Wszystko super. W praktyce trzeba by jednak wyrwać istniejące operacje i wstawić takie zrobione pod zadania administracji publicznej, ale to też prosta robota. Tylko kto o tym tu przeczyta? :o)

Oh, a lot of script usefulness comes with custom authorities, but it is not necessarily directly connected to various signature schemes - Hive state is vastly wider than UTxO set. I see three types of

Heh, I knew every quiz answer except first Hivefest, and guessed that wrong :o(

Do you know a little trick that makes synchronization almost as fast as replay? :o)

Aaaaa!!! I can't listen to myself. Hopefully I'll never show up to speak on CoreDev meeting ever again :o)

Finally... :o) Like 2/3 of the people normally present in the office are missing, especially from the "Room 5". Were they excluded due to "bad rating"? 🤔

In this case it is printing, holding and releasing, it is printing with extra steps. That "holding" (buffer) makes all the difference. Because even if we were to take a very drastic step to stop

If it was up to me I'd do the following: first replace all immediate conversions to DHF from HIVE => HBD to the opposite, including payouts from inflation second, convert all existing HBD on DHF balance

Calling @mtyszczak for comment :o)

I assume it should be one brain = one reply, yes?

Let me start with those three points as general overview of my stance on the matter: I'm not really convinced Hive has problem with inflation. HF28 reduced base for inflation calculation quite a bit and

I wonder if it means yield() is going to be compiled as PAUSE.

No to dopisuję się do listy, że też byłem :o)

Yey, finally found myself on one of the photos - from behind, but it is still something :oP

Infinite recursion ends faster than infinite loop :o)

Hive is pretty much feature-complete on Layer1 Lol, no! And just for the record, bug with claiming tokens is fixed. Thanks to @small.minion for spotting source of the issue, many people analyzed the code

Isn't coding protected by First Amendment?

It can be fixed in three ways: the bad way - look for existence of parallel comment_cashout_object when archiving a comment - if it is present, it means we are before cashout (in current reality). It is

The other is that each comment only enters the "archive process" once per lifetime. That is not assumed. If there was double entry for migration of the same comment, during processing of the

I guess there's whole story... It is quite short. I tried different AIs to make main illustration for the article, but they either didn't listen or I didn't like the style etc. I'm especially disappointed