Jabanga

9 ms·

31.
by Jabanga 9y ago
I don't understand what you're suggesting would be different if it were regulated.
32.
by Jabanga 9y ago
>In order to send any transaction on Ethereum, you are required to pay a small fee to the Ethereum network. We call the amount used to pay these fees “gas” (like money for gas to make your car run). The network sets the “gas price” (the
33.
by Jabanga 9y ago
It's a web of trust with its federation servers. Reliance on large trusted third parties meets my definition of centralized. The economic majority will be highly vulnerable to regulatory pressure, due to trust collation. That regulated
34.
by Jabanga 9y ago
Stellar is centralized, so any tokens issued on it are at risk of one day being frozen through court/regulatory order. Ethereum has the critical mass of supporting infrastructure (all the wallets and services that are compatible with E
35.
by Jabanga 9y ago
>If simple payments was all that was envisioned we wouldn't have needed that. I didn't say that. I said there was no code added with the intention of making payment channels possible. The claim that there was is based on nothin
36.
by Jabanga 9y ago
It doesn't have anything that could be argued to be intended for payment channels.
37.
KEVM: A Complete Semantics of the Ethereum Virtual Machine(ideals.illinois.edu)
3 points by Jabanga 9y ago|0 comments
38.
by Jabanga 9y ago
It did not have payment channel code. There is nothing to indicate that the nLockTime field was originally intended for use in payment channels. There is no source for when the conversation between Satoshi and the developer, in which Satosh
39.
by Jabanga 9y ago
The amount of time they've spent discussing and analyzing these things has nothing to do with their contribution to the source code. There are plenty of people who have spent thousands of hours discussing the various trade offs, attack
40.
by Jabanga 9y ago
>When actual broker-dealers (like TD Ameritrade, ETrade etc) start trading tokenized securities offerings, it will be extremely advantageous because they have much more robust infrastructure and trillions of dollars of assets under manag
41.
by Jabanga 9y ago
>These guys are the researchers and engineers with the deepest understanding of decentralization, game theory, and adversarial blockchain design. These guys don't have the deepest understanding of any of those things. The minutia of
42.
by Jabanga 9y ago
>What we don't know yet is how to pay people for those behaviors, because many of those screenplays and books and inventions will not be able to command a sufficiently high market price, but this is where the issue of some kind of h
43.
The ICO Craze Is Only Getting Bigger – $600M Raised in Last 30 Days(huffingtonpost.com)
1 points by Jabanga 9y ago|0 comments
44.
by Jabanga 9y ago
Great article
45.
by Jabanga 9y ago
Even if we eliminated money, we would be automating work to benefit us. That's the root motivation.
46.
by Jabanga 9y ago
>Floyd can say whatever he wants to say, he just needs to warn people that they might not be able to weather the loss. While I am least opposed to generic disclosure requirements (as opposed to a requirement of getting the approval of an
47.
by Jabanga 9y ago
Right, but that doesn't mean digital token sales are securities offerings until proven otherwise. The recent SEC communication did not assert that, and only concluded that DAO tokens, which are among the most security-like tokens to be
48.
by Jabanga 9y ago
The price floor worked as intended. It meant that those who wanted to get their money out had ample time to do so, and the result was Bancor effectively returning a large chunk of the ETH sent to it.
49.
by Jabanga 9y ago
>but basically until Stox proves that it isn't a security, then securities regulations apply That's not how it works.
50.
by Jabanga 9y ago
>No one is saying the SEC exists to prevent Floyd from saying what he wants to say. The SEC exists to protect less informed investors from being influenced by what Floyd says. By preventing Floyd from saying what he wants to say.
51.
by Jabanga 9y ago
Beyond the intellectual debate on net economic effect, we should have the humility to not punish people with legal penalties for actions that are fundamentally voluntary.
52.
by Jabanga 9y ago
>There's no dangerous precedent/slippery slope The parent comment gave a prediction of Monero being banned by exchanges. That is the electronic equivalent of banning cash deposits. >E.g. you can legally sell stuff for a brie
53.
by Jabanga 9y ago
The attitude expressed in the article, of assuming one group of adults has a right to create laws restricting what is offered in the marketplace to other groups of adults, to protect the latter from their own naivety and bad judgement, is i
54.
by Jabanga 9y ago
>it's not imprecise to say that a more complex code base that didn't follow the best approach available likely has a bug. It is imprecise because the Parity multisig bug is an outlier. There are numerous contracts both by &#x27
55.
by Jabanga 9y ago
Consumers can rely on certification labels to simplify product assessment. The certification can even be provided by the government! It just doesn't need to be mandatory. Those who want [private-market-label/government-certified&#
56.
by Jabanga 9y ago
>I think I fear that marketing forces are stronger than consumer knowledge. I fear regulations for that reason. If political marketers convince voters to elect some puppet for special interests, who imposes regulations mandating I use so
57.
by Jabanga 9y ago
The certification programs on the market are excellent. The problem is there is no certification program for the problem elucidated by the parent comment. This is an entrepreneurial opportunity. >We have already plenty of certification c
58.
by Jabanga 9y ago
This is not a bank or cryptoexchange. It's an electronic currency. Your equating of banks/cryptoexchange, which are subject to FinCen regulations on currency conversion, with electronic currency is intellectually dishonest. It&#x2
59.
by Jabanga 9y ago
>Subsequently I expect to see Monero delisted from any exchange that follows KYC after some pressure from law enforcement. This would be a very dangerous precedent for the cause of privacy. It's the financial equivalent of banning e
60.
by Jabanga 9y ago
Consumers don't need to be experts to discover organizations that use experts to create standards for safe food, and only buy products certified by said organization. Regulation is about controlling what other people buy, which I find

More ›