mangodwango

I think what I’m missing is how a default works in this instance. If I establish a 200 unit mutual credit line with someone, spend 200, what does a default look like? Is there some time period in which I have to pay it back? Without collateral it seems that there isn’t a way to enforce payment.

If I buy a good, from someone accepting offset do they pay me back in credit the value of the good that they deliver? Thus netting us back to zero?

Thanks for answering my questions.

It’s a fantastic idea, but it’s also dead on arrival without first hand integration into Chrome. Brave is doing something similar with bats, but even that is limited. I think browser based mining is a huge deal, but Google has somehow managed to convince everyone that is malware instead of a legitimate threat to their business model.

This is interesting, but I’m really skeptical about the implementation. I’d really kind to see a much more concrete specification, and details about adversarial conditions.

It feels like it’s easy to create identities, establish credit lines with no intent to repay, and propagate bad money into this system. It only takes one bad actor to corrupt the chain of mutual credit. From the documentation on the website it’s not clear at all how it handles even simple adversarial conditions like this. The fallback seems to be that you can limit what you are willing to lose by only establishing mutual credit up to a certain amount with each trusted party.

If a store doesn’t have a direct relationship with me it has to initiate a payment between an arbitrary number of intermediaries in order to fulfill the credit. Anyone have more insight into the practical application of mutual transitive credit?

I would like to see a review of what it’s like to work on these environments. My sense is that the resolution and weight are real problems, but maybe that isn’t true anymore.

There is something appealing about being able to boot up a multi screen completely isolated environment for deep work.

This is something that can absolutely be decentralized. Problems aside namecoin shows that it can be done. The entire domain name system needs to be overhauled, central certificate authorities need to be avoided.

The internet in general is infrastructure, and protocols that are increasingly controlled by governments and organizations in bed with governments.

Except he didn’t excuse it, he said rape transcends age of consent laws which are dependent entirely on jurisdiction. Do you disagree with that? He may have phrased it in an unfortunate way, but that is how I parsed it.

Sticking to the facts is exactly the problem here, everyone gets so wrapped up in their moral outrage and presumed superiority that they aren’t looking at what this guy actually said.

His Behavior being commenting or having opinions on things we don’t agree with? I think he should be able to say whatever he wants, and further that in this instance his comments have been taken wildly out of context.

I hate this morality police sweeping in saying that he simply can’t talk about this because it is forbidden, wrong, etc. The majority should not decide what is ok speech or thought, we should judge him by what he has actually done, and challenge his thoughts directly with reasoned argument rather than immediately dismiss and denounce anything that isn’t in the moral majority.

Bingo. The absurdity of this, let’s create something that by their own admission is worth hundreds of millions for a few thousand dollars and some street cred. Also, VDF is probably worth much more than that if it can be effectively done.