← Back to context Comment by altruios 2 days ago ...again: liability is the key issue. Cost savings a not exactly an isolated issue here. 6 comments altruios Reply 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. 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. altruios 2 days ago does this assume a maximum of one malicious bookkeeper? 1 reply → 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. 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. altruios 2 days ago does this assume a maximum of one malicious bookkeeper? 1 reply →
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. altruios 2 days ago does this assume a maximum of one malicious bookkeeper? 1 reply →
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.
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.
Regardless of how correct they are, they assume liability: which is a metric that you do not improve with more bookkeepers.
But what if the third bookkeeper is malicious? You need at least four bookkeepers to achieve byzantine fault tolerance with f=1.
does this assume a maximum of one malicious bookkeeper?
1 reply →
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.