qqii

17 ms·

121.
by qqii 6y ago
Of course, that's the only valid representation but it makes me wonder about their claims of gas efficiency and how they compared it.
122.
by qqii 6y ago
Front running cannot happen if the mempool is encrypted. These types of blockchains are current being explored but have tradeoffs are are not widely adopted. Here are two example blockchains: SCRT (Hardware TEE, functional on Cosmos) Partis
123.
by qqii 6y ago
> Instead, LP positions will be represented by non-fungible tokens (NFTs). However, common shared positions can be made fungible (ERC20) via peripheral contracts or through other partner protocols. Additionally, trading fees are no long
124.
by qqii 6y ago
It seems to me that the opportunities you are describing will be rare. If we classify liquidity providers into static and dynamic, under an efficient market it should be expected that the static liquidity providers will over time distribute
125.
by qqii 6y ago
But they have to control a wallet to send the transactions anyway, which could be tracked in the same way?
126.
by qqii 6y ago
It just seems like a very thin layer of plausible deniability, in the current setup they control wallets that send the transactions that also can be linked back to them.
127.
by qqii 6y ago
Couldn't they just query outgoing transactions from the wallet? The estimates given also do not factor transaction fees (currently 0.00041 BTC ~= 25 USD) , the estimated costs are only in value given to the attacker. For this specific
128.
by qqii 6y ago
Perhaps my reading is incorrect but why did theg decide to use all transactions (something they can't control) versus outgoing transactions (something they have sole control over)? It also relies solely on blockcypher's api. I won
129.
by qqii 6y ago
It doesn't, but that also not what's valuable here. Take the recent grumpy cat NFT as an example, what's being sold is just an the original grumpy cat image except the NFT creator is verified to be the cat's owner. It do
130.
by qqii 6y ago
There are 2^160 possible ethereum addresses so duplication is effectively impossible. Like any kind of asymmetric cryptography if you loose your private key that's game over.
131.
by qqii 6y ago
The gas fees to store 32kb of TXT would be incredibly high, but I see your point.
132.
by qqii 6y ago
That's why the archaeologists are supposed to be a disinterested third party, you essentially pay them (and they forfeit their collateral) to not unwrap it.
133.
by qqii 6y ago
The private key is the dead-x-wallet contract.
134.
by qqii 6y ago
There are better ways to launder money than on a public blockchain. The difficult part of laundering money on a blockchain is the on ramp/off ramp. Laundering is the easy part and doesn't need NFTs.
135.
by qqii 6y ago
You can easily verify this by following the link to the twitter account and cross referencing that with the Wikipedia links. If you want to go further I'm sure you can find a link from the original reddit post.
136.
by qqii 6y ago
The Grumpy Cat NFT is created by Tabatha Bundesen.
137.
by qqii 6y ago
NFTs, like art are a good medium to launder money but, like art this does not mean every NFT sale is laundering money. I went over this idea in some detail in a previous comment but NFTs are no better at laundering money than mixers like to
138.
by qqii 6y ago
The same goes for software licences. In both cases there's implicit trust and verification.
139.
by qqii 6y ago
Where are you getting that? This is just a possible licence that can be adopted and I see no evidence that this specific nft has adopted this licence.
140.
by qqii 6y ago
It depends on the asset being NFTified. A lot of art NFTs now come with similar licences whereas obviously tweet and collectable NFTs come with their own licences.
141.
by qqii 6y ago
If you look at the accounts of those buying NFTs you'll find that they're have a long history with decentralised finance and other cryptocurrency projects.
142.
by qqii 6y ago
Grumpy cat went viral in 2018 and since then hasn't seen that much popularity, if a "meaningless token" created by the owner is worth this much who's to say it: * doesn't represent a significant contribution to inte
143.
by qqii 6y ago
The owner of the Grumpy Cat NFT can do one better, he could flash loan his NFT at a small cost. Simplified you can think of an NFT being the following tuple: (NFT contract address, public address). Uniqueness of this tuple is guarenteed by
144.
by qqii 6y ago
It doesn't explicitly mean anything, in the same way information queried from oracles has no explicit meaning and how any off chain information is meaningless using an on chain model of understanding. Like normal tokens that doesn&#x
145.
by qqii 6y ago
Current NFTs depend on smart contact platforms. A token contract (or any contract) is unique by address. To simplify the ethereum nft standard specifies that the token can only have one owner. This is what is called an NFT. NFTs don't
146.
by qqii 6y ago
The specific representation (the part that has value) is protected by elliptic curve cryptography. Your point of supply, demand and time is a good one. The supply and costs to creating an NFT is low, but the demands for NFTs in general are
147.
by qqii 6y ago
My interpretation of the comment is that "rights" refers to licensing.
148.
by qqii 6y ago
Rights are actually an intersting example for the use case of NFTs. Blockchains can produce stronger guarentees than trusted timestamping. This is often used to prove digital existence and ownership. Given the adoption of this interpretatio
149.
by qqii 6y ago
I'm not sure where you get this kind of idea. Those purchasing NFTs are normally quite wealthy. Those creating NFTs are normally already famous (therefore moderately wealthy). Like art it's just a way for the rich to move numbers
150.
by qqii 6y ago
Was it supposed to? Humans aren't maximisers and a cursory glance at history finds that productivity and the human condition is often forgotten.

More ›