SailfishOS seems to run quite nicely, but has the limitations listed by you.PostmarketOS seems to run a tad worse, but is fully open source.Wouldn't it make sense to support both, because otherwise there's some danger of a chicken and egg situation:people don't use PostmarketOS, because it doesn't work well enough. People don't support PostmarketOS, because they don't use it.SailfishOS could pave the way for people using Linux phones and developing the need for completely open source ones after they realize the limitations of SailfishOS.I can see that happening to me at least, because I ordered a Jolla phone with SailfishOS, which will hopefully be delivered in a few months (batch #3). I chose SailfishOS over PostmarketOS because of their Android app compatibility layer being fully aware this part isn't open source and that I will eventually trying to get rid of that situation.The demand for having a Linux phone soon that may be able to become my daily driver was more pressing than facing the risk of getting frustrated by PostmarketOS.
They can log anything they want and have nothing useful, if the encryption protocol is sound.Have a look at how TLS is designed, if you want to know more.
And here I thought the E2EE of Whatsapp was based on the one developed by Signal or at least so they say.But I guess it's hard to inspect anything, if it's no open source software.I'm so glad there's SIgnal and a lot of my contacts use it.Back when it was called Textsecure it was a different story.
The gist of you comment is valid and points out a major flaw:miners need to operate at a gain.With shrinking amounts of BTC being created by the network for producing blocks (that reward getting halved each 210,000 blocks), that gain is at risk, because it can be doubted whether transaction fees can cover the gap.With that gain being at risk, the network security is going to be at risk.
Ethereum did the right thing and aligned ETH holders and block producers by switching from proof-of-work to proof-of-stake.That also reduced the ecological footprint to a tiny fraction of what it was before.
[...]problem is that difficulty adjustment is not automatic and its done only once every few months so [...]
Last time I checked it was automatic and done each 2.016 blocks, which should ideally take 14 days time (10 minutes per block at average).When the difficulty gets adjusted, it gets automatically set to a level, which would take exactly 14 days to mine the next 2.016 blocks.https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/Difficulty
I'm no friend of PoW in general and even less so of the way Bitcoin implemented it (resource hungry arms race for specialized hardware compared to PoW done only by general computing devices coughMonero), but insinuating there'd be some manual adjustment is disingenuous.
Isn't it the other way round?Difficulty drops because miners are losing money while mining and shut down miners, which by protocol makes the Bitcoin network adjust to the resulting difficulty (happens each 2.016 blocks afair).
Let more and more miners shut down and you get an idling amount of mining power capable of attacking the network. Why would they do that you may wonder. Well, shorting BTC, attacking the network and cashing in could be a way to recoup their losses. Mining equipment isn't cheap and letting it idle makes no money.I'm not saying this will happen soon or at all. I'm just saying it can happen. It's one of the flaws of proof of work (PoW).
I wholeheartedly agree!I installed Bazzite because I wanted an easy solution for my laptop with Nvidia GPU - now it's my daily driver and gaming is only a fraction of its job.
Similarities to the rise of unions come to mind.