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

371–380 of 400 posts

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

#371

Post by rglullis »

ajross wrote: post #369
rglullis wrote: post #335

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Ethereum network attacked and forked last month What?! What attack are you referring about? What fork are you talking about? Please, provide actual information instead of throwing around sites that are clearly just helping you to confirm your biases. > you've (sic) confusing "blockchain consensus" with "not evil" because you trust the giant faceless organization making decisions Not really. The thing that I care ab…

> What?! What attack are you referring about? What fork are you talking about? Wait, really? On September 15th, someone attacked the Ethereum blockchain and stole all the value, handing it off to this other coin. Our coins are still there, but per current markets they're only worth 0.47% of the value they should have. I can't believe you missed that. Now, obviously you think that's different. And that this giant act…

> And that this giant act of fiat

There was no "giant act of fiat". The merge only happened because the overwhelming majority of participants were in full support of such a change. At no single point of time, the ETH developers had any way to decree that the beacon chain was the only one that had any value.

> That's simply the truth.

Thank you though for finally showing that you are just full of dishonest rhetoric.

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

#372

Post by rglullis »

joshspankit wrote: post #368
rglullis wrote: post #306

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What are you afraid of, really? People that can make innovations? My point was that the reason that people are doing all this work on the blockchain because no other solution has been shown to be better. Anyone that says "blockchain is not needed for that" should at least provide a better solution, or say "I actually prefer to keep the status quo".

I’m not the OP, but I think there is a very real concern that a single person or single group of people who create the “new better system” can significantly drain the resources of everyone else. We actively see this all the time on smaller scales (credit cards, global franchises, FAANG), but the idea of someone doing it at a larger scale should make us hesitate.

Oh, where do I begin?

- You do realize that the comment was tongue-in-cheek?

- There is no "resource draining" here. Even if someone found a way to solve the problem of distributed consensus without using a blockchain and found a way to make money out of it, they would be rich by wealth creation: new products, new services, new business.

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

#373

Post by NikolaNovak »

rglullis wrote: post #338
NikolaNovak wrote: post #269

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>>you're confusing web3 with crypto here. This is a very common mistake. It's certainly one I'm making. If we take crypto / blockchain out, what IS "web3", and how is it better to web 1.0?

It's a problem of most buzzwords, there is no formal definition and it largely depends on context. If I were to give you my attempt of an definition, it would be: the main idea behind "web3" is to have systems where no single entity can gate-keep users. It's not supposed to be "better than web 1.0", but mostly to be a contrast with the "walled garden" platforms and social networks that defined "web 2.0". So, by that…

Thanks; the last part seems like "non-repudiation" - I did not think we need either centralized entities OR blockchain for that; I may be wrong though?

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

#374

Post by robertlagrant »

rglullis wrote: post #310
SketchySeaBeast wrote: post #275

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Let me repeat my question: > how does a web3 domain name solve the domain problem any better than just buying a domain? I don't see how you addressed that. Apparently we would need to implement whole new systems? I understand, you gotta bring try to bring it into the domain and get belligerent to obfuscate the answers to simple questions, but I don't see how this addresses my concern. > stop arguing like you are the…

> how does a web3 domain name solve the domain problem any better than just buying a domain? Was that your question? The answer is simple: once you lease (ENS only works with leases, just like traditional domain registrars, so I'll void the term "buy") a web3 domain, there is no one that can unilaterally take it away from you. > Ah, ok, so this is all in theory. Not exactly. It's possible, but impractical. If you are…

> The answer is simple: once you lease (ENS only works with leases, just like traditional domain registrars, so I'll void the term "buy") a web3 domain, there is no one that can unilaterally take it away from you.

This is all in the context of someone who didn't pay their domain renewal, and so it lapsed a few weeks later. How would this system behave differently?

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

#375

Post by justin_oaks »

kirktrue wrote: post #57
jamiek88 wrote: post #48

Earlier quoted context omitted.

yep cos of Covid namecheap sold my domain to a squatter who now wants $10k for something i've renewed for years for $12. That was so shitty coming back round to reality and everything broken. Still upset about it. To this day I have no idea why the card didn't pay as always.

> cos of Covid namecheap sold my domain to a squatter Can you elaborate? As a Namecheap customer, this is concerning.

I don't know about the relationship to Covid, but it sounds like the person's credit card wasn't charged, thus the domain wasn't renewed. After the missed renewal, a squatter bought the domain in hopes of selling back to the original owner (renter) at a premium.

