HN user
And in fact they did just this when their vaults started bleeding money on an unfavourable position (JellyJelly). They handed out a closed source binary and the validators ran it immediately, closing out the market at an arbitrary price.
Hyperliquid being on chain in the traditional sense is fiction. You have a closed source piece of software run by closely controlled "validators" with additionally centralised components.
I think you would be surprised just how close to this depth of field look you can get with phone cameras these days. Its mostly digitally enhanced but it takes a real good eye to tell the difference.
Slightly off topic: Is the git frontend [1] open source? If not, are there some very light self hosting ones like it?
It doesn't by itself, but it's a much better start. You can simply match up addresses with activity from other digital systems. That link is present in a global, transparent, up to the minute, cheap to ingest data source (the blockchain).
Comparing that to any other payment system (or combination of) where there is due process in collecting this information (hopefully accurate and valid) you're going to have a much easier time developing tools to detect and alert with Bitcoin.
Do you see any reason why the GBA couldn't perform the role of a hardware wallet? Secure element excluded of course.
A cryptocurrency is generally more easily spendable in an open market. The sell potential that a founder has with 75% of the supply is massive.
If I created a coin today and sold 1% of the supply to you alone, on what basis would you want to store any value in that currency? Given constant buy demand, The currency's market value is defined by what I do. This is why organic price discovery for a currency is important.
I can't remember the last time I could use paper cash. Beyond your daily groceries, everything is usually exclusively paid for digitally.
Surveillance on daily spends is not valuable. What's valuable is things connected to your identity, specifically associations with other individuals and companies.
Transacting the coin itself rarely has any energy footprint. It's the security of the network that requires the mining and that is very separate to signal using it.
Unless the idea is that by using another coin, they don't add to the security requirements. That's a dubious line of thinking.
This is so great to see. One of the big issues with IPFS was that ultimately the end users were mostly using public http gateways and not contributing by "pinning" the content. That is not distributed and therefore as centralized as what we had. There was no easy mechanism for end users to pin the content.
I hope that local nodes and pinning become default from here on.
A common defense in favor of Signal is, “But it’s all open source!”. Sure is, but on what basis do I trust them? ...
The open source aspect for me means 2 things.
- I can verify the e2e encryption claim.
- I can reproduce the client builds ensuring that what I run matches the source [1]
Is there a detail relating to the server that would invalidate this?
[1] https://github.com/signalapp/Signal-Android/tree/master/repr...
What I struggle to understand is why the capital can be used with no fee (dydx - 2 wei). Why would someone contribute to such a pool that pays no interest as opposed to staking or lending somewhere else?
This practice is called "Brand bidding" and is actually extremely common among competitors. Occasionally companies will mutually agree to not participate.
It's actually surprising why it's not perceived to be more hostile.
I took 5 seconds to verify my balance and 5 more seconds to share this with you:
https://btc.monokh.com/address/tb1qfapwkjkhe5vh592ypym6qj8k5...
In just about every way, digital bitcoin proofs are better than art collections in terms of display and verification.
- Is your art collection independently verifiable by everyone?
- How long does it take to verify your art?
- Can you share your original piece of art + an "original certificate" digitally with anyone in the world?
- Can you share your art collection without risk of theft or damage?
For Bitcoin, the answer to all those is yes and much more.
An asset being speculated on does not rule that it does not have inherent value. Every asset has a speculative component, just look at the stock market.
The beauty of a fiat currency is that you can maintain it's value simply by adjusting supply.
There is very little attractive about the idea that a group can devalue currency on a whim. That's exactly why people opt in to Bitcoin.
Is there any sign that there is an over-supply of dollar which would justify leaving the dollar until it is crashed?
Yes. Have you seen M1[1] this year?
[1] https://d3fy651gv2fhd3.cloudfront.net/embed/?s=unitedstamons...
Should we take this approach, there would be nothing left, including the internet on which we conversate here. There were these exact arguments present against it.
It's unfortunate but the reality is that every advancement in society can and will be used for illegal and immoral activity. It is a matter of the greater good.
We've seen wikileaks deplatformed and there are many more instances that don't come with a legal power. Not hard to imagine the same happening to "a platform promoting dangerous misinformation" as is the justification from YouTube.
That neutral money and banking system exists today. It's Bitcoin. There are caveats but fundamentally if fulfills this purpose.
Bitcoin doesn't appreciate on news. It's not a company and it doesn't necessarily have a product that is being constantly worked on. There is the odd software upgrade every few years but the core function never changes.
The value to which people are bidding is primarily 2 things.
1. Tolerance to threats, social or technological. This reduces with time.
2. Its increase in demand (yes, a lot of speculation) relative to the constant reduction of supply. I.e. scarcity.
Content with a certain age threshold triggers login. The last time I looked at this, embedding these videos was still possible without logging in. So there are definitely ways in accessing the content without authentication.
Doesn't seem so:
If a community member engages in .... up to and including expulsion from all Funkwhale spaces
A free, decentralised and open network with an enforced code of conduct? I cannot reconcile these 2 concepts.
If there is ever such a vulnerability in bitcoin that allows you to either
- Generate private keys at a rate in which you will be able to produce it in a reasonable time
or
- Outright reverse engineer the private key from the public key or other metadata
Then Bitcoin is broken and that 1bn is worth next to nothing.
In the past they have put it up for auction. [1]
You can send a transaction with a value and an output script of OP_RETURN (a bitcoin script instruction). These outputs are unspendable. [2]
[1] https://www.usmarshals.gov/assets/2020/febbitcoinauction/ [2] https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/OP_RETURN
1. Blocking Iranian IPs, as opposed to accounts, is almost certainly over-compliance. Note that the vast majority of websites do not do this. Even big ones, such as Gmail, do not do this.
How do you define an iranian account? It's a complicated rule set there. Iranians not legally resident in Iran are exempt from the sanctions for example.
I feel like IP bans are correct. If you're evading sanctions and internet censorship, you use whatever proxy and many do just this. Companies under these sanctions can write it off as not being the wiser and the users get to where they need to.
Closing accounts with an IP login from Iran does feel like an unnecessary step here.
Scale probably. Trademark protection is too costly to conduct on an individual basis. The easiest solution is to fire and forget.
They have also replied indicating something to this effect. https://twitter.com/Raspberry_Pi/status/1318494942478635009
"This letter was automatically sent to"
Your argument is essentially (a) and (b) combined. That you don't find it valuable (however you choose to define "necessary") and you envision that the environmental impact could be lower and still provide the same function.
PoW is not like leaving the tap on. It's a deliberate use of energy with incentives that attempt to provide a benefit. That is a censorship resistant monetary base and payment network.
When you say you find it a waste, you are either saying:
a) There is a less resource intensive way of doing bitcoin
b) That the claimed benefits are not true or you don't value it
(a) has had plenty of tries without success.
In case of (b), you don't have to participate, it's an entirely voluntary system. There are plenty of energy use cases around the world which don't benefit everyone.
2 identities knowing data came from each other due to the properties of public key encryption. Is this a good summary? For which use cases should this property come in handy?