A man launched a new ISP from his garage (2018) [video] - <AUTHOR> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p52PY_cwIsA <comment><USER3> It would've been nice to see some numbers to show the capital required to build it. For the area he's in, just trenching in the fiber from the cell tower would cost $50K / mile on the low end. Then he has to pay for transit. And possibly leasing fiber depending on how he sets that up. That all costs thousands per month.

It looks like the guy lives in Marin County California, which is a pretty affluent area. He has enough money to live there while (seemingly) leisuring out on the ocean, not working for 6+ years. He made it sound like sharing the internet as an ISP didn't even occur to him until neighbors asked about it so he was ready to plonk down pretty hefty amounts of cash for just his own usage (I don't blame him of course, I'd do the same).

So yes, you too can start an ISP out of your garage, if you have a fat bank account. :-)

<comment> non-entity There was an article posted to HN a while back regarding creating a wireless ISP over a very small area, and If I recall correctly, someone pointed out that renting a piece the infrastructure required for it would be tens of thousands of dollars monthly

<comment><USER4> My parents use internet beamed off a nearby farm silo. The owner of the project bought the trasmission info, paid for a splice in the fiber line on the road by the farmer's house and badabing-badaboom. Not necessarily tens of thousands per month and he has several dozen customers.

<comment><USER5> What is transmission info?

<comment><USER6> I _think_ that might have been an autocorrected "infra" as in infrastructure. Not GP, though.

<comment><USER4> Right, I did mean infra - thank you!

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> Basically every city in Poland has such company in 00s. Now we have around 450-500 ISPs in whole country. Most of them started their journey in garage :). Nowaydays most of them are doing FTTH/GPON constantly evolving - <USER2> better services than big-country-wide companies like Orange. For example, I live in Bielsko Biala (southern Poland) and I pay around $25 monthly for 600/600Mbps with static external ipv4.

</comment><comment><USER8> I run a hobby website about this kind of thing: startyourownisp.com. Might be interesting to folks reading about the topic.

</comment><comment><USER9> I had wireless internet like this growing up in a rural town in the early 2000s. It was 3 mbps unlimited, and our only other options were satellite (768k with 800ms rtt or so) and 56k dial-up. It was a godsend for me as a young kid wanting to learn and explore tech. I'm glad to hear he's doing this, and it's great for small scale, but this is what's most exciting to me about SpaceX. The promise of LEO satellite internet is immense for people in these situations, but the cost doesn't work out unless you can launch those satellites at a low cost. SpaceX seems to understand this and I see their drive to reusable rockets as a way to make this a high profit margin business that will enable them to do bigger and better things without being beholden to nation states for funding. I can't wait for this. I hope to have a remote country house someday, but the internet has been one of the main drivers for us to stay closer in to town.

</comment><comment><USER10> He has a direct fiber line into his house but the glimpses of the speed tests were showing ~180 Mb/s at the peak. This is far from the max performance a fiber line can deliver.

Is he getting throttled by the company that is leasing the fiber line or is there a bottleneck in his setup?

<comment><USER11> That was stock footage. The editor of the video doesn't know any better.

</comment></comment><comment><USER12> I would love it if someone could do something like this in Berlin. The Internet in Germany is abysmal.

<comment><USER13> Why is that the case?

<comment><USER14> Government-sanctioned monopoly residue, as far as I can tell. AFAIK everyone has to lease circuits from Telekom; not entirely dissimilar from the US.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER15> Back in Turkey (3 years ago) I had 100/5 cable internet. Now in Estonia, I have 500/500 fiber for 32 euros/month. I know that 500/500 is a "bit extra", but I have always thought at least 100mbps should be standard.

I still can't believe my eyes when I see connection speeds like 5, 10 mbps in countries like Germany or americas.

With these kind of speed rates, I have never thought of creating my own ISP. At least not for speed issues.