I think the lesson here is prepay for a domain for several years ahead if you plan to keep the domain long-term.

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

#376

Post by PaulHoule »

rglullis wrote: post #372
joshspankit wrote: post #368

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I’m not the OP, but I think there is a very real concern that a single person or single group of people who create the “new better system” can significantly drain the resources of everyone else. We actively see this all the time on smaller scales (credit cards, global franchises, FAANG), but the idea of someone doing it at a larger scale should make us hesitate.

Oh, where do I begin? - You do realize that the comment was tongue-in-cheek? - There is no "resource draining" here. Even if someone found a way to solve the problem of distributed consensus without using a blockchain and found a way to make money out of it, they would be rich by wealth creation : new products, new services, new business.

Web3 is often more interested in moving money around (e.g. "Ponzi Schemes") than really creating anything.

Real innovation is a lot of hard work. Recently I read a book by this guy

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lenny_Lipton

because I am teaching myself to make stereograms. Lipton spent a few years in the 1970s figuring out how to make quality stereo movies with the goal of developing a better system for exhibiting stereo movies. In 1980 he wrote a book (that book) which was a lot like a PhD thesis, he then invented the modern system for 3D movies with circular polarized light and sold his company in 2005. In the end he "got rich" but it wasn't quick.

The blockhead ideology is a lot like the Amway ideology... Really working, creating something, building something, serving customers, is a lot of work for not enough remuneration. There's got to be some magic secret to riches without effort, and once you've got people to believe it exists, you can exploit them.

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

#377

Post by arrrg »

ekianjo wrote: post #354
arrrg wrote: post #127

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Is boycotting Amazon a principle they even have? Using ring cameras for their offices would be not adhering to their principles. The eff doesn’t strike me as the “you did something bad so now I boycott you“ kind of organization.

Who says boycotting Amazon? Strawman much? Rolling your own streaming solution is not hard these days, you have plenty of FOSS options to do that. But the EFF is too lazy to care.

So you are not arguing that relying on Amazon is acting against their principles? That’s the only argument I’m making.

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

#379

Post by ajross »

rglullis wrote: post #371
ajross wrote: post #369

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> What?! What attack are you referring about? What fork are you talking about? Wait, really? On September 15th, someone attacked the Ethereum blockchain and stole all the value, handing it off to this other coin. Our coins are still there, but per current markets they're only worth 0.47% of the value they should have. I can't believe you missed that. Now, obviously you think that's different. And that this giant act…

> And that this giant act of fiat There was no "giant act of fiat". The merge only happened because the overwhelming majority of participants were in full support of such a change. At no single point of time, the ETH developers had any way to decree that the beacon chain was the only one that had any value. > That's simply the truth. Thank you though for finally showing that you are just full of dishonest rhetoric.

Explain how "government by the overwhelming majority" is consistent with "self-sovereignty"? Some people didn't want the merge to happen. It happened anyway. What about their "self-sovereignty"?

Again, you're just saying that you thought this fork was a good fork. And for the record: I agree, it was a good fork. But it was still a fork, and thus still a successful attack on the network. Someday, one of those attacks might be on your interests.

And your answer will be that you TRUST that it won't. But that is still an act of TRUST and not "sovereignty". If they want to steal your coins, they can. They've proved it multiple times.

So, getting back to the point this topic is about: does it really seem so odd that people trust Gmail? You have to trust people in this world to not mess up your stuff.

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

#380

Post by rglullis »

PaulHoule wrote: post #376
rglullis wrote: post #372

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Oh, where do I begin? - You do realize that the comment was tongue-in-cheek? - There is no "resource draining" here. Even if someone found a way to solve the problem of distributed consensus without using a blockchain and found a way to make money out of it, they would be rich by wealth creation : new products, new services, new business.

Web3 is often more interested in moving money around (e.g. "Ponzi Schemes") than really creating anything. Real innovation is a lot of hard work. Recently I read a book by this guy https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lenny_Lipton because I am teaching myself to make stereograms. Lipton spent a few years in the 1970s figuring out how to make quality stereo movies with the goal of developing a better system for exhibiting st…

Condescending much?

> Web3 is often more interested in moving money around (e.g. "Ponzi Schemes") than really creating anything.

And "Web 2.0" was more interested in taking some Unix utility and turning them into a web service that could be walled off and monetized. There hardly was any ~real innovation~.

See how ridiculous it sounds?

Post reply on HN