throw101010

What's up with the negativity? The fact that the contract is enforced automatically, the dues are paid irrevocably on every sale, and depending on the blockchain in a censorship resistant way seem like some innovation... Good luck getting paid your "droit de suite" once your painting is outside of the almost only jurisdiction where it *was* practiced.

Totally agree, the cost of frivolous copyright claims cannot be 0 if we want such system to work.

> Other parties used the LAION list to train AI models - and those parties are who the photographer should have made claims against in the first place.

"Other parties" have not published a recognizable copy of his work either, only a list of weights that were computed based on his work. How was their copyrights infringed by these?

> "I'm fine with people using my tool for coffee meetups, genocide planning, bridge club, and drug deals." It's an attempted handwashing of moral responsibility under the cover of software purity.

None of these activities are efficiently stopped by censorship on the largest social media platforms... so what are you suggesting? That we continue to employ inefficient censorship (which gets also abused all the time by governments around the world), or do you have any actual solution? If not, this sounds a lot like virtue signalling to me.

I see pull requests on my projects from new/outside contributors as suggestions, not actual demands.

Refusing a suggestion doesn't prompt for a full explanation, it also doesn't mean it won't ever be reconsidered potentially.

People who engage in open source contributions are usually aware of this, the fact that they generally can fork and use their own "improvement" for themselves is usually enough, and the people who feel entitled to get their code merged in your repository are usually not the kind of regular contributors you want to keep around in my experience.

If they used SMS to identify the customer, isn't it a form of authentification? Having the credit card/credit card info is the first factor and the second factor seems to only have been being able to receive the SMS to confirm it wasn't fraud.

I've experienced better banking apps which did use SMS at the initialization, but coupled it with other identifying factors (eg the phone IMEI or a code sent through postal services). If these app needed to be reinstalled the whole verification process would have to be redone.

I'm wondering, as I read this over and over again about random picks performing as well or even better than professionals in the field, how come we never see rigorous scientifc studies about this for various timescales?

If we could really attribute this task to randomness wouldn't this save a lof of money to financial institutions considering how much the same people earn for these tasks?

I gave up trying to solve this at the mobile operator level, they don't care, they don't get fined/sued enough and legislators are too incompetent/slow to fix this.

I just never use any service that forces 2FA by SMS. If it not avoidable for some reason, I make this account completely isolated from the rest of my online identity (new email just for it, regularly change password).

If your bank/financial institution forces 2FA by SMS, it is time to change, most of the serious ones have their own app that handles 2FA. I'm yet to find one that allows to use your own OTP generators, so I'm usually forced to use their app for now.

Makes sense. Thanks for the clarification and the advice!

I'm not sure if I'm too tired or my ESL status is showing, but I can't make sense out of this.

His father owed money to a butcher, why did he need to have a "revenge" against someone who borrowed him money?

> Who's going to show up at some untrustworthy place with fat stacks of cash in order to trade crypto?

There are ways to transact P2P without meeting in person. Bisq is decentralized example.

> It was meant to replace the USD for everything including everyday transactions.

I did not read this chapter of the Bitcoin whitepaper

Well you can always exchange it peer to peer, without a third-party (exchange/payment processor/etc.) as it is initially meant to be used, but it's true that mining rewards are generally the most anonymous way to acquire it.

In my experience AI generative processes always involve a lot of cherry picking, rarely have I generated 1 image or 1 text and it was perfect or very representative of what can be attained with some refining.

Seems fair to choose good results when you try to demonstrate what the software "can" do. Maybe a mention of the process often being iterative would be the most honest, but I think anyone familiar with these tools assume this by now.

Agreed, the terms were not clear, and as I've guessed the proposer has updated it based on the community input.

Sometimes when you write these things it's hard to nail down everthing and you can miss a scope creep because you assume honesty on your end for example. I think that it shows a healthy governance process if people can give their interpretation and desires and the proposer updates their proposal accordingly.

The fact he is unwilling to share more data in public about the case is problematic though, I get the issues with talking about an open case. One possibility would be to get the community to vote to elect a comittee of contributors who have demonstrated their care for the DAO to review the documents under NDA, same for reviewing the fees and they would vote on the relevance of such a fund (and its extent) to protect the DAO or not instead.

Not sure if it's funny, but in a DAO often anyone can make a proposal (usually following a certain process and holding a small amount of thr governance token). They are calling for the token holders to give their opinion or approval for a transaction.

