WebKit is a mixture of LGPL and BSD, not pure GPL.
152 karma · joined April 11, 2021
It certainly does. Many POW coins are kept private for a small amount of time so that the developers can mine without competition before making the network public.
It is by definition democratic.
> It's still representative democracy
Sure, I wasn’t claiming it isn’t democratic just that it is less democratic.
> If they do stuff you don't like, you vote them out.
Not always, for example the Bank of England’s monetary policy committee is not elected.
> I don't respect your ownership.
Good for you however I don’t actually care whether or not you respect it. For example with concert ticket NFTs the only person that needs to respect it are the organisers, not you.
> When your keys leak - and they will -, you don't own it anymore.
That is intended.
> None of the major cryptocurrencies do despite claiming they would for years.
What do you count as major? Nano is in top 100 by market cap.
> When it's a network that many of us think is pointless, we're simply scratching our heads at this.
I think that retail stock market trading is pointless however I respect its ability to consume energy as part of the free market.
> More crypto junk and not a cure for cancer.
Sounds like you are very prejudiced and have made no effort to research these technologies before calling them junk and wastes of energy.
> It doesn't need changing!
I’m sure nobody thought banking needed changing in the 1900s before it became digitally available. Researching new technology can almost never be bad.
> We're increasingly building tools to serve the underbanked, and we need the government to continue with AML, KYC, etc. They serve a very valuable purpose of stopping terrorism, preventing bribery, etc.
Yes and we still can, and are doing the same with cryptocurrencies.
> If Satoshi's keys, or the Winklevoss keys, or Coinbase keys leak, it's game over forever.
It’s only possible to crack someone’s private key using quantum computing if they have spent from that wallet before (as this is the only time at which an accounts public key becomes public). Most of those accounts you have listed have never spent any of their coins so it would not be possible to crack their accounts.
Cryptocurrencies are far more democratic: every time a transaction is submitted the network votes on whether or not it is valid using consensus mechanisms like proof of work or proof of stake.
Fiat currencies are far less democratic: we can only vote for the people that will control them, not for what they will actually do with the currency. In the UK we do not vote for any positions in the Bank of England.
> Monetary and fiscal policies can be used to control the health of the economy. It's part of a wide system that also offers education, medical care, transportation, and many other utilities for actual people. Crypto offers what, exactly?
Monetary and fiscal policies can still operate without control of the currency, see Eurozone members having local policies. All it means is that they can’t arbitrarily print the currency.
> NFTs are worthless garbage nobody can legislate. Digital barcodes. Nation states have robust IP laws to protect and transfer ownership.
You misunderstand NFTs. It is not about intellectual property, it is about property. I can prove I have ownership of any token instantly and trustlessly.
> Crypto wastes energy. It also wastes human brains that could be solving more pertinent problems.
Many cryptocurrencies have negligible energy usage even over the entire network: see Nano. Even in Bitcoin, how is the energy usage a “waste”? It is holding the entire network together.
And with human brains, cryptocurrency research has had very beneficial impact in other fields, see for example Monero’s development of RingCT and Bulletproofs+. And that is ignoring the fact that these brains are reshaping our entire financial infrastructure.
> Quantum computing will render all of the blockchain useless anyway.
Not really. Even if quantum computing was possible now Bitcoin would still be usable. And advancements are being made across all cryptocurrencies to secure them better.
This surprises me, so you have any more details about Linus’ impact? I’ve always thought the main barriers were NVIDIA and, lately, Battleye.
I found it quite good, however looking it up now I see there have been complaints about it: https://5pillarsuk.com/2020/09/10/middle-east-history-textbo...
I will say my even though my History teacher taught it without any visible bias, I got the impression she was more on the Palestinian side (as was most of my class).
There is good stablecoin competition in USDC, or, my favourite, DAI. Unfortunately I think exchanges like Binance are somewhat in kahoots with USDT which is why they will not move off it.
Ultimately the best way to have fair games is to promote finding players through avenues other than official matchmaking: friends or even just random people on something like discord.
Chrome doesn’t even support all platforms. It probably wouldn’t run on my car’s display for example. If the web followed an open standard that wouldn’t be a problem: the car manufacturer could make their own browser.
And not everyone wants to use chrome/blink because the development is in practice entirely run my google who do not have consumer interests in mind.
Another possible way would be to use a rotatable key derivation algorithm, where you can provide the 12 word phrase plus a number n, and it will provide you a different wallet for each value of n. Of course the key derivation algorithm must be quantam secure for the security benefit to apply in this context.
Just because someone can collect the money/currency at a later date doesn't make it fine. If I collected money on behalf of charities yet only gave the money to the charity if they explicitly asked me for it, I doubt that would go down well with donors.
I could even use the situation to my advantage by gaining interest on the donations in the time between it is donated and I pass it on. I suspect Brave was benefiting in a similar way - all the donated money would not be traded while Brave were holding onto it, creating a scarcity which would benefit BAT's prices.
I can't really see how zero-knowledge proofs could solve this. There is no cryptographic way to prove that software executing on a clients machine triggered a notification. Especially on Linux where an open source notification manager could be modified to reject it.
Strings can’t even be copied since they are heap allocated.
You can also send the change to a new address instead, which is how single use wallets work. You generate a new wallet, send the change to the new wallet and replace usage of the old wallet with the new one.
Well potentially if enough validators forked the chain before the material was added and were able to build a longer chain than the one with the classified material, but even then it would be pointless as the previous chain still exists and will have been distributed to every node.
The question is, why would they want to remove it? Solana is a global blockchain, not a US government entity. If they were to abide by US government requests, it would be only fair to also abide by the requests of other governments - but what if North Korea wanted information removed? As you said, where do we draw the line over what is a "valid" request?
And more importantly, who draws the line? There is no single Solana entity, it is a group of validators who would decide this. Achieving consensus on something like this would never happen, especially among a group of people who are trying to be resistant to government censorship.