</comment><comment><USER16> I like the P2P nature of the internet, but how do you get connected to a peer on good terms? Comcast, Verizon and AT&T limit not only who but what devices you can route packets for (e.g. hotspot data).

Any ideas on finding good peers to work with? I'm hoping for few usage restrictions first and then quality links characteristics next (e.g. bandwidth, latency, cost, etc...).

<comment><USER17> As a new ISP, you're not going to get any peering arrangements. Really, as an existing consumer ISP not in the top 10 or 20, you're not going to get any peering arrangements. Consumer ISPs generate very asymmetric traffic (more down than up) which tampers with the core "equality" assumption of traditional peering arrangements.

You'll need to purchase transit from an existing provider, such as CenturyLink's commercial arm or Verizon Business, there are plenty more. This won't be free but it also probably won't be as expensive as you think. In a city you can get a Gigabit dedicated to you for $2k a month, maybe less. Shop around. Most of these providers will put you on the phone with a network engineer as part of the quoting process and they can be helpful in recommending what service level and equipment you get.

IPv4 allocations are hard to come by unless you want to bid on them at auction which can be expensive. You probably want to get a block from your provider, but they'll be hard to talk into giving you more than say a /29 and they might charge you more for it. Often they don't, though, they just put you in a queue sorted by customer size and you'll never get to the top of it. As a small ISP, CGNAT is probably going to be your only choice for IPv4. This also has the downside of being non-portable since the addresses will always belong to your provider. Maybe save up money to bid on your very own. Once you get one you'll want to start participating in BGP which is complicated anyway, so get to that later, once you have customers.

<comment><USER18> 'Consumer ISPs generate very asymmetric traffic (more down than up) which tampers with the core "equality" assumption of traditional peering arrangements.'

Shouldn't this be in favour of the ISP? If the traffic isn't balanced, then doesn't the peer that's sending more (e.g. YouTube, Netflix) usually pay?

I have no experience of setting up an ISP, so this is just based on what I've read. I'd love to understand it better.

"IPv4 allocations are hard to come by unless you want to bid on them at auction which can be expensive."

Looking online, it looks like the prices are $15 to $30 per IP address, depending on the size of the block. So I guess this cost swallows the first month of revenue from each new customer.

<comment><USER19> > 'Consumer ISPs generate very asymmetric traffic (more down than up) which > tampers with the core "equality" assumption of traditional peering > arrangements.'

It's a good situation for the ISP to start a DC business with unmetered ports to help balance things!

<comment><USER17> This is a lot of how the major ISPs smooth out the peering situation, they also offer colocation and carrier hotel services to large customers. Unfortunately, the popularity of Netflix and other streaming services has largely upset this balance and it's very hard for any ISP to keep traffic equality.

<comment><USER19> At least with Netflix, you can get their Appliances and cut your inbound Netflix bandwidth by 80%+ for the cost of power and 4U.

<comment><USER20> Yeah, if you have at least 5 Gbps of Netflix traffic on your network...

No small or startup ISP is going to qualify for a Netflix appliance. Also to cut your Netflix bandwidth by 80+%, you need more than 6 Gbps of Netflix traffic, as Netflix requires 1.2 Gbps of inbound bandwidth just to fill the cache.

Netflix share of Internet traffic is about 15-20%, so in practice Netflix appliances are used by ISPs with 25-35 Gbps of bandwidth and up. This means ISPs with tens of thousands of subscribers or more.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER21> Imagine the infrastructure needed for water, sewage, electricity, a natural gas network or even roads. Now compare the price to internet.

<comment><USER22> This is why you never read stories about a man running a sewage treatment system from his garage.

<comment><USER19> Here you go: [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eqg4evnkL_g](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eqg4evnkL_g)

Just an off-grid, but looks like he's replicated the primary & secondary treatment processes.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER23> It was eminently feasible to run a home ISP from a garage back in the day.

</comment><comment><USER24> Isn't there any LTE around and what about FTTH ?

