41–50 of 204 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Kind of like how git made tools for decentralized development widespread, so nobody uses centralized intermediaries to host their repositories any more. /s
You'd be extremely foolish for your github or gitlab code to not be backed up on any devices you own
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Kind of like how git made tools for decentralized development widespread, so nobody uses centralized intermediaries to host their repositories any more. /s
I don't think the /s is needed, decentralisation of "power" or "authority" has never worked. Decentralised protocols can work, such as Git, but people in general are both lazy and don't care. They will always gravitate towards the easy option, which is giving someone else control. What does work is centralise powder and authority with democratically chosen rules and regulations. It's the easy option, and it works. Fu…
Centralization is an optimization, fragility/trust/single point of failure being tradeofs.
The old joke being that if an economist designed humans we would share one kidney between 3 people instead of having a redundant one.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Kind of like how git made tools for decentralized development widespread, so nobody uses centralized intermediaries to host their repositories any more. /s
I don't think the /s is needed, decentralisation of "power" or "authority" has never worked. Decentralised protocols can work, such as Git, but people in general are both lazy and don't care. They will always gravitate towards the easy option, which is giving someone else control. What does work is centralise powder and authority with democratically chosen rules and regulations. It's the easy option, and it works. Fu…
(Could have been just table talk -- you can't trust anything you here in that context, just like you should take psudoanonymous internet comments from some guy named "Greg" with a grain of salt.)
I didn't have a ton of sympathy for him or her, since this is the flip side of engaging in a market where the major players shun regulation - gamble in an illegal (or illegality ridden) market and the host might pull an exit scam and you might be left counting your blessings you're alive afterwards to complain, but I sympathize with those who simply want to use BTC as a fee free value transfer mechanism to kill abusive entities like Paypal.
Conversely, I don't think it's something that should be used for day to day purchases -- cash is king folks. Offline, hard to counterfeit, and if we need to start moving it around physically more because the internet and/or market crashes, we can go back to having larger denominations just like back in the 1920s[1].
- Greg.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Large_denominations_of_United_...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
No, not even remotely. FTX is a centralized exchange, and is the opposite of what crypto’s original philosophy is
Kind of like how git made tools for decentralized development widespread, so nobody uses centralized intermediaries to host their repositories any more. /s
I won't claim that github/gitlab couldn't somehow do evil remotely and cause you to nuke the code history next time you build from a hacked pull request or something. But even then there's a decent chance at least one developer hasn't done the evil git pull. And if that's the case I just copy it from them and I'm back where I was.
If I understand correctly, nothing at all like that was possible in the FTX case.
Does anyone else find it extremely ironical that FTX happened in crypto? Wasn't FTX one of the things crypto was meant to solve?
No, not even remotely. FTX is a centralized exchange, and is the opposite of what crypto’s original philosophy is
Back in the very early, more promising, days of crypto the standard critique of crypto was the common mantra "you can't use technology to solve social problems". I think we've had that objectively demonstrated multiple times now (and will continue to do so).
Though I do expect "No True Scotsman" to be a pretty favorite cry from the remaining crypto enthusiasts for quite awhile.
On a more serious note I do hope for some serious sentences on the back of it (counted in decades, maybe a few life sentences if possible), because it's too much of a financial fraud to even look plausible. Yet it is real. If you want some good writeups check out the old dependable "Money Stuff" by Matt Levine, every paragraph is better than the last.
*remotely testify. https://www.reuters.com/legal/ftxs-sam-bankman-fried-says-he...
1) How did you lose $5ish billion of customer deposits?
- They were deposited to Alameda, a totally independent hedge fund run by an unrelated party (my ex-girlfriend who lives with me). We credited Alameda without properly debiting Alameda on FTX.
2) Why didn't you track them?
- There was a bug in the dashboard. I made a boneheaded mistake. Oopsies.
3) What happened in the days leading up to the collapse?
- It was an attack from Binance, they're the bad guys. They cashed out and broke FTX.
4) Wait but they cashed out their assets, how would that effect people who had cash and other assets at FTX?
- Well we didn't comingle margin and non-margin customer accounts/assets if that's what you mean. It's more that we had this terms of service that was really complicated. Yes there's a part of the terms of service that says we won't lend out your assets, but there's this other part somewhere that says we will that applies to everyone even though it says it only applies to margin accounts. It's because of complex accounting. This is all actually just really complex and I don't remember all of it.