Urban75 Home About Offline BrixtonBuzz Contact

Bitcoin discussion and news

Normally you have to do more than just one or two transactions on each wallet.

That's why two of my friends missed out even though they had transacted on the arbitrum network.

I can think of loads of ways to detect suspected harvesting.

Would you trust a wallet that didn't have any other type of transactions other than the ones that would qualify for the airdrop?

lol what happened to 'trustless transactions'?
 
Normally you have to do more than just one or two transactions on each wallet.

That's why two of my friends missed out even though they had transacted on the arbitrum network.

I can think of loads of ways to detect suspected harvesting.

Would you trust a wallet that didn't have any other type of transactions other than the ones that would qualify for the airdrop?
Why wouldn't it? What are the criteria for assessing valud wallets? Is it applied across all wallets? What recourse do you have if misapplied. It all seems rather arbitrary to me.
 
Why wouldn't it? What are the criteria for assessing valud wallets? Is it applied across all wallets? What recourse do you have if misapplied. It all seems rather arbitrary to me.
There are no promises with airdrops. Nothing.

They simply write a smartcontract with the criteria that they see fit, to work with a snapshot of the blockchain at a certain block on a certain date.

Testing with blokchains is extremely reliable, because you can download the entire blockchain (up to a certain block if you want, including up to the last one) ... then you can assume you are any wallet, it doesn't matter because the end resulting block is then "mined" locally.

So I could pretend to be you with your wallet, testing my own product.

After that testing, because it's a "surprise" airdrop, a week before the airdrop the airdrop the smart contract is released. It's obvious in the code of the smartcontract who qualifies and who doesn't and the web3 frontend simply shows what the user will get and why they got it.

No airdrop ever promises people that they will get X if they do Y, because the airdrop is looking back in time.

So there is no contract apart from the airdrop smartcontract that no one knew existed until the actual airdrop is announced.

Various third parties speculated long ago what the criteria might be and people decide how seriously to take them.

I took them well seriously .... and that paid off.
 
lol what happened to 'trustless transactions'?
The transactions are still trustless.

I'm talking about the mindset of those deciding the criteria of a airdop.

There's a load of different ways to do airdrops.

You could determine a whitelist or you could code in the criteria to a smart contract and the smart contract decides on the fly whether a wallet qualifies.

If I was to cut out wallets that could be involved in airdrop harvesting, I would cut out ones that could on the face of it qualify, but haven't been involved in anything else.
 
Tell me you've never even met someone in a precarious casualised industry, without actually saying so. It's like the entire history of trade unions emerging directly to counter the incredible bullshit bosses were pulling against atomised workforces never even happened.
I've actually done an awful lot of work in a precarious zero hours contract role and I know that the best way to organise would be to setup a DAO. We could look after each other without anyone else running away with the money. We would be able to have democratic votes, run a welfare fund and a website that can't be knocked offline.

None of the workers would know who each other is within the DAO, so the bosses would have no chance.

But since the left are the ones foolishly calling for more online censorship and the nationalisation of the internet, people using CBDCs and centralised ID would soon be rumbled by a future fascist Tory or Labour government.
 
Personally I find ChatGPT is great if you need some creative writing done. But if it's the truth you want, then you're gonna need to do the actual hard work of finding, reading and checking sources.

I don't know where the fuck people are getting this idea that ChatGPT can tell you any information that you can actually rely upon. It's a language model, not a truth model. Its function is to produce linguistic output, not to teach you anything.
ChatGPT is still worth it because it points people in the right direction.

For example, google is useless with legal matters if you type in a basic question at iceberg tip of the problem.

I've found that I can type a legal question into ChatGPT and check the veracity of the answer using a search engine, because I've got way more to use to search with.
 
Plus people need to collaborate. So where does that leave anonymity?
Actually the seem quite disgusting and totally dehumanising. Humans are social creatures and taking that away and making each person just a robot in the DAO to follow rules with no creative input to the process seems wrong.
People don't have to be employed by a DAO but using it as a plus point seems odd.
There's a wondeful messageboard called Urban75 where people have been doing that for over 20 years.

You might have heard of it.
 
What kabbes said. Do you even listen to yourself? You're making confident prognostications of unprecedented events based on absolutely zero evidence.



No it's not. Crypto is about fucking making money. Even if we ignore the fact speculation is why cryptocurrency took off in the first place (to the moon!), you also gave away the acquisitiveness which permeates crypto culture when you boasted about the six grand you got for producing fuck-all of value.

