nunyabuizness's comments

Awesome interview, thanks for the link. The end of the interview where Chomsky describes the Internet as a double-edged sword and (correctly) suggests that it could turn into "a home-marketing service, and a way of marginalizing people even further" is particularly interesting.

https://youtu.be/suFzznCHjko?t=27m7s

I think these are more questions about Gaia than Stealthy, but apply to any multi-user application on Blockstack:

- How are my messages to another user retrieved from my encrypted storage? - Does sending you a message push the message into your storage? - Do I (i.e., my Blockstack node) have to be online for my message to you to be retrieved later (say, the next time you're online)?

Thanks for getting back to me!

> if the close gives Alice 10 lumens and Bob 10 lumens, these must be expressed as two transactions.

As in, in this case, closing requires two transactions, Escrow -> Alice and Escrow -> Bob?

Can closing allow for more than n transactions, where n is the number of participants in the channel?

Can the final transaction to the network (that closes a channel) be a series of transactions? In other words, can a state channel allow for transactions with more than 100 operations?

Can any Stellar operation be used within a state channel, and as a result, can any Stellar transaction be sent through the LN?

For example, my use case requires users increasing and decreasing the limits on trustlines between them and another user, as well as making path payments across these trustlines. I know how to do that with Stellar proper, but could such transactions use the LN instead?

[edit]: nvm, should've read more carefully as it's mentioned explicitly in the article: "Stellar supports a more flexible generalization of payment channels called state channels, meaning that any operation you can execute on the Stellar network (such as not only payments, but also creating, deleting, or changing permissions on accounts), you can execute within a payment channel."

Speed? No, not really in comparison to any other LN implementation.

But Stellar will be supporting state channels in addition to payment channels, (presumably) allowing for even faster exchange operations (buy/sell market and limit orders) and path payments across multiple currencies, neither of which LN on Bitcoin can do (at least for now).

This is awesome work, and a great example of the kinds of civic analysis and action developers can take to make their cities and communities better, or at least more informed of the reality they operate within.

Also, wanted to applaud and state that I wholeheartedly agree with your recommendations for both installing cameras everywhere for this purpose, but also for advocating for the faces to be blurred and for the data to be available to the public. As I see it, the surveillance state is here to stay, and thus our efforts are better geared towards pushing for equiveillance rather than fighting against inevitable surveillance: https://blogs.commons.georgetown.edu/isdyahoofellow/david-br...

It's different because regardless if your node is online or not, venmo's servers can still accept payments on your behalf, and it's presumed that taking venmo's servers offline would be considerably harder than taking yours offline.

Section "Money creation in reality" [1]. States that 97% of money in circulation are from bank deposits, the majority of which are themselves created by commercial banks (though it doesn't explicitly state that the rest comes from governments).

[1] http://www.bankofengland.co.uk/publications/Documents/quarte...

When was the last time you spent $FB on food or rent?

I don't think it's accurate to say that the risk of spending $1 per Bitcoin in 2011 is proportional to the $4000 reward I have today.

> net neutrality is a case where regulation is stopping really bad things from happening

I'm fairly anti-regulation and I from what I understand, net neutrality is a (federal) regulatory solution to a problem created by explicitly by (state + local) regulation.

I honestly don't understand why people think that net neutrality is a better solution than a (currently non-existant) federal policy to remove state and local regulations that created ISP oligopolies which limited internet freedom in the first place.

Well it's pretty easy to spend an asset that's consistently increasing in value... the real test of it's utility as money is how many businesses and people have started accepting Bitcoin recently.

> Yes the rational choice model is well-established to be false.

Citation? I hear this a lot, and it seems to stem from a misunderstanding of the word "rational" in this context, which I believe is supposed to mean "perceived" - how else would you objectively define rational?

Is it rational for a thirsting person to prefer gatorade to water (it is for them, if that's the choice they want to make)? Do you have more perfect information to justify your opinion on the matter as more "rational"?

> 1)

Well I know the guy that wrote it - he's one of the smartest and most talented people I know and he's not bullshitting. But by all means, try to break it!

Which service do I use to log in to the account I created when Stellar first launched?

I'd argue intensity is as, if not more, important than just "statistics." A source that tells one lie that starts a war is much worse IMO than one that tells 99 lies about celebrity pets.

What's laughable? You can choose which businesses you want to interact with anytime you want, and if you don't like their policies, choose someone else.

While you can "choose" a politician, you get whoever the group chose for 2-6 years. Don't like your president or their morals? Deal with it until the next round of choice.

I think that imbalance in individual authority and power gives everyone the right to hold public and private individuals to different standards.

> the overall community didn't thought the system would survive the eventual switch to proof of stake if 15% of all ether was in the hands of malicious actor

The author of Casper, Vlad Zamfir, clearly stated on numerous occasions on Reddit that there was no risk to PoS b/c of the hack.

> There was also the moral matter that something could indeed be done to actually return the stolen money to their original owners

That's a really nice way of phrasing "we have a moral right to help gamblers recoup their losses."

> It's true some employees at the ethereum foundation had personal money invested in the DAO. Vitalik himself had a small amount invested as well. However, the Ethereum Foundation was not involved with the DAO.

The Foundation itself may not have been invested, but many of the members and core contributors were (Gavin Wood, core contributor of the Rust implementation, was rumored to have over $100k in DAO tokens).

> neither the creators of the DAO, nor the Ethereum foundation has kept any money that was lost in this unfortunate incident.

The hard fork, by definition, allowed everyone to keep what would have been lost.

And it wasn't an "unfortunate incident", it was a publicly stated inevitability, advertised not only by the platform (with the words "unstoppable code" on the home page) but by the authors of the DAO themselves ("Any and all explanatory terms or descriptions are merely offered for educational purposes and do not supercede or modify the express terms of The DAO’s code set forth on the blockchain;").

I didn't agree with the fork, and I choose to follow the majority of miners anyway because I still believe in Ethereum, but quit trying to rewrite history.