</comment><comment><USER24> Isn't there any LTE technology around ? What about FTTH ?</comment>


Tell HN: Simple Security tips - <AUTHOR>

Simple things that you can do to increase your security without overhauling your whole system. <comment><AUTHOR> Drop signatures from servers and packages used to build your applications.

The reason is that there are malicious crawlers that build up databases of version numbers and packages, then if a package exploit is announced you'll be visited very quickly by some joker to try to subvert your code.

There are those who do it 'blind', but by giving them an exact target you make it easier for them.

For instance, PHP puts a signature header in to Apaches headers by default, so does apache.

Most frameworks contain a default backlink to the maker of the frame work at the bottom of the templates and so on.

Removing these isn't going to make the vulnerabilities go away, but it might give you a little bit more time to plug the hole if one is found without being compromised.

</comment><comment><USER2> Quite easily done is moving ssh to a non standard port. Similarly force it to use public key only authentication and/or only allow specific users/groups to login. Furthermore fail2ban or similar systems help prevent brute force attacks on ssh.

You can also use something like pound, which is surprisingly easy to configure, in front of your main webserver and let is sanitise everything as it comes in.

I would recommend having a firewall which allows only the bare minimum required, ie. http(s) and ssh, anything else you can set up to port forward through ssh without too much of an issue.

<comment><USER3> While we're on the subject of SSH, you should also cut off password authentication over it. Just require the use of public-private key pairs instead.

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> \- denyhosts

\- +1 Drop signatures from servers and packages used to build your applications

\- run nmap against your own system to make sure you haven't left any unnecessary ports open

\- run nikto against your own system and remediate

Cheers

</comment><comment><USER3> I try to keep a watchful eye on the 404s reported by nginx and the 500s generated by the rest of my stack. Gives you an idea of which exploits people are trying to use against you. And how frequent or big of a target you are to them.

</comment><comment><USER5> Stopping SQL injections is obvious, but a lot fewer people remember to stop CSRF attacks, which can be solved pretty simply with one-time use tokens on forms.</comment>


Facebook fined €110M for giving misleading information about WhatsApp takeover - <AUTHOR> https://ec.europa.eu/commission/commissioners/2014-2019/vestager/announcements/competition-and-rule-law_en <comment><AUTHOR> Here's the press release: [http://europa.eu/rapid/press- release_IP-17-1369_en.htm](http://europa.eu/rapid/press- release_IP-17-1369_en.htm)</comment>


FCC Vote Means Internet Providers Need Permission to Share Your Data - <AUTHOR> http://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2016/10/27/499606251/fcc-vote-means-internet-providers-need-permission-to-share-your-data <comment><USER2> Interestingly there seems to be a loophole in that they can _collect_ the data regardless of consent, but can't _use or share_ it without consent. So chances are this sensitive data will be recorded and put in a database anyway, even if they're not lawfully allowed to look at it without anonymizing first - but a future law could also add an exception, keeping things for law enforcement for instance.

I'm triple checking with the FCC on this though.

<comment><USER3> This will probably just turn into a line in the terms and agreements that everyone just clicks "yes" because they have to in order to use anything.

<comment><USER4> From christianmunoz's comment:

Copied this from another comment of [his] on this post, but it answers part of your question. From the FCC fact sheet[0] on the decision:

> The Order prohibits "take-it-or-leave-it" offers, meaning that an ISP can't > refuse to serve customers who don't consent to the use and sharing of their > information for commercial purposes.

So at least they can't cut you off entirely if you don't consent/opt-in.

[0] [http://transition.fcc.gov/Daily_Releases/Daily_Business/2016...](http://transition.fcc.gov/Daily_Releases/Daily_Business/2016..).

<comment><USER5> But can they charge a lot more if you don't consent?

<comment><USER6> As AT&T already did until right before the FCC started talking about this decision (and I'm sure they'll go right back to now that it's OK), charging $30 to opt out of their spying program, plus a bevy of one-time fees that are "waived" if you let them spy.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> This is completely pointless. They'll just add some form you have to sign before giving you service and that's about it.

