rattlesnakedave

> Regulators should have acted against crypto years ago This case has surprisingly little to do with crypto. Gambling user deposits is already illegal.

>A lot of crypto money has flowed to mostly Republican politicians who support turning the SEC and FTC into hollow shells Note SBF and FTX's donor list.

HQ of FTX's non-US entity.

This is patently untrue. search: `site:nytimes.com crypto`, it's overwhelmingly negative coverage. This specific article is either grossly uninformed reporting or politically motivated.

I agree he does come off as arrogant at times. There are plenty of times when he's right, though. Those times are pretty fun to read about: https://twitter.com/jinglejamop/status/1310718738417811459

I deposit 100 ETH to tornado, wait a while, and withdraw in 10 ETH increments. There is still no explanation for the origin of the funds. Money laundering is made up of placement, layering, and integration. Tornado did only one of these (kinda).

With this scheme you just dreamed up I wouldn’t even need Tornado.

Money laundering is comprised of three parts: placement, layering, and integration. The government here is attacking the “layering” part of the process that tornado _may_ contribute to (the norks still have to explain how they ended up with a billion of ETH). But to truly be “money laundering” you have to have all three elements. The equivalent here would be banning casino chips or something.

Kinda. Money laundering consists of placement, layering, and integration. There is a (very weak, imo) argument that TC can be a part of the “layering” process, but it certainly does not do all three.

I take issue with the claim that tornado can “effectively launder money for criminals.” All it can do is leave you with an asset with a less-than-clear on chain history. If you want to cash out, you still have to explain how you wound up with 100 ETH or whatever.

“ Assuming that you pin the version of the library you need, two applications using the same library /shouldn't/ cause issues.”

Then why bother?

Google “OpenSSL dependency conflict” and view the results. There is significantly more work going on when OpenSSL releases and update than “just update the single shared library file.” Applications often need to be updated as well, so you may as well just statically link the new binary.

“Shared libraries were introduced for a reason.”

I’m pretty sure the reason is “X11 was large and badly factored, and people who should have known better thought it would save disk space.”

The problems they claim to solve are updates across applications at once, but in the enterprise how often does that actually happen? Application authors still have to test against the new version, and sysadmins still have to roll out the changes required to support the update. In practice they may as well statically link.

Let’s not forget the problems they introduce are significant. Implementations are complex. Applications become less portable. ABI versioning is a pain (versioned symbols are gross). Semantic changes in the shared lib cause chaos. Exec is slower because of the linking done at load time. Dynamic libs are bigger than static ones, AND they’re loaded into memory. More difficult to verify the correctness of a given executable.

The alleged “benefit” here really does not outweigh the cost. If we were doing static linking from the beginning, it’s difficult to say if we would have wound up with things like docker or nix in the first place.

Who is “we” here?

Good article, bad HN title. Of COURSE any new employee, especially someone with less experience, will flounder if not given proper support. The prescriptive advice here is also key. Give small bite size tasks, check in often!

It was the client’s decision to use the service.

Metamask presents a large red warning when a user is prompted to sign a raw transaction, and they’re planning on deprecating that part of the API, so hopefully that helps.

Metamask presents a big red warning when it requests a signature for a hex ETH transaction. But most people don’t read. Or they request token approvals users don’t bother to modify.

No it doesn’t suggest 2. Google “token approvals.” Or just look at metamask for like 30 seconds.

Not a fan of this. I really like lightning. What happens when we have a new USB or connector standard?

Snapchat is fun for stupid pics between friends that are meant to be ephemeral, and that’s why I like it. It’s the last social platform where my friends are creating the majority of their content posted as opposed to re-sharing something.

HOWEVER- their “discover” pane is full of the most repugnant, degenerate, or otherwise braindead bullshit I have ever seen in my life. If I could pay to turn it off permanently they could command a significant sum for me.

Entire call centers are setup in certain countries to prey on the elderly in the West (particularly the US). This should absolutely be treated more seriously than it is. Probably not terrorism, but whatever is between that and elder abuse.

This was the origin of proof of work.

Utterly means “completely and without qualification; absolutely.”

I regularly send Bitcoin txes for sub $1. I buy with 0 fees on strike. Strike supports lightning withdrawals, too so I can withdraw and spend with 0 in fees basically immediately.

Seems a bit early to say it has “utterly failed.” Especially when Colombia is consistently the 2nd most active trading country in LatAm. And As Banco De Bogota is piloting crypto programs https://www.portafolio.co/economia/finanzas/banco-de-bogota-...

“ The importance of a smooth on-ramp is seriously underrated by cryptocurrency enthusiasts”

This is either the most or second most discussed problem in the cryptocurrency space.

I don’t think this matters. Wallets can convert between the two trivially. Acceptance as a method of payment is what matters.

What matters more is acceptance as a method of savings.

Possibly dumb question, have you adjusted the maximum memory heap size that the JVM can allocate for running IntelliJ?

Bitcoin is the only cryptocurrency doing any innovation.

On the contrary, Bitcoin is the only cryptocurrency innovating right now.