Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Google has most of my email because it has all of yours (2014)

mako.cc

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

231–240 of 400 posts

Re: Google has most of my email because it has all of yours (2014)

#231

Post by OrangeMonkey »

rglullis wrote: post #202
RcouF1uZ4gsC wrote: post #190

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Ethereum has no "owners". ENS is fully decentralized. There is no "they" to fork anything. I think “They” once forked Ethereum to prevent DAO losses.

No. The "They" that did the fork only managed to do it because there was a majority consensus agreement to switch to the forked chain. If the majority refused to follow, there forked chain would have died or become a thing for the minority. Just like EthPOW vs ETH POS. Seriously, why is it that every discussion about crypto has the same bullshit talking points? Do you guys have a list of "standard basic list of BS ar…

Noone is out to get you. The world is not trying to "FUD" their way to your own demise.

Its just... noone wants to hear people hawking their pedo pesos constantly and how "WEB3 (powered by pedo pesos) will help us all!".

Its tiring. I'm over it. Most of us are. We wish you no ill will or harm, heck most of us hope you all wake up, but in the meantime we don't want to hear it.

Re: Google has most of my email because it has all of yours (2014)

#232

Post by rglullis »

latexr wrote: post #225
rglullis wrote: post #202

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No. The "They" that did the fork only managed to do it because there was a majority consensus agreement to switch to the forked chain. If the majority refused to follow, there forked chain would have died or become a thing for the minority. Just like EthPOW vs ETH POS. Seriously, why is it that every discussion about crypto has the same bullshit talking points? Do you guys have a list of "standard basic list of BS ar…

> The "They" that did the fork only managed to do it because there was a majority consensus agreement to switch to the forked chain. A majority you may not agree with. So you’re still at the mercy of external entities, contradicting your original point. > Seriously, why is it that every discussion about crypto has the same bullshit talking points? Because proponents keep repeating the same debunked invalid talking po…

> So you’re still at the mercy of external entities

The people that didn't agree with the "DAO fork" continued on the original chain. None of them were forced to follow the majority. This is a huge important difference.

Re: Google has most of my email because it has all of yours (2014)

#233

Post by pbronez »

rglullis wrote: post #228
SketchySeaBeast wrote: post #206

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You're right, you won't lose access to your emails, you'll lose access to your address, which really is the bit that I care more about - losing ability to log into sites and services is what really scares me about losing my email. But now the important question - how does a web3 domain name solve the domain problem any better than just buying a domain, especially considering that "Permission to fail" is being touted…

> losing ability to log into sites and services is what really scares me about losing my email. That is also not a problem. Maybe current "login with web3" implementations rely only on your primary ENS record for authentication, but there is nothing stopping a MFA system where the ENS name is only one of the factors. E.g: you could build a system that uses ENS as the first factor and a regular PGP client cert as the…

Can you point me to a blog post that explains how to use web3 name assignment technologies, in combination with MFA, to own and manage a domain that is robust to DNS provider shenanigans, crypto hacks I can’t anticipate or understand, and targeted harassment?

This is a genuine question. I’m in the market for new tools to manage my personal and business domains.

Re: Google has most of my email because it has all of yours (2014)

#234

Post by yieldcrv »

woodruffw wrote: post #222
yieldcrv wrote: post #218

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Not all products are suited for all market participants. Figure out where you are on the gradient and act accordingly. Ethereum Name Service was launched in May 2017, there are many name service competitors. > and there’s been no evidence so far that “web3” is becoming more resilient instead of less resilient. based on? some frequency of a type of headline you saw? quantified against..... anything?

This is a cop-out: of course there are people with absurd risk or reliability profiles, for whom just about anything might be suitable. The entire point of systems like DNS are that they’re universal substrates that don’t require any exceptional selection. Economies and ecosystems are built on reliable and universal substrates. My perception of resiliency is based on this[1], which has reliably increased in volume an…

I think it isn't doing great at consumer confidence, I don't think it needs to exist for that

https://web3isgoinggreat.com/?id=earningfarm-exploited-for-9...

An exploiter's bug bounty on a still functioning yield farm that flash loaned itself, getting frontrun by a MEV searcher because the exploiter didn't hide their transaction directly with a block producer via bribery? That sentence wasn't possible a year ago. And now we all know not to design a smart contract powering a farm that way. I don't view that as failure. A regulatory sandbox would have deliberated for 5 years before allowing a launch and still never found that problem, resulting in a following multi year pause, committee report, and disbanding. I view this much faster higher iterative version as a win.

Re: Google has most of my email because it has all of yours (2014)

#235

Post by jkepler »

simias wrote: post #199
rglullis wrote: post #130

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Now you know why there are still some people that still take "web3" seriously. It's the only system where you are not at the mercy of some external entity to be always benevolent. Seriously, ENS and Handshake alone should be enough of a reason to silence all of those who keep repeating "but blockchain has no real world applications".

And that's why web3 frustrates me to no end. Decentralized services were common in the "old" internet, web3 just takes than and adds a layer of ponzi and speculation on top of them. If bittorent was invented today you'd have to buy into some pyramid scheme to use it. Beyond that having a trusted third party does suck for some things, but at least it means that I have a recourse if something goes wrong. With cryptocra…

> If bittorent was invented today you'd have to buy into some pyramid scheme to use it.

