← Back to context Comment by murderfs 2 days ago Presumably your current book keeper is not your slave, and you have to pay them... 7 comments murderfs Reply altruios 2 days ago ...again: liability is the key issue. Cost savings a not exactly an isolated issue here. murderfs 2 days ago Then why only have one human bookkeeper? Surely two would be better, since you can compare their results. But then, perhaps you should hire three, so you can figure out which one is right. deno 2 days ago But what if the third bookkeeper is malicious? You need at least four bookkeepers to achieve byzantine fault tolerance with f=1. 2 replies → altruios 2 days ago Regardless of how correct they are, they assume liability: which is a metric that you do not improve with more bookkeepers. CamperBob2 2 days ago Got some bad news for you about that "liability" thing: it's always been on you. Read the fine print on your tax forms sometime.
altruios 2 days ago ...again: liability is the key issue. Cost savings a not exactly an isolated issue here. murderfs 2 days ago Then why only have one human bookkeeper? Surely two would be better, since you can compare their results. But then, perhaps you should hire three, so you can figure out which one is right. deno 2 days ago But what if the third bookkeeper is malicious? You need at least four bookkeepers to achieve byzantine fault tolerance with f=1. 2 replies → altruios 2 days ago Regardless of how correct they are, they assume liability: which is a metric that you do not improve with more bookkeepers. CamperBob2 2 days ago Got some bad news for you about that "liability" thing: it's always been on you. Read the fine print on your tax forms sometime.
murderfs 2 days ago Then why only have one human bookkeeper? Surely two would be better, since you can compare their results. But then, perhaps you should hire three, so you can figure out which one is right. deno 2 days ago But what if the third bookkeeper is malicious? You need at least four bookkeepers to achieve byzantine fault tolerance with f=1. 2 replies → altruios 2 days ago Regardless of how correct they are, they assume liability: which is a metric that you do not improve with more bookkeepers.
deno 2 days ago But what if the third bookkeeper is malicious? You need at least four bookkeepers to achieve byzantine fault tolerance with f=1. 2 replies →
altruios 2 days ago Regardless of how correct they are, they assume liability: which is a metric that you do not improve with more bookkeepers.
CamperBob2 2 days ago Got some bad news for you about that "liability" thing: it's always been on you. Read the fine print on your tax forms sometime.
...again: liability is the key issue. Cost savings a not exactly an isolated issue here.
Then why only have one human bookkeeper? Surely two would be better, since you can compare their results. But then, perhaps you should hire three, so you can figure out which one is right.
But what if the third bookkeeper is malicious? You need at least four bookkeepers to achieve byzantine fault tolerance with f=1.
2 replies →
Regardless of how correct they are, they assume liability: which is a metric that you do not improve with more bookkeepers.
Got some bad news for you about that "liability" thing: it's always been on you. Read the fine print on your tax forms sometime.