I don't see how any fascist would have a problem with getting funding by minting a bunch of NFTs and selling them for stupid prices to people with more money than sense. Remember you're talking about a technological tool, not some kind of ideological analysis. You don't need to subscribe to the Soviet brand of socialism (or even be left-wing at all) in order to effectively operate an AK-47. The AK can be repaired with pig iron and baling twine, and while this does make it useful for left-wing insurgents, that's also useful to right-wing insurgents. Why should fascists give a fuck about the decentralised nature of crypto? That just means that there's nobody within that technical space with the authority to comprehensively shut them out. Which gives them opportunities to operate. Especially when they can anonymously acquire work and funding for their projects, because as you said: "In a permissionless blockchain, unless programmed otherwise, you don't know the chraracteristics[sic] of the other parties involved, ergo, it's impossible to discriminate."
One of you two - can't be bothered to scroll back, admitted that people wouldn't be enthusastic about CBDCs.

Funnily enough, the WEF, FATF, BIS, FSB and the Bank of England (and just about every central bank) are painfully aware of this.

So why are they still bothering to develop CBDCs?

Because they want to get around the fact that public won't embrace them.

If they trash the dollar, the pound, the Euro - all that debt that goes with them is destroyed and the government gets control only they can dream of. If they fail in their objectives, they will lose a lot of power.

If you understood the dynamics of it, you would understand that either the government takes full spectrum control of our lives with digitial passports and CBDCs OR decentralised currencies eventually would strip governments of most of their power.

There is NO inbetween, it's a bitter battle to the end.

Governments will either have to work out a way to destroy cryptos or control them AND from there rule the people with an iron fist like the Communists in China to ensure that they are never threatended by descentralistion ever again.

It's a polarising issue like Brexit.

The Brexiteers want us to diverage from the EU so hard, that it would never be possible for us to join the EU. The rejoiners want us to keep all EU laws, keep as much to same, so we can rejoin and then have us join the single currency so we can NEVER leave the EU even if we voted to.

It's CBDCs with authoritarian govt control OR it's a completely decntralised future where it starts at a grassroots level from the ground up.

Same with AI. Do you want an AI on your phone that you know has legit open source code, to have your back, that pools processing power with other people's mobile phones, that works in the same way, to fight off the forces of darkness, or do you want to cheer on a centralised corporate AI that works hand in hand with a centralised govt to work out how the British public would react to more draconian power graps?
 
I hate to tell you NoXion but I think this might by one of those scam things that never happen in Crypto as there are all such honourable chaps and chapesses.
Scams will always happen in crypto.

Scams will always happen in the traditional financial system.

I can't stop you from repeating your lies that I keep debunking but I can pre-empt them.

You are NOT protected from all scams in the traditional financial system. Pensioners get scammed out of their pensions every day, for their money to be sent abroad, with ZERO chance of recovery.
 
So to be clear, 44.47% of the controlling interest goes to senior management and the investors, 11.62% goes mostly to a handful of whales who go in hard early on, and 42.7% is in the Treasury, presumably unused, essentially meaning 80% odd of the active vote (ie. 100% of the power) is held by or will be distributed by management?

With the remainder being a sop to the kind of dummy who thinks the very act of "a vote" immediately carries with it totemic value, or who's happy enough just to get a few quid in the bank without thinking too hard about the implications?

Seems about right from what I've seen of DAOs in practice. Absolute travesty of the words "decentralised" and "autonomous" this shit.
You're either lying or you don't what the fuck you're talking about.

Describe an "Arbitrum whale" please. What did they buy to go "in hard early on".

I'm one of those 11.62% and I'm not even a shrimp!

As for your claim about DAOs being decentralised or not, you do have a point. Many in the cryptospace are worried about whales, including other projects or financial organisations buying up governance coins, with those DAOs becoming decentralised. I haven't looked at all of the data yet, but we have to be careful, because sometimes other DAOs can actually hold tokens, making it look centralised when it isn't, because there is nothing to stop a DAO that has the resources of many members from buying other DAOs.

Since each member of the holding DAO normally has a vote on what that DAO does, then it would wouldn't matter.

That's the beauty of a DAO. If people want to, that can entrust the role of trading with someone else, without giving them custody of their assets.

For example, a DAO "treasurer" could for example, sell ETH for USDT without a vote (or with), but he/she would never be able to walk away with any of it.

The uses for DAOs are almost infinate, they aren't just about airdropped governance tokens.
 
Okay, so the more money people have the bigger say they have on the Arbitrum Foundation if I am following correctly? Surely this is not a positive for the ones who feel Crypto offers a more equal world, it sounds just like the Fiat world. No idea if I've really understood what you've said.
You could keep buying ARB tokens to have a bigger say, but that would be like buying voting shares for a company on the stock market.

