mojo pixy
...שלא נמצא בשמאל
lol what happened to 'trustless transactions'?
Bitcoin discussion and news
- Thread starter camouflage
- Start date
lol what happened to 'trustless transactions'?
Storm Fox
Trying the find the next noun to verb
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.
Storm Fox
Trying the find the next noun to verb
It clearly trustless until it isn't when there is a load of handwaving to justify giving the 'right' people the control
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.
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.
That would be an excellent description of CBDCs.
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.
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.
There's a wondeful messageboard called Urban75 where people have been doing that for over 20 years.
You might have heard of it.
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?
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.
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.
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.
It's 2 pages of proclamations.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.
As Virtual Currency Use in Human and Drug Trafficking Increases, So Do the Challenges for Federal Law Enforcement
Federal data indicate that virtual currencies—for example cryptocurrencies—are increasingly being used in illegal activities, such as human and drug trafficking. The use of virtual currencies has added to the challenges federal law enforcement face when trying to prevent and discover these...www.gao.gov
Please.
Binance threatened with US trading ban after alleged terror payments
The world's biggest cryptocurrency exchange has been threatened with a US trading ban after allegedly hosting accounts linked to Hamas and Russian criminals.
www.telegraph.co.uk
What a charming addition to society.
NoXion
Craicy the Squirrel
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.
gosub
~#
They were doing similar work around in China after CCP turned on BTC.Binance threatened with US trading ban after alleged terror payments
The world's biggest cryptocurrency exchange has been threatened with a US trading ban after allegedly hosting accounts linked to Hamas and Russian criminals.
What a charming addition to society.
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)
littlebabyjesus
one of Maxwell's demons
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.
Monkeygrinder's Organ
Dodgy geezer swilling vapid lager
Binance threatened with US trading ban after alleged terror payments
The world's biggest cryptocurrency exchange has been threatened with a US trading ban after allegedly hosting accounts linked to Hamas and Russian criminals.
What a charming addition to society.
Nondiscrimination.
gosub
~#
Binance isn't crypto.Binance threatened with US trading ban after alleged terror payments
The world's biggest cryptocurrency exchange has been threatened with a US trading ban after allegedly hosting accounts linked to Hamas and Russian criminals.
What a charming addition to society.
It's just a foreign company that deals in crypto.
beesonthewhatnow
going deaf for a living
gosub
~#
80% of BTC + some 'stable' coins. Some of emails from their compliance is pretty damning.Yeah, clearly nothing at all to do with Crypto then, if all they do is deal in it
You have a point.Yeah, clearly nothing at all to do with Crypto then, if all they do is deal in it
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.
Damning for who? Binance of BTC?
Humberto
Relax
You're darn tootin'!
Storm Fox
Trying the find the next noun to verb
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.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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Similar threads
