everfree

39 ms·

421.
by everfree 4y ago
In the case of Tornado Cash, the person who wrote and published the code isn't the person executing it.
422.
by everfree 4y ago
Not much. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=32814082
423.
by everfree 4y ago
> I have a problem with people running a Tornado Cash-based service that is really just a money laundering service. The treasury ban is on the contract itself, not TC-based services that people might run.
424.
by everfree 4y ago
Banks are organizations made out of people who can be held responsible. Tornado Cash is a piece of software that is not run by any person. Banks can be fined and people can be imprisoned, but you can't fine or imprison software. The Tr
425.
by everfree 4y ago
There's nothing inherent to Tornado Cash that makes it better for money laundering than for privacy. It's very basic software from a functionality perspective. You put coins into a pool, then at a later date, you take coins back o
426.
by everfree 4y ago
What gives the appearance that this is the case? Even if the "vast majority" of stakers agree with the regulation, the regulation is ambiguous as to whether stakers are expected to refrain from including TC transactions in their o
427.
by everfree 4y ago
Laws bind people, and people should comply with laws. Technology is not a person. People who make technology should not be expected to add measures to it to make sure that nobody is ever able to use it to commit a crime. This kind of thinki
428.
by everfree 4y ago
It's too early to say that definitively, imo. As a counterexample to the DAO hack, the parity multi-sig hack of 2017 resulted in over $160M worth of ether being frozen on-chain. There were calls to hard fork Ethereum to return it, but
429.
by everfree 4y ago
Hmm... The USA has a six times higher incarceration rate than Canada or the UK. Are violent crime rates really six times higher there?
430.
by everfree 4y ago
Part is burned, part goes to stakers. EIP-1559 is the Ethereum patch that introduced the fee burn in Aug 2021. It's a bit complex, but basically speaking, the higher demand is for the network, the more expensive transactions become and
431.
by everfree 4y ago
> PoS issuance rewards are 4.6%/year PoS issuance is 4.6%/year per staked ETH . Only 14M of the total 120M ETH are staked right now, making the real issuance only 0.5%/year when taken as a percentage of total ETH supply.
432.
by everfree 4y ago
> distributes some of it to the "public" through a sale Why the quotes? Did you miss the public launch announcement in 2015?
433.
by everfree 4y ago
It's low-cost to maintain (post-merge). The high prices to use it are a result of users crowding around a limited amount of product (block space).
434.
by everfree 4y ago
Chances are high that it will not end in disaster, in my opinion. They've simulated the switchover dozens of times on a diverse set of networks, including development ("shadow") forks of the main network itself.
435.
by everfree 4y ago
According to ultrasound.money, Ethereum's current 30d inflation rate is 4.1% annualized. If the merge were already behind us (flip the "simulate merge" switch), inflation would be 0.1%. So, not quite deflationary but pretty c
436.
by everfree 4y ago
> It's impossible to build a protocol with secure light nodes on top of ETH Are you sure? "PoS light client friendliness" is on the "already behind us" part of Vitalik's roadmap for Ethereum. https:/&
437.
by everfree 4y ago
> Let's say you're gambling 10k ETH on the last bit of RANDAO output being 1. You pay 5k to enter, and get either 0 or 10k back. Ethereum does not let you make a gamble like that on the protocol level, so it sounds like your pr
438.
by everfree 4y ago
> why do you believe that the US military is essential to its role as a major reserve currency? Because it's the final backstop that compels people to pay taxes, and taxes are essential to that role. If you refuse to pay taxes, they
439.
by everfree 4y ago
> I can see at least one trivial attack against RANDAO, as is often the case with many-party interactive RNG: you just have to be willing to lose your pledge. What is the trivial attack, and why does it involve losing your pledge? To the
440.
by everfree 4y ago
> Your payment would be proportional to the number of attestations, so if only a few people use ETH for transactions, your reward will be low. Attestations are a staking consensus concept, not a transaction concept. Attestations occur 24
441.
by everfree 4y ago
Price is due to supply and demand, not due to energy cost. The amount of new Ether being minted is projected to drop by 90% after the merge, so new supply will be much lower. If anything, this creates upward price pressure rather than downw
442.
by everfree 4y ago
Slashing fixes the "nothing at stake" problem, and the RANDAO fixes the stake grinding attack. Both of those were open questions in 2015, but they are solved problems now.
443.
by everfree 4y ago
The writer of the article supposes that it's a critical vulnerability that a validator can come up with an "equally valid" alternate history for Ethereum that stems from a fork several months prior, after the validator has al
444.
by everfree 4y ago
> Which exchange or fund will lose a vast chunk of its holdings? You really think that a crypto exchange's staff is prone to sending all their customer funds to some random email scammer?
445.
by everfree 4y ago
> Staking pools are already heavily centralizing power in the network on centralized exchanges and """"decentralized"""" contract pools That's just not true. Check the PoW and PoS pie charts h
446.
by everfree 4y ago
Typo here, too: "the applciation". And "Gooble App Engine" near the end of the article.
447.
by everfree 4y ago
This is the first time anyone has called it "strange" that I am an empathetic person. Perhaps many people have not gone through (and recovered from) enough hardship to properly develop their sense of empathy like I have. Better ba
448.
by everfree 4y ago
> Would you feel secure knowing the pilot of your plane once exhibited suicidal tendencies? I doubt it. I really don't care, to be honest. As long as the problem has been fixed through major changes to lifestyle and/or medicati
449.
by everfree 4y ago
I don't understand how that contradicts what I said. CEL token holders are not entitled to any of Celsius' assets, like shareholders or bondholders would be. That's a separate issue from Celsius owing their depositors CEL a
450.
by everfree 4y ago
For blockchains to be a useful product, it is not a prerequisite for "every single financial institution in your country" to switch over to using them.

More ›