everfree

46 ms·

541.
by everfree 5y ago
No, that is incorrect. I'm talking about the data availability requirement that the protocol imposes on nodes if they want to remain connected to the swarm. I'm not sure what you're talking about - data doesn't magically
542.
by everfree 5y ago
You're conflating popularity into my argument. Tether is one of the weakest stablecoins in terms of regulatory compliance and general community trust. In other words, most arguments I hear against stablecoins apply narrowly and specifi
543.
by everfree 5y ago
Bitcoin is a tool that can be used to enable something. If I want to get value out of a hammer, I don't care whether that value comes from me using it directly or indirectly, and I don't care whether the useful properties of my ha
544.
by everfree 5y ago
That's true, but it's silly to measure the viability of a whole class of financial instrument by its weakest and shadiest actor (Tether). There are plenty of reputable stablecoins out there that prove their reserves either continu
545.
by everfree 5y ago
If that's true, then why did their government solicit people to send them these "meaningless novelty coins" on social media? Just for fun?
546.
by everfree 5y ago
Why would you think that's likely?
547.
by everfree 5y ago
> There's a territory. There was digital land-grab on this territory. A tiny number of people bought all the available digital-land. Now everybody else needs to buy the land from them. At extortionate prices. Sounds just like the VC
548.
by everfree 5y ago
I believe cryptocurrency networks can still be useful even if "most" transactions are priced in fiat and settled in stablecoins.
549.
by everfree 5y ago
> most enthusiasts do not accept that the blockchain will became unmanageable by most just due to it's ever-growing size Some blockchain protocols like Bitcoin make the silly argument that in order for a chain to be worthwhile, a fu
550.
by everfree 5y ago
> I can't trust stable coins. Why not?
551.
by everfree 5y ago
> Yeah but contingencies not predicted in the original contract cannot be added, hence they are immutable from the original design. Something legally not really enforceable as laws change making previously written contracts or clauses vo
552.
by everfree 5y ago
> The concept of Internet was easy to understand (fast communication, availability of information,...) Not really - I think you're introducing hindsight bias. This famous David Letterman clip with Bill Gates is pretty representative
553.
by everfree 5y ago
If it's illegal for me to send $200 back home to help my family pay for food to be able to eat, call me a criminal I guess.
554.
by everfree 5y ago
> immutable is a pretty shitty property for some of those assets Because smart contract chains allow for turing complete code, mutability can be programmed in to particular tokens at the smart contract level. > regulation is there for
555.
by everfree 5y ago
> Nope. Still need to convert it to real money for buying something. Gas fees > transfer fees. Sure, if you choose an expensive (congested) blockchain to make the transaction. Otherwise the fees are about comparable or in some cases e
556.
by everfree 5y ago
The source of truth is the website you trust to vend you unadulterated node software; the source of truth is not Proof of Work itself. Once you define the trust problem to include the initial software download, the trust assumptions are not
557.
by everfree 5y ago
Multiple companies could run nodes.
558.
by everfree 5y ago
What distinction are you making between a blockchain and a hash chain? They seem similar.
559.
by everfree 5y ago
There's no reason for one actor to control all the nodes.
560.
by everfree 5y ago
It ensures that data hasn't been tampered with after initial entry. And that a uniquely attributable digital signature gets recorded at the point of entry, along with a timestamp.
561.
by everfree 5y ago
The problem of paper trails being changed. When something goes wrong, if you can't trust your paper trail, you can't attribute fault with certainty. Without an immutable shared database standard, it's difficult for processes
562.
by everfree 5y ago
If you are the sole person keeping records for a large company in your personal desk drawer, it also doesn't guarantee that. But nobody designs a process like that.
563.
by everfree 5y ago
It doesn't guarantee that. As I said, it guarantees that paper trails are permanent and cannot be fudged after the fact.
564.
by everfree 5y ago
I don't know if you've actually tried to send an international wire transfer, but it requires more paperwork/effort, is more expensive, and is less reliable than signing a crypto transaction. Many smaller banks require you to
565.
by everfree 5y ago
An immutable database guarantees that the "paper trail" has not been tampered with. In supply chains, there's a lot to be said for having a paper trail even if (or especially if) some of the papers are fraudulently written.
566.
by everfree 5y ago
> And your wallet isn't "centralized" at all. Just because MetaMask happens to be implememented using a server doesn't mean you can't export your seed phrase and import it into (eg) TrustWallet and use that inste
567.
by everfree 5y ago
If the Uniswap website goes down, you don't even have to switch services. You can just pick a different frontend for the Uniswap contract. In fact, 1Inch uses the Uniswap contract to fulfill some of its trades. The trick is that the Un
568.
by everfree 5y ago
If a body cam happened to be off, then it doesn't matter whether a law like this is in effect or not.
569.
by everfree 5y ago
If police unlawfully seize and destroy your recorded evidence, then it doesn't matter whether there was a law like this in effect. The officer could make up any story to justify their action under any law. Mandatory body cam laws would
570.
by everfree 5y ago
US police abuse the law to evade accountability all the time, but I don't see how that's relevant to this particular law.

More ›