After all, do you read and act on the privacy notifications other providers give you?

Does this at least require them to provider service irregardless of your consent to share data? If not, this is a pointless law that just makes it look like they did something.

<comment><USER2> You have to opt in and there can't be a penalty for opting out, the fact sheet says. That said, there may be a bonus for opting in — perks or whatnot. That will have to be settled separately, probably.

<comment><USER8> it's really hard for me to understand what the meaningful difference would be between penalty for opting out vs. bonus for opting in. don't those amount to the same thing, in practice?

<comment><USER2> heh pretty much yes, though I'm sure someone can think of times it would be different. and since penalties for opting out are not allowed, the ISPs will have to be very careful how they structure such bonuses - they would have to be perks totally separate from the service they provide is my guess.

<comment><USER9> It probably has to do with the advertised price.

They probably can't advertise service as $49.95, then add an additional $20 charge if you opt-in to the privacy plan.

They probably would need to at minimum advertise both prices in their marketing copy.

<comment><USER10> >then add an additional $20 charge if you opt-in to the privacy plan

probably not a viable option because a VPN offers complete privacy from the ISP, and only costs $5/month.

<comment><USER11> VPNs are completely out of the question for the vast majority of internet users, who the FCC is mainly concerned about protecting.

<comment><USER10> How so? They're easy to set up, especially with a compatible router.

<comment><USER9> I mean... why is it hard for the majority of users to use linux?

Why is it hard for the majority of users to use a password manager?

Because most people on the planet are _busy_ and _don 't give a damn_.

<comment><USER12> Right, so it's not at all out of reach. You can configure your OS to use a VPN in under a minute, in my experience. Maybe five, if you were following directions.

It also takes a few minutes to change your smoke-detector batteries...

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER13> I'm sure this will lead to radical alterations on paragraph 117 of the typical EULA, where everyone will notice it immediately and have a serious think about the economic value of their personal identifiable information. I have not looked at the actual motion yet but I suspect that companies will only have to answer consumer inquiries in general terms rather than giving them detailed statement. Oh well I've given up trying to safeguard my privacy anyway.

<comment><USER14> Does a 60 page EULA count as an explicit yes under this?

<comment><USER13> It'll take several years of litigation for anyone determined enough to get a straight answer to that question.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER15> If the data is collected at all, it can be collected incorrectly (e.g. stored in such a way that it is stolen eventually, "permissions" be damned). Still solving the wrong fundamental issue.

We desperately need to work on reducing the importance of data itself. We must assume by default that all information _will_ be improperly handled pretty much anywhere (or, that the task of keeping it secure indefinitely is just too hard).

That means: data whose usefulness expires extremely quickly (with corresponding protocols), and the complete retirement of stupid bits of information we now carry like social security numbers and credit card numbers that can instantly screw you in the wrong hands. In fact, we ought to have proxies for EVERYTHING; I don't know why I even have to hand out my home address, for instance, when in theory I could give a company some temporary proxy address that routes to my house only as long as I ALLOW that forwarding; after that, it becomes meaningless and cannot be used for junk mail.

</comment><comment><USER16> I wish the UK had this. Mobile phone/data providers send a header with HTTP requests to provide the site with your phone number which they can then use to charge you without permission.

<comment><USER17> Wow seriously? That is semi-terrifying.

<comment><USER18> Terrifying, horrifying, amazing... none of these words have any impact left after huffpo and buzzfeed have watered them down to meaninglessness. They get to join "evil" on the scrapheap of linguistic history.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER19> I am kind of surprised that this wasn't already regulated, considering that telephone privacy has been an issue for decades. Perhaps this is a case of an unwritten common-sense policy that is only being codified when ISPs start to break it (e.g. AT&T's now-canceled "Internet Preferences").

<comment><USER20> Only landline phones have that kind of protection.

