Isn't the only difference between rotors, as defined in this article, and quaternions the sign of the second 3d component?

And this only happens because the planes are defined as "xy", "xz" and "yz", rather than the more consistent "xy", "yz" and "zx"?

If you just changed the definition of the planes at the start of the derivation, it seems you would end up deriving the exact same operations as you would use with quaternions? I'm not sure if there is a good argument for not doing that.

Math on Wikipedia is just absolutely atrocious.

Educate yourself.

The prosecutor "addressed the jury and stated that none of the six contracted murders-for-hire occurred." These charges were dismissed with prejudice.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ross_Ulbricht#Silk_Road,_arres...

I mean, no, they didn't actually occur, that is the good part.

That doesn't let Ross off the hook for attempting to make them occur.

Luckily, for Ross, none of them actually occurred as they would have made him eligible for the death penalty under the CCE statute.

Except Ross never did. False allegations used to smear him.

A document on his computer saying that he paid a supposed hitman and they ran with the cash, and chatlogs of him talking to the hitman, and an "immutable public ledger" with a record of the payment whose time and amount matches up with the note on the laptop are all ridiculous government smears. And there's nothing at all sociopathic about lying to your parents all the way until their bankruptcy in asserting your innocence.

They should really track down whomever framed him how shouldn't they? As you say, it's serious business.

The cost is the countermeasure, by design.

So: Short a large amount of bitcoins, 51% attack until value plunges, earn massive amounts of money.

Of course, the problem with this is that there is no exchange that you can trust enough to actually do this.

There are many more ways to make money off a 51% attack than just altering transactions.

> If a big crypto-community notices an attack, the cost of a 51% attack would rise

Would it though, really? Why?

On the contrary, someone performing a 51% attack can and will freeze out all other miners, leaving them operating at a pure loss. If the attacker manages to keep up the attack, he will be able to bankrupt the competing miners, forcing them to turn off their hash power, and thus lowering the cost for himself.

What's so "surely" about it?

Because now that some already have WMD, none of them is likely to give them up. The only option is for others to have them.

Why would that make things better, rather than the fairly obvious "worse"?

That API is under development, it is WebGPU.