dlubarov

39 ms·

541.
by dlubarov 4y ago
> When we hired the next 10 people, the value/% of my shares did not get affected. Where did the new hires' shares come from, if not dilution? They might have come from an option pool, but that just adds a layer of indirection.
542.
by dlubarov 4y ago
Companies which IPO (or cryptocurrencies which ICO) and later fail have those same outcomes. Surely they're not all Ponzis?
543.
by dlubarov 4y ago
Anchor protocol always retained the full amount of each UST deposit, plus additional rewards (whose funding was external to Anchor), so clearly Anchor is not a Ponzi, as I thought you were implying originally. Would you assert that any unde
544.
by dlubarov 4y ago
The 20% interest was just a short-term user acquisition scheme, funded by some of the initial LUNA tokens. I don't think anyone claimed that it was sustainable. A Ponzi would be if Anchor used users' deposits to pay out the 20% re
545.
by dlubarov 4y ago
Lockup periods aren't really inherent to PoS though. In Eth2 exits are rate limited, but they should be quick under normal conditions, and only delayed (for security reasons) if many stakers try to exit at once. For even greater liquid
546.
by dlubarov 4y ago
Despite theoretical concerns, it seems to be working fine for the aforementioned projects! It's been used in production for about a decade now.
547.
by dlubarov 4y ago
> Also, if it's as simple as that, why haven't we simply moved to PoS for everything? More modern blockchains do use PoS for the most part -- Solana, Cardano, Polkadot, Cosmos, Avalanche, NEAR, etc. Just Bitcoin in particular i
548.
by dlubarov 4y ago
You're right that there isn't a direct causal relationship between fees and market cap, but I think the ratio between them is important. If miner revenue becomes a tiny fraction of market cap, 51% attacks become a very real threat
549.
by dlubarov 4y ago
The source of funding was the initial LUNA tokens that were allocated to Terra (or Do Kwon personally?). I think it was broadly understood that 20% yield wasn't going to be sustainable, but was a tool for short-term user acquisition.
550.
by dlubarov 4y ago
Yes that's why I used their term. It doesn't say much about it though. The Ethereum Wiki [1] has a much better discussion of its security implications IMO. But my point is mainly that moving checkpoints is the standard solution to
551.
by dlubarov 4y ago
What they call "moving checkpoints" is a pretty widely-accepted mitigation to long-range attacks. Checkpoints might seem like a security issue, but it really depends on how recent they need to be (which is a function of staker exi
552.
by dlubarov 5y ago
Whoever owns an NFT can prevent the pre-image from being lost by just personally storing it. If they wanted to ensure the pre-image is easily accessible to others, they could additionally host it on IPFS.
553.
by dlubarov 5y ago
I've only read the first edition, but I'm a bit surprised to read that as I don't recall them assuming any knowledge, except maybe some basic geometry and vector math.
554.
by dlubarov 5y ago
The main security difference is that with PoW any attempt to create a fork has a cost. With PoS, slashing can be used to impose a similar cost. But that doesn't work for very that long forks (longer than it takes for stakers to unbond)
555.
by dlubarov 5y ago
According to what? To me "boarding time" doesn't mean anything other than the time they plan to begin boarding. Is there actually a policy that passengers must be present by that time? What the parent quoted seems to be Unite
556.
by dlubarov 5y ago
I'm not sure inflation tax should be used as a tool to pressure people to promptly spend their wealth rather than accumulating it. But even if we agree with that premise - Those who wish to avoid inflation tax already have access to st
557.
by dlubarov 5y ago
Where does Google recommend changing the name of the script? The author claims that they do, but their link just recommends self-hosting the script. In Google's recommended JS, the path is exactly the same, only the hostname is differe
558.
by dlubarov 5y ago
> At $10k in America, KYC and AML laws force banks to step through extra layers of verification Isn't that only for cash transfers? > which would likely involve a mandatory in-person meeting with the bank customer At least at Cha
559.
by dlubarov 5y ago
FWIW it doesn't seem that's what happened in this case. It seems the NFT was just part of the attacker's ruse, where they told a story about some NFT staking dapp they launched. Then the malicious dapp asked for permission to
560.
by dlubarov 5y ago
I don't think the NFT is very important here; basically the scammer's website asked the victim's wallet to sign a message, using the private key that holds their ETH. It looks like the message in this case would have given th
561.
by dlubarov 5y ago
Yeah, isn't the translation to a circuit even more trivial than the algorithm itself? a / 2 and b / 2 just discard bits. a & b & 1 is just an and of the two low bits. Then we just route those values to an adder (with
562.
by dlubarov 5y ago
A more direct comparison would be to apps that already support third party payment methods like Uber, Amazon, etc. How would you explain Apple forcing devs to include these stern warnings when buying digital goods but not physical goods?
563.
by dlubarov 5y ago
No affiliation with Aztec, but it's absurd to lump them in the same bucket as Shiba. > pump and dump crypto currencies Aztec has been in development since 2017, and has solved some real problems in cryptography in order to accomplis
564.
by dlubarov 5y ago
Let's assume Google can identify the user but doesn't get a referrer. So what? The only information Google receives is that some user visited some unknown website at a particular time. How exactly would that lead to Google increas
565.
by dlubarov 5y ago
I'm no storage expert, but it seems like the reputable cloud storage providers tend to have lousy pricing. A quick search turns up the quote "I’d be surprised if their S3 gross margin were lower than 70%". I think people use
566.
by dlubarov 5y ago
This is a solid answer. Just to elaborate about borrowing - AFAIK noone borrows at 40%, as the parent said, at least with common tokens. There might be exceptions for borrowing niche tokens with massive issuance or what not. People do borro
567.
by dlubarov 5y ago
Yes, that's why we're working to make it better with proof of stake, sharding, validity proofs and so forth. It won't happen overnight but we're getting there. Why not help improve things instead of critiquing the curren
568.
by dlubarov 5y ago
Why are critics so focused on timing though? Does it really matter whether the Eth2 merge happens in 6 months or 12 months, as long as steady progress is being made? Granted, early timelines from Vitalik and others were way off base initial
569.
by dlubarov 5y ago
I'm not sure it's even necessary to use Internet Archive or a torrent? If I own an NFT whose hash is stored on-chain, I can just ensure the availability of the preimage by storing it myself. Then when I want to interact with a cen
570.
by dlubarov 5y ago
It's been slow, but progress is happening. There's already ~$28 billion worth of ETH staked on the beacon chain. Most of the engineering work for the merge has already happened. A post-merge testnet (Kintsugi) was launched a few w

More ›