eddieoz

I understand the system can create proofs for all participants, but that's the point: a losing bid does not receive the reward (or it is 0).

Then I think it could be easier to spend resources to prove just the winner (who got something).

It is an implementation detail and performance tuning. The whole thing is very interesting overall.

I think you don't need to trust the server just if you can audit the frontend and assure it does not share any sensitive information with the server-side. If they apply the concept of data minimisation, decentralisation and distribution properly, there are fewer risks involved.

But, if the server manages sensitive information, yes. It is preferable to audit the server code to understand how they handle the lifecycle of the information.

"If you think you need to see the server source then any trust you have is mistaken."

Sorry but I don't agree. I trust in systems I can verify. Trust without verifying is not trust, it is faith.

It was not clear to me why they are doing a zk-proof for each losing bid and not just to the winning bid. Probably it could save a lot of resources.

I believe on a full e2ee communication, starting the negotiation under a DoT (who knows near in future - or bootstrapping through p2p) has the potential to be the most reliable decentralised and privacy-by-design communication protocol.

Good announcement and look forward to test it as soon as possible.

Zuckerberg also believes Facebook has privacy as a foundation.

https://www.facebook.com/notes/mark-zuckerberg/a-privacy-foc...

The server stills closed but seems there're people saying the server-side is not needed(!) to trust the platform.

https://www.reddit.com/r/Keybase/comments/77c241/keybase_why...

That's what you get when you are a MITM-by-design solution.

In short: Zoom E2EE eventually will encrypt corporate conferences, but will not solve the privacy problems they have, because their structure stills the same.

Seems it will be a feature just to make customers have the feeling they are safe (and pay more, indeed).

But, as usual, they are not.

Poor Keybase.

It is a very interesting approach to the aspects which interferes directly to the mining environment. And I totally agree the discussions around this subject normally are superficial and around the market emotions.

Considering climate (weather) aspects is one of the strategic decisions about how to conduct the business in this case.

Probably it should consider the alignment to the business strategy. Developers tend to rewrite because of tech challenges. But I agree with the conclusion and rewrite should be considered if it is impacting the strategy.

Facebook has information as a business model.

It could be improved, like the user having the real ownership of all personal data and with confirmation to where, to whom and when delivering it.

But, for real, will those changes please their investors?

I don't believe they will get broken, but holding some bags is an alternative to their portfolio.

If they hold enough to go broke, it means they are the big whales and can freely manipulate the price.

Very nice social experience and it is a playground to test many things on game theory.

I think managing the spam could be the worse part, but best of lucky

He promised eating his own penis, so he need to deny it somehow.

First they try to block the innovation, as always. But under the hoods they buy and always have a bag of coins 'just in case'.

For sure there are better jurisdictions who would receive them very well.

"Brazil’s researchers have a battle on their hands. The country has the world’s third-highest number of confirmed COVID-19 cases, with more than 300,000 infections and 20,000 deaths. Scientists there have to fight not only the coronavirus, but also the government’s anti-science stance."

Is he that guy who said Facebook and US Government are the best for managing/storing personal data?

The same happens on a mac.

it should be:

  to Exit:
  type <ESC>
  type :q!<Enter>

Will he withdraw the addresses from Kleiman case?

In the opening of the new twitter feature, Udi Wertheimer launched a harsh thread and invited Vitalik to participate.

free-digital-chloroquine.docx.exe

The importance of data minimisation: Natura (Brazilian cosmetics company) exposed 192 million records with personally identifiable information, including payment gateway access tokens.

"When a single large firm captures the governance of a blockchain, it is not clear how a decentralised blockchain differs from a traditional financial intermediary as a provider of trust"

But they didn't reveal any details about it. They just told it was a highly sophisticated cyberattack.

Guess?

Having possibilities as a technology perspective is always a good thing. But without a good use case, it seems to be worthless. CA's will review it from a business perspective and if the market doesn't need it, they will not implement.

We have this kind of people leader in Brazil. They prefer being delusional and sometimes to believe that thousands and thousands of people are organised, working together. Seems like they never managed a team to know how hard is to make people work together.

A candidate used deepfake during an election on India: https://www.vice.com/en_in/article/jgedjb/the-first-use-of-d...

Was it positive?

The next step is having the same but decentralised, uncensorable and with the domain absolutely under your control.

I think it is the best way to have your complete freedom.

In 2007 I was supervising some graduation project about SL. The student has built a store to sell real-life t-shirts and understand the dynamics of having an online and offline intersection.

She was fascinated about having a store and a real business, at the same time she was studying. I remember her presentation where she affirmed she would not give up because that study changed the way she was looking and living the technology.