<comment><USER19> By that logic I have wired Internet so...

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER21> In theory they were supposed to have my permission before sharing with the government too... right? Not sure what this stops.

Think of it like when you authorize facebook or someone else to share data via OAuth, how many people read that list?

<comment><USER22> B2B and B2G are a whole different ball-game. In B2B scenario they are exposed to class-action lawsuit for bad-behavior or government fine. In B2G scenario really only thing individual citizen can do is take it to the supreme court.

</comment></comment><comment><USER23> Maybe they can now regulate that ISPs can not modify IP payload?

What world are we living in where the post service is allowed to rip open mail and deface it.

<comment><USER19> The FCC has spent years fighting for net neutrality.

<comment><USER23> I'm not sure yours and their definition of net neutrality overlaps much.

I personally don't think "not modifying user data" above IP is much of a net neutrality issue either; it should be a felony issue, as is tampering with mail.

<comment><USER24> That would require a legal definition of tcp traffic as federal mail. AFAIK there's no such definition.

(I agree with you, for what it's worth... I just don't see a path by which it's possible under current law)

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER25> I wonder if this applies to airport or arena wifi. Would they be considered an ISP if they are providing internet to mobile devices?

<comment><USER26> No, an ISP does more than provide the routers that broadcast internet.

</comment></comment><comment><USER27> "Commissioner Ajit Pai, who voted no, cautioned that the "cold reality" is that nothing in the new rules will stop those companies from "harvesting and monetizing your data," including the websites visited, YouTube videos watched or search terms entered on any device."

Any reasonable person reading that would infer that Pai thinks that these rules are not sufficient and is in favor of stricter rules. That turns out not to be the case at all.

</comment><comment><USER28> Remember the hoo-haa when Wheeler was appointed chairman of the FCC? He seems to have proven his detractors wrong.

</comment><comment><USER29> ..because the fact that your _paying_ them, along with the general morality, is in itself not enough of an inducement.

</comment><comment><USER30> About time

<comment> Spartan-S63 I agree. I'm also glad they specified "opt-in" consent and not "opt-out." They can't start collecting your data without your prior knowledge and authorization. This is a good thing.

Next step would be to disallow hijacking and data insertion into your stream of data. It would be a step towards cementing ISPs role as a dumb carrier of data.

<comment><USER31> Does this also preclude ISPs from not allowing you access to higher tiers of service without consenting to data collection? That is that in addition to requiring an opt-in they can't incentivize it at all by giving users who don't opt-in a degraded experience.

<comment><USER32> I was able to find an answer to at least part of this question in the FCC fact sheet[0] on the decision.

> The Order prohibits "take-it-or-leave-it" offers, meaning that an ISP can't > refuse to serve customers who don't consent to the use and sharing of their > information for commercial purposes.

So at least they can't cut you off entirely if you don't consent/opt-in.

[0] [http://transition.fcc.gov/Daily_Releases/Daily_Business/2016...](http://transition.fcc.gov/Daily_Releases/Daily_Business/2016/db1027/DOC-341938A1.pdf)

Edit: source

<comment><USER33> Interesting - so looks like UVerse's policies may still be permitted (ie, you pay more for privacy).

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER34> No matter what anyone says, it's prudent to assume that everything is logged.

</comment><comment><USER35> We have a monopoly. Sign this or you don't get internet.

<comment><USER36> Which is the absolute first thing they thought of.

ISPs are not allowed to refuse you service for opting out and they're also not allowed to make you "pay for privacy". We'll see how strictly this is applied but it implies that they're also not allowed to weasel out of it by giving a 'discount' to people who opt-in.

</comment></comment><comment><USER37> It's there any way to obfuscate my browsing data? As in a program that visits random sites. I've searched but never found something like this.

</comment><comment><USER38> After this comes an "update" to your privacy statement where you have to agree or you loose service...

</comment><comment><USER39> "the vote was 3-2 along party lines"

for real?

