_jn

This whole article is based on the presumption that the interiors of driverless taxis won't be recorded... and yet security cameras in Ubers already exist[0] (and aren't dissuaded by the company)

[0]: https://uberpeople.net/threads/security-camera.52864/

Sounded [0] more like a suggestion to use it as a list of companies he's involved in, not a company by itself...

[0]: https://twitter.com/jondaily83/status/884689301002362880

...my bad. Not sure about HN etiquette—should I delete my comments as off-topic?

To expand on that: The only way I can imagine a Sybil attack here is if someone created a massive amount of tiny transactions, and the fees required to get peers to validate them would make that approach infeasible.

Seems to be about someone creating massive amounts of privkeys and messing with verification (the fact that 51% attacks no longer exist in this approach make that irrelevant, however.) I'm not an expert on cryptocurrencies, but I don't see how that issue could be any more prevalent here than in "standard" (Bitcoin-style) blockchains.