jlrubin

14 ms·

91.
Yes, You Can Name a Website “Fucknazis.us”(eff.org)
19 points by jlrubin 8y ago|5 comments
92.
Eliminating Seven Words Policy for .US Domain Names with FuckNazis.US(clinic.cyber.harvard.edu)
7 points by jlrubin 8y ago|1 comments
93.
Interstellar: Chain Merges with Lightyear, Goes All-In on Stellar(medium.com)
3 points by jlrubin 8y ago|0 comments
94.
by jlrubin 8y ago
Well, Stellar must make the same case as well -- just arguing that you need to hold XLM in reserve to make an account/pay tx fees is an insufficient reason for XLM to hold value. The difference is with Stellar Consensus, the forward pr
95.
by jlrubin 8y ago
I'm curious to hear what you think about the article itself, not just the title.
96.
by jlrubin 8y ago
disclaimer: I know Parni personally, and she did not ask me to chime in here. Parni's intentions are honest, even if her program is a little bit ill defined at this stage. I think she's started this fellowship because she'd o
97.
by jlrubin 8y ago
Correct -- the bulletproofs are only for the range proofs, but thought that was a bit too involved for my tldr :)
98.
by jlrubin 8y ago
You take the commitments from the outputs and use them in the next proof. It is possible to soft fork confidentiality into Bitcoin, see https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/2016... for example
99.
by jlrubin 8y ago
These are publicly verifiable, they are just not plaintext values anymore. This isn't so weird -- think about what a signature is, it's a proof that I know a private key without plaintext revealing the key.
100.
by jlrubin 8y ago
Bulletproofs are significant because they allows you to check that the amount being input and output in a Bitcoin transaction is correct without revealing the amounts to non-parties to the transaction. The size of a bulletproof is small eno
101.
by jlrubin 8y ago
Lots of people have 'cringey' aesthetics in tech -- e.g., the anti-ego depletion 'own everything the same' uniform, the VC Patagonia+AllBirds, the 'free tshirts only' nerd outfit, etc. It's better to judg
102.
by jlrubin 9y ago
Actually, as a quirk of the design, the final transaction MUST be a series of transactions which are 'conflict free'. For instance, if the close gives Alice 10 lumens and Bob 10 lumens, these must be expressed as two transactions.
103.
by jlrubin 9y ago
This isn't quite accurate to how we set it up. Each step in our protocol could set a different amount of delay to close the channel. Beginning the close process does not require waiting, but finishing it does. It's actually the op
104.
by jlrubin 9y ago
Author here. Happy to answer any questions about our protocol design.
105.
by jlrubin 9y ago
Because Bitcoin's Merkle tree is vulnerable to it as well :) The fix came through a higher order property (duplicate TXs not allowed anyways). https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=102395.0
106.
by jlrubin 9y ago
High volume, low latency, of privacy focused applications. There's a difference between Stellar's network being able to support high throughput and you wanting to do high-throughput on the network. Base fee is 1e-5 XLM. If you wan
107.
by jlrubin 9y ago
Laws would probably have to be re-written to categorize them as a money transmitter, because there is no fiduciary duty for the Lightning Network Node (they cannot wrongfully claim funds). These changes shouldn't happen, there are lots
108.
Bitcoin Bootcamp at Stanford Nov 2nd-3rd(bitcoinedge.org)
1 points by jlrubin 9y ago|0 comments
109.
by jlrubin 9y ago
Yeah I was wondering the same. Dual licensing should be strictly more permissive for users, who c=would be free to apply whichever terms gives them better protections.
110.
by jlrubin 9y ago
We won’t work with actual bitcoins or wallets, since they add a lot of complexity and risk without making the article any more interesting. Actually that is the most interesting part -- how to manage re-orgs & forks is an open
111.
by jlrubin 9y ago
> Absent from his case list was any mention of a similar domain seizure being restored after a court injunction or judgement. > Is anyone aware of a ceased .us. domain name being reinstated after a court challenge in the United States
112.
by jlrubin 9y ago
You should familiarize yourself with the Miller Test[0] that I cite in the post. Even if it is expressly sexual (e.g., I literally made a degrading pornographic film of Nazis having sex) it would still have an exceedingly strong case unde
113.
by jlrubin 9y ago
This is not a "company", it's a government body (the FCC) using a contractor (Neustar) to fulfill one of their obligations (.us TLD). Neustar must operate "constitutionally", otherwise the FCC may not use them. Whil
114.
by jlrubin 9y ago
> closed source That's not really the problem here. The problem is that by using React, even in a closed source context, you are potentially setting yourself up to not successfully make an IP claim against facebook, even for unrelat
115.
by jlrubin 9y ago
That's a pretty serious character attack and insinuation of misbehavior. I can attest at least that my own entry is accurately represented and I have not been in contact with any other developer who has expressed that they have not bee
116.
by jlrubin 9y ago
It's generally unsurprising to me that people with similar perspectives on a technology end up working at the same startup. Knowing Rusty personally and given his long history as a FLOSS contributor, it is at least clear to me that he&
117.
by jlrubin 9y ago
To respond to the ">90%" figure... Miners are not contractually bound to follow any of these agreements. Usually, if they say they will support a fork, it comes with many caveats, e.g., if it seems that there is substantial eno
118.
by jlrubin 9y ago
> the current bitcoin developers Rusty, I'd suggest to replace that with "a significant number of current bitcoin developers". There are Bitcoin Developers who may support the 2MB fork. "The current bitcoin developers
119.
by jlrubin 9y ago
It's a meme that Blockstream leads opposition; the opposition to SegWit2x is actually pretty decentralized. See the Blockstream team[0] and cross reference it with dissenting developers[1]. Alex Morcos has written a good take-down on w
120.
by jlrubin 9y ago
@dang/mods, it might be appropriate to re-title this as: Controversial Bitcoin Upgrade Attempt Planned for November 2017 at Block 494,784 This "upgrade" has not been agreed to nor has it been ratified by the majority of the c

More ›