Difference is, when a company floats, no one gets free shares, maybe with the exception of some or all employees.

At least everyone is generally treated the same whether they have made the project a little or a lot of money. For example, when Uniswap did their airdrop it didn't matter how much you had traded on Uniswap, or how much, if they had used it, they would get the same amount of tokens. 400 UNI iirc.
 
Huh, turns out 46% of crypto activity involves illegal activity - I always thought it was less than that, like a third or whatever.

The report notes:


That's presumably separate to people fucking each other over in paradise, which as has been noted repeatedly, is basically so habitual it has its own jargon. Most recently there's been a major uptick in crypto's use for people trafficking, with this report noting that the ease with which tracks can be covered makes it ideal for such a purpose. How lovely.
It's 2 pages of proclamations.
Please.
 
The world's biggest cryptocurrency exchange has been threatened with a US trading ban after allegedly hosting accounts linked to Hamas and Russian criminals.

Binance is being sued by regulators over claims that it sought to avoid regulations meant to prevent money laundering, while enabling high-risk trades by Americans.

In a civil complaint, the Commodity Future Trading Commission (CFTC) accused Binance and its founder, Changpeng “CZ” Zhao, of encouraging Americans to evade compliance controls and break market rules, according to a Chicago court filing.
What a charming addition to society.
 
ChatGPT is still worth it because it points people in the right direction.

For example, google is useless with legal matters if you type in a basic question at iceberg tip of the problem.

I've found that I can type a legal question into ChatGPT and check the veracity of the answer using a search engine, because I've got way more to use to search with.

Exactly, you still have to check for yourself if ChatGPT has got things right, because it does not provide valid sources for its information. If you ask it to provide them, then it just makes them up on the spot. If you're not a specialist in the knowledge area concerned, just like how ChatGPT isn't, then your googling is going to be just as reliable as any other layman looking to support their confirmation bias.
 



What a charming addition to society.
They were doing similar work around in China after CCP turned on BTC.


Some interesting reports out of finance industry last week...Binance now doing about of BTC trades and could in essence be setting the price, and another one that the volumes, which move prices, ain't that high.

Found that interesting, cos has just been bank runs in the most tech savvy end of banking...and volumes were low.

_______


Still waiting on compliance and a provincial solicitor (whom I would not recommend)
 
Exactly, you still have to check for yourself if ChatGPT has got things right, because it does not provide valid sources for its information. If you ask it to provide them, then it just makes them up on the spot. If you're not a specialist in the knowledge area concerned, just like how ChatGPT isn't, then your googling is going to be just as reliable as any other layman looking to support their confirmation bias.
Yeah this is the biggie, isn't it? ChatGPT is the ultimate tool of confirmation bias. With no opinion of its own, it tells you exactly what you want to hear.
 
Yeah, clearly nothing at all to do with Crypto then, if all they do is deal in it :hmm: :facepalm:
You have a point.

Plenty of pyramid schemes and scams have been rumbled thanks to the US dollar being able to auto-detect such scams and escape them.

Everyone understands that anyone can hold crypto. Anyone. Yeeeesssss. That includes unregulated companies.

Everyone understands that anyone can hold US dolalrs. Anyone. Yeeeessss. That includes unregulated companies.

Naturally of course we judge crypto by a different standard to fiat. It's BAD for crypto that bad people deal with them. It's NO reflection on fiat that bad people deal with them. :rolleyes:
 
You have a point.

Plenty of pyramid schemes and scams have been rumbled thanks to the US dollar being able to auto-detect such scams and escape them.

Everyone understands that anyone can hold crypto. Anyone. Yeeeesssss. That includes unregulated companies.

Everyone understands that anyone can hold US dolalrs. Anyone. Yeeeessss. That includes unregulated companies.

Naturally of course we judge crypto by a different standard to fiat. It's BAD for crypto that bad people deal with them. It's NO reflection on fiat that bad people deal with them. :rolleyes:
At the moment Crypto is unregulated so you cannot tell the good from the bad. In traditional finance, if it's unregulated or less regulated, then the return may by higher, but so is the risks. Also with traditional finance generally the lower the risk the greater the ease of use and the lower your costs of using that service. But Crypto gets more complicated and also slower the more you reduce the risks. "Not your key not your Crypto " and not having to deal with trust L2 companies in a trustless system and having to pay massive gas fees if not using a l2 system.

So until it is properly regulated it's going to be a plaything of the true believers so they can feel special and have the secret knowledge and speak the magical jargon of the blockchain.
When most people just want a place to safely store their hard earned money and spend it at will knowing that the institution stores their cash is well regulated and if the institution fucks that up there is an entity to bail them out and it's not some DAO where no-one even claims responsibility with no clear infrastructure and the customer's hard earned wages I'd off to Tornado.cash on it's way to be another Lambo in the actual project owners collection.

