throwaway92394

De-fi doesn't _technically_ need it but it's highly preferable.

Let's say you want to actively trade ETH against the USD. If you think ETH will go down the you want to sell it. Now if it's in a non-custodial wallet that you control, you would need to send it to an exchange, sell it, then hold USD on the exchange (were you have no control of it and they can seize it for fraud investigations, etc. - basically your money is held by a 3rd party).

Instead you can "sell" your ETH by trading it for a stablecoin pegged to the dollar. This way the only risk is the contract for the trade (which can be publically audited) and your money stays in your control.

Or if you wanted to accept cryptocurrency as payment but still only wanted the USD because of it's stability - you could accept that (this isn't very common as gas fees are rather high).

tl;dr - With exchanges a 3rd party has your money and a IOU. Coinbase has already said user crypto could be at risk in the case of bankrupcy. De-Fi removes this risk while still allowing you to trade against the USD.

disclaimer - Whether you want to do this might be a different question, just giving the reason for wanting a stablecoin.

edit: For those saying taxes - the US IRS still counts this as a sale and it's still taxed the same as an exchange trade - other countries might differ. Given the KYC/AML requirements and lack of general public knowledge about anonymity of crypto - I think sooner then later we'll see a crackdown.

Yes and no. Speaking generally about anti-aliasing, and the method it's done varies a lot in it's trade offs.

Generally anti-aliasing is a trade off between pixelation, blurriness, and performance. The better the anti-aliasing and the higher the pixel count the slower the performance - this can be an issue and some GUI applications like some IDE's at high DPI's. Faster antialiasing methods will look worse.

In an ideal world a high enough pixel density would mean the apparent pixelation is so low that anti-aliasing isn't necessary. Generally anti-aliasing means more blurry - although the amount of blur might not be an issue for you, it depends. The higher the DPI the less pixels that need to be "guessed" which gives you better precision, which is especially useful for vector graphics like text that have theoretically infinite precision.

It really depends on how you define "better". Generally for text specifically I think most people prefer sharpness. This, combined with the much higher DPI display's we have nowadays I think we're at the point where for many people including myself, text looks better without antialiasing. Personally I think it's easier to read.

tl;dr - it depends on how you define "better". At very high DPI's I think we're at a point where many people prefer the sharpness provided by the lack of AA compared to the artifacts that are now relatively tiny thanks to the high DPI. Also in some applications like Intellij I also have had performance issues with AA at high DPI's.

How does this weed out commitment? Or in other words - if you don't want to stick around what is the negative of paying the 1$ a day? Presumably if you're only in it for the benefits then the benefits far outweigh 1$?

> Afaict none of this is regulated in any regard

I'm not saying they're applicable here - but off the top of my head, money laundering, taxes, and fraud regulations still apply to crypto (at least in the US). The moneylaundering/taxes are rather explicitly stated, the fraud regulations apply regardless of what the thing is.

Interestingly if the market was 100% sure the deal would go through I'm not really sure how it would work because that would mess up the options chain IV. The main reason would be speculation other's might push it higher before the actual deal. Call hedging will amplify this but it would be weird in this scenario.

EDIT: Actually it could go higher because of people covering cash-covered calls that are exercised or closing shorts that existed before the announcement - see below.

--

It looks like Twitter actually did go higher then 54.20 on April 5th to 54.57~54.92 [1]

The reason why it did IRL is several factors. One is speculation it could go higher due to volatility/inefficiencies. The biggest reason is most likely hedging against sold call options and closing short positions - which are both essentially positions that the deal won't go through. If somebody sold a share of twitter for 50$ thinking it would go back down but now wants out of the position they must buy the share which increases buying pressure and thus the price. Similarly if somebody sold a cash covered call and is exercised or hedge against it to limit losses they must buy shares at the current price (which is 100x per option). Again this increases buying pressure and thus the share price.

I swear there's a few other reasons I can't think of right now. It's basically from market inefficiency factors. Speculation (of the share value not future company value per-se) and hedging are the main ones in this case. In non-acquisition scenarios other factors include portfolio rebalancing, margin-calls, market orders, and poor order-book liquidity.

[1] I'm seeing different numbers from different sources but they're all around there - I'm not sure if they used sale price or the quote price etc, quoting a stock is a whole can of worms in itself.

Disclaimer: I can't claim to be any type of expert - some of this may be incorrect, and I'm a bit rusty

If the market was highly/certainly confident the deal was going to go through it would be at ~54.20$ or higher (technically, although not likely much higher).

If you're 100% sure the deal goes through then that's essentially a free 6$ per share guaranteed right now.

There isn't be a need for a phone. TOTP (time based one time passwords) which Github supports is just an algorithm, you can (and many password managers have it too) run TOTP on the desktop.

Whether this is a good idea or not is up for debate, but it doesn't require a phone, or even internet technically, just an accurate (within ~1 minute) time.

EDIT: Typo should -> shouldn't

EDIT2: to be more clear- shouldn't -> isn't

Thanks so much for the response!

> Got any details?

I do not - it's not an accusation, I have no evidence, just a rumor I was curious if they'd care to comment on.

Am I the only one that has an issue with a VPN that I can't self host? Presumably if Tailscale get's PWN'd or subpoenaed then your network is breached no?

This isn't meant to be criticism just curious. Why did it take so long to add monero support? For the past several years there's only ~2 other VPNs that tick all the privacy boxes, and you're the most preferable - other then lack of monero support. It always seemed weird that you went so far for privacy, but didn't support monero.

Was it just on the backlog and took a bit of time to implement? I appreciate that you built your own implementation for crypto by the way.

Thanks for the great service.

EDIT: I've heard a rumor that you've shared a user IP because of a government subpoena (live during a connection, so it wasn't logged). Has this happened? I think according to your swedish-legislation page says "However, the Swedish police authority may have access to information by way of coercive measures such as seizure and search of premises." which would allow for this to happen in theory? I.E. intercepting or seizing control of your router to see what IP a connection is on?

EDIT: One other question - is there plans to add more IPs? Services seem to flag most mullvad IPs but I'm not sure there's much you can do about that.

> Turn your phone off if you don't want your provider and apps to know where you are going.

Not to put words in their mouth but I think Kergonath's point is-

* Turn your phone off if you don't want your provider to know where you are going.

* Turn off your location services (and likely use a vpn, etc) if you don't want apps to know where you are going.

Yes apps _can_ still figure this out if they're trying that hard. I don't think this is in most people's threat model. If we want to go down that road then I'll point out there's ALPR's that track cars, and people who track bluetooth mac addresses your car likely has. Keeping your phone off until necessary is not realistic for most people. What you're suggesting is the equivalent of saying they should wait until morning to go through the alley.