Feels bad to say but not posting photos due to these fears seems pointless. Your kid will get tagged and associated to you regardless of what you do. There are that many surveillance cameras around that unless they will live under a mask their face is out there. At best you'll be able to prevent your friends making memes / AI videos with your baby's face. But, more sophisticated actors have what they need.
I for one would not. Lending to people who just defaulted is not high on my list of things to do. Additionally, the default would have absolutely smashed the economy with all banks and pension funds being wiped out.
It was remover for a very specific reason that has been addressed in the proposal. You may still believe it should not be added however the original reason it was removed should not be one of them as it is a trivially addressed vulnerability.
You have two options:
1. Hit the "save" button which saves the original photo but with your edits applied to it. If you try to edit this again you'll see you can undo all the edits you made.
2. Go to settings and hit "save as copy" this saves a copy of the photo with only the final version available.
Alternatively, you can screenshot your edited photo if you want to be double sure and to strip some metadata.
Just checked my data usage and Amethyst was my highest consuming app despite only being used on mobile data two days out of the month.
Thanks for the warning.
His example of a change was doubing issuance to 42M. A deeply unserious strawman take on the kind of change people advocate for.
He could at least pretend to have a nuanced take but that would require him to say the quiet part out loud, Saylor doesn't care about scaling censorship resistant non custodial usage.
If we get covenants through we may be able to do away with him and his banking buddies. As the protocol stands now, we will not and he likes that.
Option:
User wants to split. They enter people in the split. Defaults to 1 weight on each. Percentage automatically calculated and displayed. User configures weight. Percentage automatically updates.
Calculating percent is too much to ask people to do.
1. I like:
1.1 BTC denominated side chains.
1.1.1 This eliminates any technical justification for alts.
1.1.2 There is such cool privacy tech we can make.
2. I don't like:
2.1 Long withdrawal windows
2.1.1 Feels inelegant
2.1.2 Potential to depeg
3. Open questions:
3.1 Can the fees ever be high enough to make miner theft uneconomic?
3.2 Is this a centralising force?
3.3 Do I trust miners more than a multisig?
Re: Atomic Swaps
I am thinking of the atomic swap providers much the way I think of Fedi lightning providers. The swap providers do not have to be associated in any way with the "side chain controlers" but they do have to trust them. Only difference is the swap providers need to trust the side chain for the duration of up to two withdrawal windows (1year) where as with fedi lightning providers only need to trust until they request an on chain withdrawal. This is a much more intense capital requirement.
Re: depeg:
Under normal situation sBTC=BTC.
However, if withdrawals freeze due to disagreement on withdrawal bundle progression, I see potential for long (months to years) depegs. I don't fully understand how to resolve side chain controversy. 50% of miners abstaining from any side chain controversy freezes the funds. What next?
I don't think a majority of sBTC to BTC volume will be peer to peer but rather will involve a swap provider.
Consider.
1. Anyone can deposit into the side using an M5 Deposit transfer of BTC from-main-to-side.
2. M6 Withdrawals take time and require bundles be proposed and accepted.
This results in a situation where sBTC to BTC pressure can build but BTC to sBTC pressure cannot build. From this I assume sBTC -> BTC fees will be higher than BTC -> sBTC. The fees will attract service providers to arbitrage. They will need BTC to swap for sBTC. To transfer back out to have enough BTC to continue the arbitrage they need to wait for a withdrawal. They are effectively locking up BTC as sBTC to earn the withdrawal fee.
I think we can do better. Surely there is a more graceful way to wind down a drive chain.
Assuming long term all drive chain slots get filled, there needs to be a way for low performing chains to drop off without rugging.
I don't understand what this has to do with VCs?
Drivechains enable BTC denominated side chains with any validation rules. This is anit VC tech. It eliminates all technical justification for Alts except for wanting to print your own token.
The network is the point of lighting. Trustless atomic payments made by traversing through the network graph from where your node sits to where the person you're trying to pay sits. It's six degrees of Kevin Bacon.
If you needed a channel with everyone you want to pay, you would have to know every person you want to pay ahead of time so you could wait for the onchain transaction to set up the channel.
Oddbean new post about login | logout
Notes by NoSand | export
1. I like: 1.1 BTC denominated side chains. 1.1.1 This eliminates any technical justification for alts. 1.1.2 There is such cool privacy tech we can make. 2. I don't like: 2.1 Long withdrawal windows 2.1.1 Feels inelegant 2.1.2 Potential to depeg 3. Open questions: 3.1 Can the fees ever be high enough to make miner theft uneconomic? 3.2 Is this a centralising force? 3.3 Do I trust miners more than a multisig?