Once blockchain find actual use cases and banks issue their own Crypto the cool kids will be off to the next big thing to be true believers about. The complaints expressed on here are a good example and it's not because of the loss of privacy but it's the end of being special.
There are algorithms that detect Sybil attacks so they are either crap and don't work, or try to reduce people's anonymity so squeaking about the lack of privacy in Crypto issued by bank is more BS and FUD.

As said upthread; Capitalism especially in it's current form is pretty shit, but Crypto takes the worst elements of that and makes it oh so much worse.
 
When most people just want a place to safely store their hard earned money and spend it at will knowing that the institution stores their cash is well regulated and if the institution fucks that up there is an entity to bail them out and it's not some DAO where no-one even claims responsibility
This is a really important point. One of the biggest steps in UK and EU regulation taken post-2008 was to increase the individual accountability for all the aspects of financial risk. A Senior Management Framework was introduced in the UK, for example, with named individuals identified who have criminal responsibility for each part of the financial institution. If my company goes down and it’s because of a failure in an area I have been named as responsible for, I can go to jail. This personal accountability was seen as a really important step towards corporate financial responsibility.

Crypto goes completely the opposite way. No individual is accountable for anything, nobody can be held responsible for decisions. It’s the complete antithesis of current thinking of how best to safeguard consumers. Again, it’s anti-society and anti-human. The thinking that you can replace social accountability with an algorithm has been proved nonsense time and again. Binance is absolutely an example of that, because it is built on that basis of non-accountability.
 
At the moment Crypto is unregulated so you cannot tell the good from the bad. In traditional finance, if it's unregulated or less regulated, then the return may by higher, but so is the risks. Also with traditional finance generally the lower the risk the greater the ease of use and the lower your costs of using that service. But Crypto gets more complicated and also slower the more you reduce the risks. "Not your key not your Crypto " and not having to deal with trust L2 companies in a trustless system and having to pay massive gas fees if not using a l2 system.

So until it is properly regulated it's going to be a plaything of the true believers so they can feel special and have the secret knowledge and speak the magical jargon of the blockchain.
When most people just want a place to safely store their hard earned money and spend it at will knowing that the institution stores their cash is well regulated and if the institution fucks that up there is an entity to bail them out and it's not some DAO where no-one even claims responsibility with no clear infrastructure and the customer's hard earned wages I'd off to Tornado.cash on it's way to be another Lambo in the actual project owners collection.

Once blockchain find actual use cases and banks issue their own Crypto the cool kids will be off to the next big thing to be true believers about. The complaints expressed on here are a good example and it's not because of the loss of privacy but it's the end of being special.
There are algorithms that detect Sybil attacks so they are either crap and don't work, or try to reduce people's anonymity so squeaking about the lack of privacy in Crypto issued by bank is more BS and FUD.

As said upthread; Capitalism especially in it's current form is pretty shit, but Crypto takes the worst elements of that and makes it oh so much worse.
Can we debate one thing at a time please?

Firstly, regarding regulations.

Crypto itself, doesn't need to be regulated.

When I mean crypto itself, I mean on-chain transactions, including the smart contracts.

Whether a project is good or bad should come from an entity or entities that are by decentralised withi the on-chain ecosystem, not from regulators.

Otherwise it's centralisation by the back door.

Offchain entities such as centralised companies that offer crypto services, should be regulated.

Thankfully more and more people including politicians and regulators understand this.

Do you? If you do, we can move forward. If you don't, then all your other misconceived opinions don't really matter.
 
This is a really important point. One of the biggest steps in UK and EU regulation taken post-2008 was to increase the individual accountability for all the aspects of financial risk. A Senior Management Framework was introduced in the UK, for example, with named individuals identified who have criminal responsibility for each part of the financial institution. If my company goes down and it’s because of a failure in an area I have been named as responsible for, I can go to jail. This personal accountability was seen as a really important step towards corporate financial responsibility.

Crypto goes completely the opposite way. No individual is accountable for anything, nobody can be held responsible for decisions. It’s the complete antithesis of current thinking of how best to safeguard consumers. Again, it’s anti-society and anti-human. The thinking that you can replace social accountability with an algorithm has been proved nonsense time and again. Binance is absolutely an example of that, because it is built on that basis of non-accountability.

In crypto you can have individual accountability, but where it's appropriate.

I'm sorry, but you're making a genralisation that is so vague, I can't possibily get my teeth into it and counter it.
 
Back
Top Bottom