Dagonfly

You were asking about reachable, not routable. Of course, an address behind a firewall might be adressable and theoretically routable, but it certainly isn't reachable.

The default config of a SoHo router has both: (a) NAT44 separating public vs. private IPv4, (b) and also a firewall that blocks any unknown ingress traffic on IPv4 and IPv6.

From a security standpoint, it doesn't matter if the IP get translated inbetween. Only the ingress firewall counts: If the firewall is in-place both IPv4 and IPv6 traffic will be blocked. If you open up the firewall (via hole punching or port forwarding on IPv4, or via IP allows for IPv6), I can send packets to your public IPv4 + port and they will arrive at you private server, or I send them to your servers GUA IPv6 and it arrives. There is no security difference.

To be clear: There is no permanently frozen guarantee. Tether can and has unfrozen (called removeBlackList)addresses before. All of this is just a public database fully controlled by Tether Limited.

I would not consider USDT to be an example for transparency or free flow of information. The selling point of USDT is that it's pegged to the US doller. Users put at lot of trust in both that 1:1 ratio and therefore indirectly in the US FED.

But: Are you sure that Tether is actually backed by USD? It certainly isn't free information.

It's only really a learning curve if you're an expert at IPv4, and try to apply your IPv4 mental model directly to IPv6.

Why would it be reachable? It might be name-able but that doesn't imply reachable.

You're conflating the two parts of NAT: address translation and inbound filtering. A router can block any inbound traffic coming from WAN, even if the IPv6s on the LAN side are public.

In fact, hole punching for IPv4 shows this distinction. By default inbound traffic is blocked, but as soon as private host has opened up a connection, it is (indirectly) reachable and nameable (via the routers public IP + port).

BTW, static IPv4 NAT with public addresses on both sides exists as well.

TBH, the more you know about the technical aspects the less fascinating it gets.

Smart contracts and stablecoins by extention sound technologically interesting, but at the end you always rely on trusting people.

The core of the financial system is about managing trust and therefore a social issue, not a tech issue. It'd be nice if more tech nerds would internalize that tech can't solve social issues on it's own

The lession learned is: Tether now exists as a casino chip central bank. They can just freeze and print more and provide a backstop to the major CEXs.

Of course, Tether runs completely counter to any of the idealistic claims about crypto.

TVs and monitors have this naming strategy because of retail stores. You can't price compare between different stores if every one has their own exclusive model with a different set of RNG numbers in the name.

Same for appliances or most products that are bought through a middleman rather than directly from the manufacturer.

Most banks integrate Wero into their online banking app, but some (e.g. mine) use the dedicated app for Wero (It's just called wero on google play and iOS). You still sign up with your bank account though.

The critical feature that Wero needs is adding money to your account balance via SEPA instant or credit card. That way users without participating bank accounts can join.

The hypocrisy of the second quote is a bit on the nose. If the internal reasoning is so valueable, why do they increasingly hide it from the user?

It's honestly shocking how terrible copilot is at generating interesting and relevant metrics from excel.

The local optimum still seems to be: Let LLM of your choice generate a polars script that reads the spreadsheet and explores them for you.

My partner recently used that "pattern" at work to find outliers and interesting metrics in years of excel reports. Data they were working hours for. Now available in a single human language query.

I don't think the HN crowd understands how many million jobs are primarily staring at excel reports and copying values between forms, pdfs and spreadsheets.

Skimming through the exchange protocol draft it seems like a pretty standard diffie-hellman. Seems easy enough to write a FOSS script that requests an export and then dumps it to plaintext.

Yeah, I was only talking about differences for backup.

As long as no attestation is used, you only have to store the private key, credentialId and userHandle (basically the server generated ids of the passkey and the user). That's not to different to writing down username and password.

Why would they need to re-generate? Pretty much all websites are using copyable passkeys. The user just needs log in to their password manager on their new device. Which for most people just means logging in to their Apple or Google account. There is virtually no difference to storing generated passwords in a password manager or storing passkeys.

And the sad truth is: Most people have no password manager at all. They are used to re-generate new passwords every time they want to log in! I'd wager that on some websites the vast majority of people are loggin in by pressing "I forgot my password".

Passkeys are just a private key plus some metadata.

Bitwarden lets you export your vault, and the export contains the private key in plain text. There is virtually no difference to writing down a password on a piece of paper. Well, I guess a passkey is a lot longer than the avg password.

This changes if attestation ever becomes widespread. Which will only happen if Apple does a U-turn on their stance.