+00:00
Bitcoin maximalists are learning that having a non-fungible and fully traceable ledger might be a problem. Even Satoshi called this out! As is, BTC is somewhat of a privacy nightmare. All of your transactions are on the public ledger for anyone with basic knowledge of statistics to correlate and see all of your transactions. Blockchain Analytics is big business!

All the things the Treasury is considering to be "suspicious activity" simply can't be tracked with something that's non-fungible and untracable like Monero. This suspicious activity - aka privacy - is just how all monero transactions are done.
by mmmllm | 2025-09-12 13:23:48+00:00
Fair point - although there are already so many customer facing chatbots using LLMs rolled out already. Zendesk, Intercom, Hubspot, Salesforce service cloud all have AI features built into their workflows. I wouldn't say penetration is near the peak but it's also not early stage at this point.

In any case, AI is not capable of fully replacing customer care. It will make it more efficient but the non-deterministic nature of LLMs mean that they need to be supervised for complex cases.

Besides, I still think even the inference demand for customer care or programming will be small in the grand scheme of things. EVERY Google search (and probably every gmail email) is already passed through an LLM - the demand for that alone is immense.

I'm not saying demand won't increase, I just don't see how demand increases so much that it offsets the efficiency gains to such an extent that Oracle etc are planning tens or hundreds of times the need for compute in the next couple of years. Or at least I am skeptical of it to say the least.
by arghwhat | 2025-09-12 13:23:51+00:00
> Many websites are free because they survive from ads. Ads make more money if you collect data.

My business is to get money out of other people's wallets and bank accounts. I could get make much money if you just logged into your bank account and approved transactions whenever I told you to, or screamed less whenever I took the wallet out of your pocket on my own.

That there's a way to earn more money does not justify it as legitimate thing to do, and if you can't figure out how to run a service in legitimate ways does not mean that illegitimate ways that attempt to violate its users in secret suddenly become okay.
by catlikesshrimp | 2025-09-12 13:24:51+00:00
"Average ∑PFAS concentrations of Criteria 3 and 4 beers (popular national and international beers) were similar to the average ∑PFAS concentrations of many Criteria 1 and 2 beer"

A link to the source of the information can be found in TFA https://pubs.acs.org/doi/10.1021/acs.est.4c11265
by Bender | 2025-09-12 13:24:52+00:00
won't happen anytime soon

I used to think that but I could see Valve changing that with time when enough gamers are able to switch without all the past stereotypical issues assuming they work out all the kinks. My understanding is they are making decent progress. Adding to this more influencers are trying out Linux. Don't get me wrong, I am not a fan of this. Once enough people move to Linux it will be a much bigger target for malware and other shenanigans, but I can see a path via gamers to popularity.

The next challenge will be making it viable in all work places and be able to smoothly run all of the ancient proprietary applications. The incentive for executives I could envision for the work place is sandboxing the ancient applications to improve the security posture even if it's mostly check-boxes at first until proper capabilities are set or limited. Less down-time from ransomware and more people working once the kinks are worked out one organization at a time.
by smallmancontrov | 2025-09-12 13:24:56+00:00
Yes. There are a few moments when Biden floated something that sounded like a promise made to Bernie and it got laughed out of congress by both sides of the aisle. The "capital gains income is income" proposal is probably the cleanest example. There would have been more of that and not a lot done. To make real change, you need congress on board and possibly the courts too.
by TheSoftwareGuy | 2025-09-12 13:25:42+00:00
You're right, people absolutely do rely on internal behavior intentionally and sometimes even unintentionally. And we tried our hardest not to break any of those customers either. but the point is that putting something in the docs is seen as a promise that you can rely on it. And going back on a promise is the exact opposite of the "Earns Trust" leadership principal that everyone is evaluated against.
by dangus | 2025-09-12 13:26:18+00:00
I wish we had more choices beyond Android and iPhone.

I think this thread makes it quite clear that Android is not a secure OS, period. Like, maybe it’s safer on a Pixel with Google’s own distribution, but even still, Graphene is claiming that Google’s team is stretched thin and isn’t fixing issues from 2024.

Meanwhile, Apple is allegedly building the most secure devices you can connect to the Internet: https://techcrunch.com/2025/09/11/apples-latest-iphone-secur...
by schwartzworld | 2025-09-12 13:26:21+00:00
Or whatever man. The post I responded to said they wanted a robot that could do 80% of human tasks. It's easy to start naming things that a human can't do, but actually think about the tasks humans perform on a day to day basis and the environments they perform them in. Could it ride in a car? Anything that can fit on a car seat can. Dogs, grocery bags and even human babies all fit very comfortably in any car. Could it take the stairs? Maybe, but at my work we don't have to take the stairs.

The conversation is a little reminiscent of "before the car was invented, if you asked what people wanted they would have said a faster horse". If robots became popular in day-to-day, it's not hard to imagine that we would make space for them in our lives anyway. Cars can't traverse the kinds of terrain a horse can, and they require fuel so we have roads and gas stations. If you made a robot that was actually helpful and couldn't take the stairs, you'd start installing dumbwaiters in buildings.
by rsynnott | 2025-09-12 13:26:27+00:00
> Surely the required labor can be found across a country of 300 million people, or easily trained from other adjacent fields that have lost workers due to economic driven redundancies or who want to switch careers for whatever reason.

Okay, so, you want to build a factory, installing vast quantities of specialised equipment, some of which likely literally only exists in your other factories. Do you (a) send over experienced technicians from one of your other facilities for a few months or (b) spend a few years training locals to do your highly specialised stuff, then when it's done in a few months fire them?

I mean, come on, now.