Bitcoin was effectively invented 'today', yet you don't have to buy into a pyramid scheme to use it.[1] For example, you could simply use it for cross-border remittance to avoid paying Western Union's high fees, without ever holding bitcoin, by using an app like Strike to send dollars from the US to El Salvador (using bitcoin's instantaneous lightning network as the payment rails behind the scenes)[2]. Or you could prove the existence of a digital document at a certain time by using Peter Todd's Open Timestamps[3], which simply puts a hash or your file into an Op Return on bitcoin's blockchain. Or, you could work on developing software or providing support or writing tutorials for the bisq protocol, get paid for your work with their bisq token (which is simply colored bitcoin), and cash out to have you national currency dumped in your bank account using the bisq software which has been developed and supported by a decentralized community with its governance built directly on bitcoin.[4]

If you really still think bitcoin is a pyramid scheme, there's plenty or ways one could benefit from it without having to "buy in" or hold it. But if you put in the time and learn, you'll discover bitcoin is innovative technology, distinctly separate from the crypto space awash with scams and rug-pulls, like the fiat world already is.

[1] https://www.lynalden.com/bitcoin-ponzi-scheme/

[2] https://strike.me/

[3] https://opentimestamps.org/

[4] https://bisq.network/

Re: Google has most of my email because it has all of yours (2014)

#236

Post by Bakary »

ajross wrote: post #215
Bakary wrote: post #203

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What made me switch from Gmail is stories of people losing their entire account overnight with no possible appeal process due to an algorithm deciding there was suspicious activity.

> What made me switch from Gmail is stories Yeah, pretty much. Anecdata is the bane of everything big. In a country of 330M people, you'll have a horrific murder every week. You have a billion email users, someone's going to have trouble. You do realize that, realistically, it's probably more likely that Fastmail will fail, or you'll accidentally lose control of your own domain (or have it stolen) than that Google or…

It's not the only reason, though. Just the thing that solidified the decision to leave. I just came to realize that I was depending on a shady entity for everything. The service I ended up paying for (which is similar to fastmail) can end up failing of course, but it'll take a while and I can always switch to something else once they go into administration. In comparison, I have no idea when or where Google might switch me off, especially since I do a lot of Android and Aurora store tinkering over various devices.

Even if Gmail was 100% reliable it would still make sense to not give them everything about my life. Besides, I also get much needed extra email features out of the change.

Re: Google has most of my email because it has all of yours (2014)

#237

Post by ajross »

rglullis wrote: post #223
ajross wrote: post #210

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> There is no "they" to fork anything. They literally forked it just last month!

Who is "they" here?

The "they" you denied existed, of course. Look, the frame of your argument here is "the blockchain won't ever unilaterally make decisions you don't like like a big centralized tech company". And they do, and have, multiple times in the past. And lots of people didn't like that, in each case.

Re: Google has most of my email because it has all of yours (2014)

#238

Post by readsadhours »

drooopy wrote: post #207
readsadhours wrote: post #172

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is irrelevant. Any country in the EU might do the same. I would hate to lose my domain because of this.

Again, not the same thing. British people didn't lose it. Nobody took it away against the public's will. They voted in favour of getting rid of it.

As I said before, it does not matter. Before someone had an email address and now they don't, and it could happen to anyone with an .eu domain. This is what matters. It is an unreliable TLD for email addresses that you want to last.

Re: Google has most of my email because it has all of yours (2014)

#239

Post by rglullis »

OrangeMonkey wrote: post #231
rglullis wrote: post #202

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No. The "They" that did the fork only managed to do it because there was a majority consensus agreement to switch to the forked chain. If the majority refused to follow, there forked chain would have died or become a thing for the minority. Just like EthPOW vs ETH POS. Seriously, why is it that every discussion about crypto has the same bullshit talking points? Do you guys have a list of "standard basic list of BS ar…

Noone is out to get you. The world is not trying to "FUD" their way to your own demise. Its just... noone wants to hear people hawking their pedo pesos constantly and how "WEB3 (powered by pedo pesos) will help us all!". Its tiring. I'm over it. Most of us are. We wish you no ill will or harm, heck most of us hope you all wake up, but in the meantime we don't want to hear it.

I believe you are taking me for someone who cares about token prices or see crypto as an "investment". You could not be any farther from the truth.

Re: Google has most of my email because it has all of yours (2014)

#240

Post by defaultcompany »

abiloe wrote: post #165
texaslonghorn5 wrote: post #62

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm not sure if this was added after your comment, but in the second line of their post jamiek88 said > To this day I have no idea why the card didn't pay as always. One can infer that the credit card did not auto-pay, the domain expired, and Namecheap immediately resold the domain to a squatter rather than first reaching out to jamiek88 to confirm that the non-renewal was intentional.

> Namecheap immediately resold the domain to a squatter No I don't see how their post allows one to infer that Namecheap "immediately" resold the domain. Their policy is a 30 day grace period, and within that 30 days the domain should become non functional, so if you're actively using it then you would know something is up. Sounds like jamiek88 was squatting on a somewhat desirable domain and is just sad they couldn'…

I took it to mean that they got COVID and were out of commission long enough that the domain was sold by the time they “came back round to reality”.
Post reply on HN