siftrics

18 ms·

181.
by siftrics 4y ago
Doesn't matter. As long as one is compromised, you're screwed. VPNs cannot break TLS, (unless you're dealing with the intelligence apparatus of a major power, which probably can break TLS) so they cannot introspect most of th
182.
by siftrics 4y ago
Unfortunately, this is not true. Many non-US engineers were paid salaries in stables or fiat on FTX. These people gained exposure to US stocks and crypto, or just held onto their USD on FTX. I personally know people who lost their life savi
183.
by siftrics 4y ago
If the VPN is compromised, you're compromised.
184.
by siftrics 4y ago
No. "It's easier to fool a man than to convince him he's been fooled." Precision of language is important here. Where's the easiest place to defraud people? Directly adjacent to the place where it is mathematically
185.
by siftrics 4y ago
That is a ludicrous take. If exercise reduced risk of dementia by 99% would you still feel compelled to point out that it "doesn't appear to be the singular cause of increased wellness"? Where's your threshold? We litera
186.
by siftrics 4y ago
What if the government is tyrannical or arbitrarily seizes your funds?
187.
by siftrics 4y ago
??? Genuinely at a loss. You're conflating CEXs and DEXs to make a point about how "crypto does not prevent fraud". I said sure, if you want to include CEXs in "crypto" then "crypto" does not prevent fraud
188.
by siftrics 4y ago
> Theft and fraud aren't the same thing. I never said they were. > A DEX might preclude the need for trust relationships in order to prevent the circumstances that make fraud possible So you agree? You just admitted that DEXs wou
189.
by siftrics 4y ago
You just don't seem to understand what it means to self-custody.
190.
by siftrics 4y ago
The fraud that occurred is SBF said users retain the title to their deposits and, quote, "we do not invest user deposits, not even in bonds" and yet he _did_ take user deposits. He defrauded them by taking their funds. This is als
191.
by siftrics 4y ago
Okay we can use whatever language you wanna use, buddy. The point is, if you self-custody your funds, no one can take them from you except by threatening you. Everyone had their funds taken from them because they did NOT self-custody. Every
192.
by siftrics 4y ago
It's not a fallacy because there is meaningful distinction. Centralized finance is subject to the whim of creditors and custodians. Decentralized finance mathematically prevents theft within the system.
193.
by siftrics 4y ago
You're conflating the entire crypto space (rife with theft and fraud) with funds self-custodied on a blockchain (never once has seen theft because it is mathematically prevented).
194.
by siftrics 4y ago
You can't rugpull if you don't have their private keys.
195.
by siftrics 4y ago
You're conflating off-chain traditional finance (rife with fraud and theft) with on-chain programs. We have never once seen someone successfully steal users' funds without access to their private keys. That's the entire point
196.
by siftrics 4y ago
...or we could just mathematically prevent the investment funds from stealing the funds.
197.
by siftrics 4y ago
It has to do with FTX because people are taking the FTX situation and using it to blame crypto. SBF stole users' deposits. Fact. SBF could not have done this had FTX been a self-custody DEX. Fact. Crypto's sole purpose is to preve
198.
by siftrics 4y ago
Exactly: they did not control the private keys, so they were able to be defrauded. There are DEXs which you can deposit funds and retain full custody.
199.
by siftrics 4y ago
It's the whole point. Only the person with the private key can move the funds. If this was on-chain, SBF would not have had their private keys and mathematically could not have moved their funds without their consent.
200.
by siftrics 4y ago
Smart contracts have existed for more than 5 years now. You can retain fully custody of funds deposited into DEXs.
201.
by siftrics 4y ago
If FTX was on chain, SBF could not have absconded with users' deposits. Crypto mathematically prevents fraud. The problem here is that business was conducted in the fiat world and on a "trust me" basis.
202.
by siftrics 4y ago
Awesome product. The main reason I would use this instead of burning my NFTs would be the product doing the legwork to figure my tax loss for me. I think this offers tremendous value to retail (unsophisticated users). The only value I see f
203.
by siftrics 4y ago
If you burned it, couldn't you still count it as a tax loss?
204.
by siftrics 4y ago
>The only downside for me Not to mention the main downside of getting cancer
205.
by siftrics 4y ago
"I wish that we would keep getting cancer until ..."
206.
by siftrics 4y ago
What a ridiculous statement.
207.
by siftrics 4y ago
Okay. Then don't lift weights and go back in your corner.
208.
by siftrics 4y ago
Why don't you just go hide in a corner and stop interacting with humans if you hate them so much?
209.
by siftrics 4y ago
What makes you think silicone is any safer than all the other chemicals in this thread?
210.
by siftrics 4y ago
I know what a CEX is and what a DEX is. The phrase "protocol CEX" is an oxymoron. "protocol" implies a set smart contracts, i.e., some semblance of decentralization. A CEX could be fully off-chain.

More ›