191–200 of 318 posts
> sends eye-scanning Orbs (his name) to Africa to pump up the value of Altmanbucks that his team owns 20% of
I'm laughing now at how cartoonish this guy is, but might not be laughing later when my children must Surrender to the Orb to pay off their fathers' crypto-debts.
I thought I'd look at the actual company after hearing about this. I'm just not a silicon valley person. Here's their how it works page - https://worldcoin.org/how-it-works . It includes a projection graph that has a scale in 500m user increments and 2 years. Then you have the real data: over 6 months they've signed up 120k users. Or to put it another way - their real data doesn't even appear on the scale that their…
To protect the device getting cracked, couldn't you just have it send a message if/when the device is opened in a way it shouldn't (e.g. for inspection) and thus make that key invalid?
Snowden is assuming that Worldcoin is saving hashes of eyeballs. That is not what Worldcoin is doing. Zero Knowledge proofs allow the system to prove that an eyeball exists without actually tying the biometric hash directly to an ID. From the article: "We use the open-source Semaphore[19] zero-knowledge proof system to transfer the uniqueness of IrisHashes to the uniqueness of user accounts, without linking them." No…
That's only true if everything works perfectly and they're also able to solve some unsolved problems. This is why, for the current phase, they're scanning and storing people's bodies, faces, eyes, and other metadata. See this page: https://worldcoin.org/privacy-during-field-testing We collect the following data through the Orb after the user gives us their consent: Images of users’ body, face, and eyes, including use…
Worldcoin issues tokens to people for scanning their retinas. Their magical orb device sends a biometric hash to their network. Here's my take on it: You can possibly replace their biometric device with a random hash generator. * If it works, it means the currency is not fairly distributed, but anyone sending valid hashes to their network is issued tokens, irrespective of whether the eyeballs described by those hashe…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Everyone has had years of opportunity to buy into Bitcoin at a fraction of its current value Making money by buying and selling bitcoin is zero sum. People are only making money because other people are losing out. There is no possible way that everyone buys bitcoins and gets rich from it. Bitcoins depends on the existence of rubes and the continual expansion of the pyramid to make money for "investors".
This is a very common misunderstanding of how monetization works. The actual value of Bitcoin comes from demonetizing other currently monetary assets (dollars, gold, real estate, etc.), plus some additional (partially externalized) value from increased efficiency as a monetary mechanism. People who are long those assets and not adequately hedged with Bitcoin are losing money to people who are long Bitcoin (assuming B…
Real estate is not a monetary asset, it's a productive asset - because people need a place to live and you can either live in a house yourself or you can rent it to others. This demand doesn't go away through the introduction of Bitcoin.
Gold is a commodity, not a monetary asset. While a large amount of its value is attributable to speculation it has myriad industrial uses, and jewelry use. Some of this demand may go away as there's a large overlap between goldbuggery and bitcoin maxis.
Dollars have no intrinsic value, but instead their value is derived from demand which is created for them when they enter circulation. They're created via fractional reserve lending meaning that when a loan is issued, new dollars are created but also a debt is recorded - creating demand for those same dollars. That means dollars are 100% backed by demand for those dollars. This demand doesn't go away through the introduction of Bitcoin.
Bitcoin is nothing. It has no intrinsic value, it has no demand, it's simply a speculative number-go-up machine. It's not money, that's for sure. You could try and use it as money but that would be an utter disaster from a macroeconomic perspective.
So yeah, parent is right, its roughly a pyramid shaped MLM with a negative-sum component - the $60,000,000 per day you have to pay to miners to keep the music playing.
[edit] Also note that gold and real estate are not classically defined as "monetary assets" - those are for instance cash, bank deposits, investments in debt capital markets and lease investments. Monetary assets need to have a prescribed value in exact dollar terms.
Worldcoin issues tokens to people for scanning their retinas. Their magical orb device sends a biometric hash to their network. Here's my take on it: You can possibly replace their biometric device with a random hash generator. * If it works, it means the currency is not fairly distributed, but anyone sending valid hashes to their network is issued tokens, irrespective of whether the eyeballs described by those hashe…
Proof-of-work is also the only way to preserve decentralization. One CPU, one vote. Everyone can and should participate. Bitcoin failed at this because the hashing algorithm can be accelerated by specialized hardware, leading to professional miners setting up large centralized operations and taking over the network.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Proof-of-work is also the only way to preserve decentralization. One CPU, one vote. Everyone can and should participate. Bitcoin failed at this because the hashing algorithm can be accelerated by specialized hardware, leading to professional miners setting up large centralized operations and taking over the network.
"One CPU, one vote" doesn't imply decentralization either - if you have lots of money, just buy lots of CPUs.
Worldcoin issues tokens to people for scanning their retinas. Their magical orb device sends a biometric hash to their network. Here's my take on it: You can possibly replace their biometric device with a random hash generator. * If it works, it means the currency is not fairly distributed, but anyone sending valid hashes to their network is issued tokens, irrespective of whether the eyeballs described by those hashe…
Proof-of-work is also the only way to preserve decentralization. One CPU, one vote. Everyone can and should participate. Bitcoin failed at this because the hashing algorithm can be accelerated by specialized hardware, leading to professional miners setting up large centralized operations and taking over the network.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
>Then again, even PoW coins with no premine can be unfair [...] It's "fair" if you're referring to equal opportunity, not equal outcomes.
Equal opportunity not equal outcomes is a huge red herring when talking about equality. Most public places used to have bathrooms which anyone could walk into but no one could easily roll into on a wheelchair. That was equal opportunity. Nowadays many places have been mandated to have bathrooms such that anyone who uses the space can access a bathroom without difficulty. That is an enforced equal outcome. Which is th…
No, it's an extremely relevant debate because a certain political faction has been trying to redefine "equality" from its original definition of "equal opportunity" to a completely different one of "equal outcomes".
> Which is the correct approach?
This is a false dichotomy. You can want equal opportunity in most places, and equal outcome in a select few (just like you can want freedom of speech for everything but a select few edge cases).
This is the correct way to do it, actually - enforced equal outcome is inextricably linked with tyranny and oppression, and invariably results in massive loss of human life when it has been ((ostensibly) attempted to be) implemented in the real world.
If you have to pick one, tell me, which is better - for tens of thousands of handicapped people to not be able to access some public bathrooms, or for tens of millions to die in another Cultural Revolution?