It will be funny if the vote reveals the founder has a majority of the tokens and can vote himself these funds from the DAO's treasury. But if the token is well distributed in the DAO and the community surrounding it, and the proposal passes the vote, I don't really see how it is funny. It is just how governance works in a DAO.

Personally, with the lack of details in this proposal I will vote against it, but at this stage it is most likely the kind of input the proposer is expecting, before the actual vote.

I like your last paragraph a lot, one reason in my experience as to why a problem didn't get reported/fixed is that employees are unfortunately rarely rewarded for fixing processes in large structures (or just once, when the fix itself improves the productivity in a lasting manner).

So a real blocker in my opinion is that there is no clear incentive structure to even think or care about a fix in the first place.

The CEO will care much more about it because their compensation/position is essentially tied to improving this side of the business.

Which is not a third-party *required* to do this kind of transactions.

It is just a convenient way to convert the crypto to fiat that these processor handle for their customers. There are ways to handle this step without a third party (P2P exchanges are one).

Less convenient for sure, but ultimately if you care about your economical freedom you will adopt them... or you will live in a walled garden, at least as long as your activity fits the current agenda/policies of these intermediaries (and your government). As soon as you don't, you get kicked out/cut from the system, even if your activity is not illegal.

I know it is not a popular topic here, but this kind of lack of control over (allegedly) your assets is one of the premises for the existence of Bitcoin.

Self-sovereignty and self-custody prevent third-parties from making decisions for you like this, and the removal of intermediaries (like payment processors) also prevent anyone from restricting you ability to transact with your desired counterparties.

The kind of freedom this enables also has disadvantages of course, but I strongly believe the few real "bad" transactions that gets blocked by the current system are a drop in the ocean compared to the billions of people deprived of access to the system and the millions of others who are included but seriously limited in what they are "allowed" to do on it.

How does a bank owned by the state ensure the constitutional right given to Swiss citizens to banking secrecy? If you can answer this question in a way in which the government doesn't get banking information it by law shouldn't have, I could maybe see it as good news for customers... otherwise they will just provide a systematically inferior service than other, privately owned, banks in Switzerland.

I'm Swiss too, and while the fee argument is a great one, my main concern is preserving the optional privacy you have when transacting with cash. It's one of the last aspect of your daily transactions that businesses and most importantly governments cannot trivially track and tie to your identity, aggregate, and potentially use against you (and people who consume like you) in various ways.

Giving up this power, out of convenience, is a bad deal for citizens. And before anyone argues that this privacy is used by criminal/terrorists/etc., I would need to be convinced that going fully cashless would stop them to even consider it in the balance... but as far as I can tell they happily use the banking system for their criminal dealings, with the support of banks, since each year there are scandals about banks helping money laundering to the tune of hundreds of millions, even billions at the time, I don't think it happens mostly thanks to cash.

Ultrasound money cannot be money with a monetary policy on moving sands that can change because Vitalik and his buddies decided it was a fun experiment.

Ethereum has demonstrated that its monetary policy wasn't "sound" and that it could be changed way too easily with EIP-1559, and will change again.

This meme went so far that people now think it's more than just a stupid meme.

I love the color palette and music, really relaxing and it was a nice surprise to see it is multiplayer

Works really well on Firefox for Android too!

How would you have "received" it if you didn't manually claim it?

There are currently 1000s of free NFTs (almost all completely valueless) I could claim on random projects, if I don't manually claim them they are not a digital asset I have received. GP had to claim their reddit NFT to receive and then "own" it in their reddit vault (which is a non-custodial wallet too actually, stored on Arbitrum's blockchain).

Against your will? You had to manually claim it, choose among 3 or 4 different "collections" too.

And a good way for governments to take their share on the violations/crimes these bankers are committing.

On one side of the transaction you see cost of business in these fines, on the other side I see governments deliberately sizing the "fines" so these businesses can keep hurting citizens year after year, and the same governments bailing out the same banks when they compeltely mess up the global economy with their unlimited greed (see the 2008 crisis, and the upcoming debt crise*s*).

At some point these are not fines, they just represent the governments' way of taking their share on the criminal revenues of these banks while they are guiding us straight into the next iceberg. And there is no incentive on either side to make it stop.

