carlosdp

41 ms·

451.
by carlosdp 7y ago
I wouldn't support that myself. This particular problem, payments, I think is an ok thing to solve on a global level though, since it's the same everywhere basically, and they are involving NGOs and non-profits so there is buy-in
452.
by carlosdp 7y ago
It's live in a "test net" at the moment, so developers can build on it. The test net is hosted by Facebook, through this year. When the "main net" launches, it'll need all 28 members to run validator nodes to s
453.
by carlosdp 7y ago
On the last point, true, but even before that, they only have 1 vote of 28 (100 by next year) companies.
454.
by carlosdp 7y ago
I agree with you on the reasoning, and I absolutely believe that is why Facebook is doing it this way. They know people would never trust a currency soley backed by them to start, so they solved that problem from the get go. Now it's j
455.
by carlosdp 7y ago
Those other stable-coins don't have the level of capitalization FB is targeting, don't have buy-in from existing payment networks like Libra does (Visa, Mastercard, Paypal, Stripe, etc.), and don't have a massive network of a
456.
by carlosdp 7y ago
You're absolutely right! This is basically trying to beat WeChat to these markets, but in a less-centralized way. These markets already have a lot of internet access and mobile phones, just not a lot of banking. This is Facebook's
457.
by carlosdp 7y ago
From that very page, second paragraph: "The association is governed by the Libra Association Council, which is comprised of one representative per validator node. Together, they make decisions on the governance of the network and reser
458.
by carlosdp 7y ago
I'm not saying you literally can't sell things in these countries, of course. I'm saying it has this massive barrier right now that creates a high threshold to entering and serving the market compared to the internet-enabled
459.
by carlosdp 7y ago
So, if you use Facebook's wallet app, I'm sure they'll use that data for themselves, of course, as with everything on Facebook. But you DO NOT need a Facebook account to use Libra, and Facebook CANNOT reverse lookup what non-
460.
by carlosdp 7y ago
They are already bought in as members in the Association, written in whatever bylaws for the Swiss non-profit. How does Facebook subvert that without violating Swiss law? And how do they control the currency when, by design (the source code
461.
by carlosdp 7y ago
No, it's a problem of how do you order the cool new toy being advertised to you on FB, online, if all you have is physical cash? You can't throw cash at your mobile phone (and 500m+ in these markets have internet and phones, and m
462.
by carlosdp 7y ago
No, they do not have full control from the start . Even in the current permissioned model. The 28 (will be 100) member companies do (or rather a majority vote of them do). But Facebook itself will not have full control, from the start. T
463.
by carlosdp 7y ago
- Facebook does not control Libra, it is 1 of 28 (will be 100 by 2020) companies (several are competitors) that do. Facebook developed it and will definitely have the largest wallet deployment (at least at first, likely for a good while), b
464.
by carlosdp 7y ago
Idk why this article is so high up here, it's not very good. - The article implies Facebook "already made money off Libra", that's false. That $270M goes to the non-profit Libra Association in Switzerland, of which Faceb
465.
by carlosdp 7y ago
Yea, the narrative in mainstream circles keep saying this is another data grab. It's understandable given Facebook's history, but it's ignoring the fact that they don't need more data to make this venture worthwhile. It&
466.
by carlosdp 7y ago
Part of the point before was that it's actually not many though...
467.
by carlosdp 7y ago
Maybe I missed it, but where is it arguing that censorship is good? I thought he was arguing the exact opposite, that it's bad and doesn't actually solve the social problem.
468.
by carlosdp 7y ago
It doesn't sound like they hold any really sensitive data though, at least not any customer data.
469.
by carlosdp 7y ago
I don't think so, I think it more means it would fall more in line with other observations, whereas other (currently just as plausible) theories would mean we saw something very new. The "comet" theory, for example, suffers f
470.
by carlosdp 7y ago
Not really comparable, the web already has massive adoption, just needs to get better at high-performance client apps. And with WebAssembly + PWAs, and WebGPU in development, it's getting very close.
471.
by carlosdp 7y ago
I think the pure-web play will end up being a better decision in the long run tbh.
472.
by carlosdp 7y ago
Probably has a lot to do with reducing phishing attempts too.
473.
by carlosdp 7y ago
It doesn't sound completely silent... you can hear some straight up laughter. It clearly caught the presenter off-guard and he tripped up a bit!
474.
by carlosdp 7y ago
In California, such clauses are in-fact illegal.
475.
by carlosdp 7y ago
Sure, it doesn't address that problem head on, however if they moved most stuff to a federated model, they're only a hop, skip, and a jump away from doing ad-selection on-device too, right? I think that if the model proves success
476.
by carlosdp 7y ago
It could always end up being just fluff, but given it's an active research area and they've open sourced a framework based on the concept already, plus the fact the model is cost-advantageous given you get to offload training to a
477.
by carlosdp 7y ago
It wasn't a PR firm, it was this cartoonist: https://lucybellwood.com/ I mean, the comic addresses the fact the current model is bad for privacy right out of the gate and then shows how this team is trying to solve it,
478.
by carlosdp 7y ago
Well no, if you read the part about Secure Aggregation, Google has no way of knowing which piece of training results comes from which device, they can only see the aggregated results of a batch. So sure, technically the training results bas
479.
by carlosdp 7y ago
How is the US supposed to even develop the technology effectively if the companies keep going under? Solar technology isn't a commodity, it's high-tech R&D, I don't think it's a temporary pain.
480.
by carlosdp 7y ago
Yea it's about her

More ›