The quickest solution in such a case would be a POW change that can put Russian miners at a significant disadvantage. Significant could be a factor of 10 or larger.
Also, any attempt to kill one decentralized value system would prove to be a wasteful process in the long run since the cost to create another such system is disproportionately smaller than the cost to attack/destroy them.
> The quickest solution in such a case would be a POW change that can put Russian miners at a significant disadvantage.
As in changing the POW algorithm? That puts everyone at the same disadvantage - the attacker just has to keep outspending the legitimate miners, who will also have lost their mining power. If the miners make new ASICs, the attacker can do so as well, at presumably the same or lesser cost.
> the cost to create another such system is disproportionately smaller than the cost to attack/destroy them.
I think it's the opposite. The defenders have to keep mining power up all the time, and may have trouble coordinating on one system - the attacker only has to spend their power while they are attacking, and they can wait until any system gets popular until they mount the attack.
And if the attacker shows they're motivated and capable of outspending the defenders, they don't have to actually attack. The defenders will see that any attempt at mining is futile and never try. At least in game theory, in practice things aren't resolved that easily. :)
This doesn't work when the attacker is a nation state, b/c the PoW change damages all miners equally but the nation state is not playing by the same economic rules, is politically motivated rather than financially, does not need to remain profitable to continue attacking, and is better able to absorb the loss and continue the attack with new hardware.
This only works though if the pretraining and your training, both are with the data in the same domain. Even in that you will have issues if the data was from same domain but different in representation, e.g. 2D and 3D image datasets.
- Vain opinions and opinions based on good marketing that appear on Facebook are still vanity and marketing.
- Curating your feed on any service is paramount, and maybe my anecdotal experience is based on having curated Instagram well, whereas Facebook was a sprawl of vain or disingenuous political theater.
I think the big distinction is in feed curation, and to that end, I believe that Instagram promotes direct follow of highly popular accounts that can reinforce negative self-perception. I just don't really follow any big accounts, just friends whose hijinks I appreciate.
> Bitcoin is by far the most decentralized, most secure
Both of these are highly contentious if not outright wrong.
Bitcoin's network is the most centralized at the moment. Bitmain is a great example of that. As for security, Ethereum is currently spending more $$ per block than Bitcoin to secure the chain.
Stop using the word "contentious" as an attempt to end discussion like the very thought of some idea being disagreeable to one or more people means it's not worthy of discussion.
