• 7 Posts
  • 1.29K Comments
Joined 2 years ago
cake
Cake day: January 8th, 2024

help-circle





  • I think the 24 hour wait is at least a sensible alternative. Anybody who’s going to be seriously installing apps on their devices like this is probably going to be using Lineage OS or Graphene OS or /e/OS or something like that anyway. And in that case, they will be using AOSP and not be subject to this because they’re not running a Google certified device.

    While I’m not particularly happy about this change, I think it could be way worse.

    Something tells me that Google drastically underestimated the amount of pushback they were going to get when they announced this. I mean, very drastically underestimated.










  • Since the government hates Monero so much, that’s actually not as big of a problem with Monero because people want to earn it and trade it for goods and services in the real world. Also, people who use Monero are incredibly against centralized exchanges and would like to see it banned from every single centralized exchange on Earth so that decentralized exchanges would be the only place you could obtain it or through permissionless atomic swaps and peer to peer. The Monero community also mocks number go up people and calls them state plants.




  • In today’s world, we are moving from analog systems to digital systems, and therefore, physical proof of ownership supersedes electronic proof of ownership.

    If a company is digital native and issues their shares on a blockchain without ever issuing any kind of analog shares, then the electronic proof would supersede the physical proof, no matter what happened.

    Say Alice has a hair salon that’s called Alice’s hair salon, and she issues one million tokens on the Ethereum blockchain, and each token represents one one millionth of the company, Alice’s hair salon. Well, since she never issued any stock on the analog systems, the Ethereum system would be the final arbiter of who does and does not own any of those Alice’s hair salon tokens.


  • I’m assuming you didn’t watch the video, because it did discuss that.

    Alice, who is a subscriber of Dawn Defense, was murdered by Bill, who is a subscriber of Tanner Justice. Dawn Defense is pro-death penalty for murderers and Tanner Justice is not. Therefore, each company does a calculation to figure out how many users and how much revenue they will lose if their side is not upheld and the side that is likely to lose more pays the other side to stand down. In the case of the video, the assumption is that if Dawn Defense loses, they will lose one million currency units worth of customers, where if Tanner Justice loses, they will lose 500,000 currency units. So, Dawn Defense pays Tanner Justice 800,000 currency units to stand down, which is more than the 500,000 they would have lost, and less than the 1 million that Dawn would lose if they weren’t able to enforce the death penalty on Bill.

    These stand-down arrangements would be known beforehand, and therefore, when Bill subscribes to Tanner Justice, he would be informed that if he murders a client of dawn defense, that he will not be protected from the death penalty.