So, it is slightly more complicated than a serial number. In some sense, everytime you make a transaction, you burn all the input coins and creates new coins for the same value, each assign to the respective recepient. Tracking them is not straight forward.
Most OTC are not very tech savvy and I can imagine one either being criminal but stupid for bringing it to Bitfinex or simply non criminal but did not do their due diligence and KYC the seller (which is very surprising knowing the space)
Bear in mind you might not have the same way to report salaries. In France, for instance, when employees report salary, they don't include the tax the company pays for them. AFAIK, in the US, salaries are reported including them.
I still have a very hard time making apple to apple comparisons. If anyone has a good methodology, please ping
In the US, salaries are not usually described including tax, are they?
When someone in the US says they make $100,000 per year, that is usually exclusive of any tax paid by the company. It is also exclusive of other benefits paid, with health insurance commonly being $10-20k paid by the company, if provided. The employee is responsible for their own income tax.
There’s confusion because in the gig/entrepreneur/consultant world, people will say they “make” $200,000 in business income. But then they bear taxes and benefits out of that amount. So you may “make” more, but do worse than someone who is an employee of a bigger company. That is why it takes a substantial increase in income in the US to justify leaving a stable employer.
But this shouldn't make a difference relatively. In most of Europe (every country I know salary data of), manufacturing engineers tend to get paid at least the same if not more than programmers.
This Unit is litterally 10000 people, is the largest in the Israeli army and handles the vast majority of computer security things. So still does not say much.
Secure randomness requires unpredictability, unstoppability and unbiasable. If you are flipping coin based on bitcoin randomness, the block proposer has an advantage over you. It is not technical secure randomness. That's why Ethereum 2.0 is planning on using a RANDAO + VDF to ensure it. More info on vdfresearch.org
A block proposer has a small probability of being able to re-roll the random number a single time, and an exponentially lower probability of getting a second or third chance. And each attempted manipulation costs a lot of money.
Can easily put secure bounds on this and use it for most applications.
Additionally you can use iterated hashing: take the block hash b and hash it n times as in H(H(H(H(b)))) etc.
Since hashing is a serial operation, and each hash is a random mapping of input to output, with enough iterations (hundreds of billions) you make it completely infeasible for the miner to even know what the result was by the time they have to make the block public.
Zcash actually did this for their second trusted setup; IIRC the delay was set to be about a week's worth of computation. It's a much better scheme for many use-cases than anything else I've seen in this conversation. The main downside is exactly when which participate actually finds out what the final result is isn't well defined. But for cases where you can commit to the result in advance that's fine.
What Zcash did and Solana plans to use is a VDF without succinct verification. Unfortunately, I cannot verify it on a smart contract though, which brings me back to RANDAO + VDF for onchain verifiable randomness.
While you are right for most applications, it would not work for gambling or block selection in the case of proof of stake. Let say I'm flipping a coin (based on the last bit of the block hash) with you. You already locked the funds on the contract, waiting for me to commit to. I can wait until I'm the block proposer to push a block where I'm included. Even if we defined ahead of time how many rounds of hashing, I still have access to that information ahead of time and can decide to participate in the bet.
Therefore, it is not secure randomness. (I won't get into commit and wait which could solve it but they are a pain in any case)
No need for commit reveal, just do a relative offset for picking the rng. So after you place a bet, 6 blocks later is the block that decides if you succeed or fail.
You can use simple techniques like this to make most use cases secure.
Great work! I love the execution speed. Pretty amazing what we can do in the browser at this point.
It sure will bring more zero Knowledge protocols to be deployed in the wild
I'm well informed already about these things. Note that neither of them have significant adoption.
Security tokens are a Bad idea.
Dai is basically only useful for speculating on cryptocurrencies and so I dismiss it like I dismiss exchange dapps. This whole industry can't be built on speculating on the value of nonces.
Why could not you have both ? No one said that you need Securities transactions to be irreversible. STO can bring more liquidity to property assets and simplify dramatically otherwise complex financial operation (title emission, splitting of subsidiaries and so on).
I do hate the point that talks about adoption when we are talking of a technology that has less than 5 years of age (Ethereum for that matter). I hear it a lot and I cannot stop myself to think that this is the same kind of reasoning could have been use again Amazon in 1996 (Bookstore are a small business and Internet has no adoption)
Stable coins are a terrible idea that one day people will realize as such. The economics of a stable coin make no sense. All it takes for it to be totally useless is just enough people to refuse to accept it or the market crashing to the point where trade volume is so low you can never cash out. Just because there is 1 for 1 fiat backing, doesn’t mean you can actually claim your money.
I'm thrilled to participate in building something that won't be government controlled. It's the same excitement I had when the web wasn't Facebook and Google.
Ip used for technical reasons such as logging access are not concerned by the gdpr per se. The same goes to KYC informations.
The gdpr is actually a well written piece of legislation which should worry you only if you do shady stuff.
The only edge case that I know are not well addressed concerns the status of encrypted data (would be deleting private keys considered to be deleting them? This question is important on blockchain data storage)
Your personal opinion on cash is irrelevant to the subject. Cash has property you say you don't want. Some people might and do want them. Just have a look at what the relationship between Germans and cash.
Bitcoin has property similar to cash to many extend. It was not technically possible before its invention and as such as it is a real intrinsect value (dont ask me to quantify it)
It wasn't my personal opinion. In the US, the use of cash is below half of personal transactions and has been declining for years; most countries are similar. I personally am more like the Germans here, but I recognize that I'm an outlier.
Regardless, your point doesn't make a lot of sense, because many Germans surveyed on this say they use cash because it gives them better control over spending and more clarity as to where their money goes. Bitcoin is in no way superior to a debit card in that regard.
The value of new possibility isn't really intrinsic; you measure it through seeing if people actually use it. With Bitcoin they mostly don't, which suggests that it is at best more useful to a small slice of people.