</comment><comment><USER40> Permission like an android app

</comment><comment><USER41> lots of power for an entity of unelected officials....

<comment><USER42> They are legally empowered by elected officials, just like the police, the courts, the entire Justice Department, military, State Department, NIH, NSF, IEEE (for some things), and many, many more.

What alternative is there? Our elected officials can't possibly have the time or the expertise to perform all those tasks themselves.

<comment><USER36> If Congress legally empowered an un-elected five person 'Super Congress' that wielded the power of Congress itself to make laws independently would you feel like your voice at the ballot box was being undermined?

I'm not saying the US regulatory agencies are at that point, but I would feel better about them if their power was more directly checked by the Executive branch.

Instead of "FCC voted today on a new ISP resulations..." it would be "Today President Obama approves new FCC recommendation...".

<comment><USER28> > I would feel better about them if their power was more directly checked by > the Executive branch.

They can. The executive can always modify or repeal the act that defines their constitution and authority.

<comment><USER43> _> The executive can always modify or repeal the act that defines their constitution and authority._

Um, what? Once it's signed into law (which the acts that empower agencies like the FCC are), the executive branch can't modify the law at all. Only Congress can. The only thing the executive can do is veto a bill when it comes, to prevent it from becoming law in the first place.

<comment><USER28> > Only Congress can.

Sorry, I should have said 'government'. There are three branches of the US government : the legislature, the judiciary, and the executive. You have a say in all of them though. Don't you vote in your congress-people and senators?

So...

They can. The government can always modify or repeal the act that defines their constitution and authority. They're your representative. If you don't like an act, get them to change it.

<comment><USER43> _> I should have said 'government'._

Ah, ok. Yes, the government--specifically the legislative branch--can always modify or repeal a law.

 _> The government can always modify or repeal the act that defines their constitution and authority._

If by "their" you mean "the FCC's" (or some other agency), then yes. But if by "their" you mean "the government's" in general, it's not so easy. A Constitutional amendment has a much higher threshold of passage than a simple law. It takes a 2/3 majority of both houses of Congress to propose an amendment, and then it takes 3/4 of the states ratifying it before it actually can take effect.

 _> If you don't like an act, get them to change it._

Sure, as long as enough other voters agree with you to get their attention. Which practically never happens.

<comment><USER28> > A Constitutional amendment has a much higher threshold of passage than a > simple law.

You are misunderstanding the word 'constitution'. Every company and regulatory body has one. It defines who does what, and the 'what you can do, and more importantly, what you should do' of a regulatory body is defined within the act. It is not the 'american constitution'. It is created and modified during the regular practice of government with the creation and modification of an act. Every democratic government, and indeed, even non-democratic ones, does it roughly the same way. If it didn't happen this way, cars would still be driving with lead petrol.

> Sure, as long as enough other voters agree with you to get their attention.

It happens all of the time.

You know dude, I'm not really sure you know how the government functions. This is what they do, and there are so many levels of it. It's true that large multi-state regulatory bodies have larger impacts, and therefore require more support, in order to be enacted. But they get created in the first place for a reason, and end up getting modified for a reason. Your representatives create and modify acts that allocate funds to fund regulatory bodies to enforce laws. That's democracy. That's how it works.

<comment><USER43> _> You are misunderstanding the word 'constitution'._

If you want to use that word in an unusual way, that's fine; but I didn't understand that that's how you were using it in reference to regulatory bodies created by US statutes. ("Statute", btw, is the usual way of referring to laws that tell what regulatory bodies can and should do.)

 _> You know dude, I'm not really sure you know how the government functions._

You know, I'm not really sure you know how to describe how the government functions using proper terminology. If you had said "statute" in the first place, which, as above, is the correct term for what you are referring to, I would have understood what you said right away. But you didn't.

 _> Your representatives create and modify acts that allocate funds to fund regulatory bodies to enforce laws._

Yes, and these are called "statutes", not a "constitution".