When it comes to solutions, I'm reading that the system has to burn to the ground or worse even on HN now... I'm personally of the mind that systems can only change when incentives exist in alternatives. As much as HN dislikes crypto, Bitcoin is one which has taken a principled approach from the start and its community and incentives always presented it as a way to opt-out of the current financial system backed by central-banks/governments (powered by traditional banking). If banks stop being provided with ways to infinitely create debt with politicians behind them promoting it to be able to pretend that everything is fine economically under them, you might see things change... but for this we can't continue playing their game by their rules. We need to opt-out.

If other radical and non-violent ways to solve this exists I am willing to listen and study them... crisis after crisis, I'm becoming more and more cynical about it.

While you address crypto in general I would suggest that instead you go at the root of it: Bitcoin. The "customer" issue is well identified there, cash was already poised to disappear and any form for peer-to-peer exchange of value with a currency will eventually go with it. CBDCs will replace this, whether we like it or not and the writings of this have been on the walls for a long time. If you don't think this is true please observe countries which are well on their way to become cashless like Sweden or even China.

The idea "for the customer" of Bitcoin is to provided them with a digital alternative currency, an opt-in one, not mandated or controlled by a state. The previous attempts like Digicash, E-gold and few others all had the same fate and lasted very short periods of time because they did not combine a strong and independently verifiable data structure with a way to truely be the basis and incentive of a decentralized P2P network.

Bitcoin solved these issues by taking the best of many of the preceding failed experiments. This implies some compromises that apparently make you think it's unsuitable technology applied to a problem that could so easily be solved with a simple database... but that would be misidentifying the issue it is trying to solve, maybe you are not the current "customer" for it (yet), maybe you don't care about P2P transactions without intermediaries, that cannot be censored... but when (note: it isn't an "if") your government will tell you that you cannot pay for x or y with their CBDC which will be the only currency you will be allowed to earn/spend, then maybe you will rethink this position. And the minor inconvenience of Bitcoin will seem suddenly more acceptable (hopefully by that time progress like the Lightning Network will have ironed these out).

And again, do not take my word for it, observe the cases where Bitcoin has already been used and useful under oppressive regimes and in war times.

It's funny to think that the next iterations will most likely learn from threads like these how to look less than their predecessors.

> I think this is a bad move, since security is more than enough.

Security isn't/wasn't the concern, the trade-offs exist to ensure verifiability in the most trustless way possible (low hardware and bandwidth requirements). This enables a decentralized system which is open to any participant and keeps miners accountable. If running a node is limited to miners and exchanges and requires a renting server racks there is just no point.

> Lightning is not viable, because it requires "watchtowers" to check for early state commit attacks

This is inaccurate. LN has shortcomings currently but this isn't one. Without a watchtower your peer in a channel can force close it while you are offline by publishing an outdated state on-chain and attempt to defraud you, but if at any point before the end of the grace period (usually ~2 weeks) you are online and you produce a more recent state you get the whole balance of this channel back (this is how dishonest peers are punished). This is one channel mechanism (Poon-Dryja), another mechanism (Eltoo) which doesn't require as much monitoring/penalties will eventually come but depends on changes to Bitcoin protocol which are still pending.

Secondly theses optional watchtowers which automate this process minimize trust a lot as they can only publish the most updated state IF and ONLY IF the counterparty in your channel published their outdated state. So they have no real custody of your funds.

Lastly solutions like local federations (Fedi to name one) can address your concern of people not being able to run servers, if the users aren't content with the public offers of existing watchtowers.

> But, for instance, Bitcoin Cash has larger blocks (the reason for the first fork of Bitcoin). However, in spite of its technical advantages, adoption severely lagged compared to Bitcoin. I wonder why that is.

Because having larger blocks is not a technical advantage if your goals are the principles mentioned in the first paragraph. If you intent to compromise on these then just build a centralized database, it will be more efficient and at least you won't lie to people pretending that your system is open/decentralized (like Bcash supporters do).

This is the kind of regulations that exist supposedly to hold accountable traditional finance and makes it an allegedly legitimate industry.

One should wonder at which point we will have to deliberately stop unraveling this thread, before it gets really ugly for everyone... it might not be just crypto-exchanges that are completely rotten.

Some of these might also have been hacked blue checkmark accounts resold/reused. Which also was one of the issue with this status symbol, as far as I know the "verification" was a one time event per account.