98 karma · joined February 21, 2013
- How are my messages to another user retrieved from my encrypted storage? - Does sending you a message push the message into your storage? - Do I (i.e., my Blockstack node) have to be online for my message to you to be retrieved later (say, the next time you're online)?
> if the close gives Alice 10 lumens and Bob 10 lumens, these must be expressed as two transactions.
As in, in this case, closing requires two transactions, Escrow -> Alice and Escrow -> Bob?
Can closing allow for more than n transactions, where n is the number of participants in the channel?
For example, my use case requires users increasing and decreasing the limits on trustlines between them and another user, as well as making path payments across these trustlines. I know how to do that with Stellar proper, but could such transactions use the LN instead?
[edit]: nvm, should've read more carefully as it's mentioned explicitly in the article: "Stellar supports a more flexible generalization of payment channels called state channels, meaning that any operation you can execute on the Stellar network (such as not only payments, but also creating, deleting, or changing permissions on accounts), you can execute within a payment channel."
But Stellar will be supporting state channels in addition to payment channels, (presumably) allowing for even faster exchange operations (buy/sell market and limit orders) and path payments across multiple currencies, neither of which LN on Bitcoin can do (at least for now).
Also, wanted to applaud and state that I wholeheartedly agree with your recommendations for both installing cameras everywhere for this purpose, but also for advocating for the faces to be blurred and for the data to be available to the public. As I see it, the surveillance state is here to stay, and thus our efforts are better geared towards pushing for equiveillance rather than fighting against inevitable surveillance: https://blogs.commons.georgetown.edu/isdyahoofellow/david-br...
[1] http://www.bankofengland.co.uk/publications/Documents/quarte...
I'm fairly anti-regulation and I from what I understand, net neutrality is a (federal) regulatory solution to a problem created by explicitly by (state + local) regulation.
I honestly don't understand why people think that net neutrality is a better solution than a (currently non-existant) federal policy to remove state and local regulations that created ISP oligopolies which limited internet freedom in the first place.
Citation? I hear this a lot, and it seems to stem from a misunderstanding of the word "rational" in this context, which I believe is supposed to mean "perceived" - how else would you objectively define rational?
Is it rational for a thirsting person to prefer gatorade to water (it is for them, if that's the choice they want to make)? Do you have more perfect information to justify your opinion on the matter as more "rational"?
Well I know the guy that wrote it - he's one of the smartest and most talented people I know and he's not bullshitting. But by all means, try to break it!
While you can "choose" a politician, you get whoever the group chose for 2-6 years. Don't like your president or their morals? Deal with it until the next round of choice.
I think that imbalance in individual authority and power gives everyone the right to hold public and private individuals to different standards.
The author of Casper, Vlad Zamfir, clearly stated on numerous occasions on Reddit that there was no risk to PoS b/c of the hack.
> There was also the moral matter that something could indeed be done to actually return the stolen money to their original owners
That's a really nice way of phrasing "we have a moral right to help gamblers recoup their losses."
The Foundation itself may not have been invested, but many of the members and core contributors were (Gavin Wood, core contributor of the Rust implementation, was rumored to have over $100k in DAO tokens).
> neither the creators of the DAO, nor the Ethereum foundation has kept any money that was lost in this unfortunate incident.
The hard fork, by definition, allowed everyone to keep what would have been lost.
And it wasn't an "unfortunate incident", it was a publicly stated inevitability, advertised not only by the platform (with the words "unstoppable code" on the home page) but by the authors of the DAO themselves ("Any and all explanatory terms or descriptions are merely offered for educational purposes and do not supercede or modify the express terms of The DAO’s code set forth on the blockchain;").
I didn't agree with the fork, and I choose to follow the majority of miners anyway because I still believe in Ethereum, but quit trying to rewrite history.
1) make taxes impossible to avoid. Problem: tax code is written not by the few tax-evading small businesses, but by the many tax-evading large businesses, who won't be spending less on getting loophole-filled laws written. So this plan won't work.
2) force people to pay less taxes, such that they cost of evading is higher than the cost of paying them.
1) If it's expensive to do for the private sector, it's expensive to do for the government, no part of the cost equation changes.
2) It only seems "cheaper" b/c the private sector would have to ask for money by providing enough value enough for you to part with your money, while government doesn't, and raises money by pointing guns at people. However, to avoid the free-rider problem, you can use assurance contracts to raise the construction money and tolls to pay for maintenance, similar to what governments would do anyways.
3) American infrastructure was rated a D+ by the ASCE, so in what way is having government the sole provider of infrastructure a guarantee of quality?
4) slightly unrelated, but do you really think we'd have the same level of urban sprawl, needing a car to get anywhere in suburbia and such a heavy reliance on fossil fuels if roads were built through market forces rather than government subsidy?
In it, the author explains that there are two types of surveillance cities that will emerge in the future: one where every park bench is rigged with a mic, every street corner has a camera aimed at it, and where all the data collected is funneled to law enforcement agencies; if you were mugged on some street corner, they'd be able to react to the crime swiftly and with high accuracy.
The other city is exactly the same, but all the data is made available to all citizens through an open API; so if you wanted to meet with someone on some street corner, you could decide for yourself if it was safe enough to visit, likely preventing the crime from happening at all.
Does anyone know what article I'm talking about?