<comment><USER28> In different countries it is called different things. The point being, you can change it through your elected representatives if you so choose.</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment>


Titanium: Project to prevent criminal use of the dark web and virtual currencies - <AUTHOR> http://cordis.europa.eu/news/rcn/141335_en.html <comment><USER2> tldr: "...develop efficient and effective forensics tools enabling the reasonable use of different types of data from different sources including virtual currency ledgers, online forums, peer-to-peer networks of underground markets, and seized devices."

</comment><comment><USER3> Bitcoin isn't really anonymous. Transactions are in a ledger. Isn't think why people use rollers to redistribute coins?

<comment><USER4> this is why I'm surprised zcash and monero haven't taken over the markets.

<comment><USER5> Zcash is anonymous by option only (transparent addresses and secret addresses). If you ask me that kind of defeats the point. It will raise questions like 'why did you choose an anonymous address?'. Optional privacy hurts the people who need to be private.

<comment><USER6> Zcash also relies on a trusted setup: a master private key was used to initiate it, and that you have to trust the key was destroyed. If someone had a copy of that key, they could create infinite coins without detection.

People have to decide whether they want to trust that a copy of the key wasn't made, or if they want to use a trustless setup.

Monero doesn't require trust, and it's also private by default.

<comment><USER5> There are actually more problems, but I didn't want to go off topic. Like about how the developers get paid a certain percentage. Someone made the calculations to be about $3m a year for all the developers combined each year. I know that they deserve to get compensated, but that goes completely off what cryptocurrencies stand for.

Like the whole thing seems to be riding on the concept of zk-SNARKS, but the fact of the matter is, there is already Monero which offers the privacy aspect that zcoin advertises (but fails to deliver on that too)

<comment><USER6> What ktta is talking about is the 10% Founders Reward that goes to the company and its investors.

For those that may read this who don't know, Zcash is a company. It's Founder and CEO wrote this on Twitter:

> I think we can successfully make Zcash too traceable for criminals like > WannaCry, but still completely private & fungible.

[https://twitter.com/zooko/status/863202798883577856](https://twitter.com/zooko/status/863202798883577856)

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> >funded by the European Union aimed at developing technical solutions for investigating and mitigating crime and __terrorism __involving virtual currencies and underground market transactions.

Has there EVER been a terrorism situation that involved the dark web and/or bitcoin? This smells like a power grab feeding on fear.

</comment><comment><USER8> Will they require some kind of license to purchase and/or sell crypto currency?

This de facto criminalization ad then licensing the privilege (nay right) to utilize these tools is a step in the wrong direction.

<comment><USER9> You need a license to operate a currency exchange why would digital currency be any different?

The large bitcoin exchanges already comply with many if not most financial regulations.

You can't setup a shadow economy valued in the billions without governments taking note and moving to regulate it.</comment></comment>


The dubious distinction, and literary legacy, of Leo Szilard - <AUTHOR> https://hazlitt.net/longreads/nuclear-fail <comment><USER2> Bizarre and ultimately bad essay. The author seems to want to convince us that she knows more about Szilard than she will ever tell. She calls Szilard "Leo" while referring to everyone else by surname. She's dismissive of Szilard and his legacy without ever giving evidence the man was less than a genius. She twice mentions Szilard's insistence on designing his own radiotherapy, but fails to mention that this saved not only his own life, but became standard and saved countless lives subsequently (including that of my maternal grandfather).

<comment><USER3> Perhaps worth mentioning that Paul Erdős had a somewhat vagabondish lifestyle as well - I suspect refugee experience.

Back in the early 80s, Rudolf Peierls did a talk to about a hundred of us at Birmingham University about the war, quantum mechanics and Heisenberg. It must have seemed desperate in 1940 in the dark days with worries about family &c.

<comment><USER4> Edit: Confused Ulam and Szilard

<comment><USER5> I think you're confusing Ulam with Szilard. I'm not sure Szilard even comes up in _Indiscrete Thoughts_

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> Szilard features prominently in Richard Rhodes' "The Making of the Atomic Bomb." Definitely worth the read if you have an interest in early nuclear science. Really filled in a lot of details about scientists that I remember learning about in school but never knew much about personally. Highly recommend it!

<comment><USER7> Superb book, perhaps the finest non-fiction book I've had the pleasure of reading. I love the way he is able to create a narrative that goes all the way back to H. G. Wells to find its roots.

Rhodes' follow-up, "Dark Sun: The Making Of The Hydrogen Bomb", basically continues the story where TMAB left off. The narrative gets a bit more fractured and factual, focused on the question of how to safeguard nuclear weapons and what their political/military/diplomatic purpose is. But it does wrap up the J. Robert Oppenheimer story.

Once one has read these two, I strongly recommend "American Prometheus: The Triumph and Tragedy of J. Robert Oppenheimer" [2] by Bird and Sherwin. Also extremely well written.

[1] [https://www.amazon.com/Dark-Sun-Making-Hydrogen- Bomb/dp/0684...](https://www.amazon.com/Dark-Sun-Making-Hydrogen- Bomb/dp/0684824140)

[2] [https://www.amazon.com/American-Prometheus-Triumph- Tragedy-O...](https://www.amazon.com/American-Prometheus-Triumph-Tragedy- Oppenheimer/dp/0375726268)

<comment><USER8> we have the same bookshelf apparently! have you read any other non-fiction greatest hits tomes, like Power Broker?

<comment><USER9> as we all have the same bookshelf here, the next brick over on mine is Daniel Yergin's "The Prize". amazing work on the history of oil

<comment><USER10> "The Prize" is fantastic, as is the associated (7 hour!) PBS-produced documentary that's available in its entirety on youtube. [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n1stQW6i1Ko](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n1stQW6i1Ko) The actual in-person interviews with oil execs who were in the room during nationalization are amazing!

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> That's an interesting focus on his schlubbiness but in a way it makes it even more curious that, over the long term he was more (and more fundamentally) influential than most of his much more politically and socially savvy colleagues. Even if you just take the start and end points - set the gears that led to the Manhattan project in motion, convinced the leaders of the two nuclear superpowers to install a hotline, it's not half bad, for a Martian.

</comment><comment><USER11> I love the description by Richard Rhodes of Szilard's crossing of the road in London when he realised the possibility of a chain reaction:

 _" The stoplight changed to green. Szilard stepped off the curb. As he crossed the street time cracked open before him and he saw a way to the future, death into the world and all our woes, the shape of things to come"_

[https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/the-curious- wavefunctio...](https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/the-curious- wavefunction/leo-szilard-a-traffic-light-and-a-slice-of-nuclear-history/)

</comment><comment><USER12> This article is riddled with errors. Voice of the Dolphins contained 4 short- stories. Article says 8. Seriously?

<comment><USER13> She also calls Nikita Khrushchev _Nikolai Kruschev_.

<comment><USER12> Yes, error after error. The intent of the article, clearly, is to attack Szilard. It poses as a review of Voice of the Dolphins, but there's little evidence that she even read it.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER14> While there are some amusing anecdotes in the article, the characterization of Szilard as a failure is baffling.</comment>


Show HN: Snake game in the real projective plane - <AUTHOR> http://alas.matf.bg.ac.rs/~mm16310/software/snake.html <comment><AUTHOR> Classic game snake located in the fundamental polygon of the real projective plane. Below game is also a short and dirty introduction to topology concepts from the game.</comment>


Biotech Companies in YC - <AUTHOR> Does anyone have experience with applying/interviewing for biotech/pharmaceutical companies at YC? We just submitted a late application. <comment><USER2> You might want to edit and prepend an "ASK HN: "

</comment><comment><USER3> We would also love to hear any advice that YC biotech veterans can offer!</comment>