Recent submissions

Comment · 4 years ago
Nah this was a 300IQ pro gamer move. Cunningham's Law.
Comment · 4 years ago
k
Comment · 4 years ago
It's a troll. "Optional activities" gets translated to "mandatory" and a game is "far more important" yet apparently in such a game nobody really likes each other, too.
Comment · 4 years ago
What is to prevent the network from facilitating money laundering and purchase of illegal goods?
Comment · 4 years ago
I'm very confused by both of your points. The supply of a cryptocurrency is equal to a person? A crypto token is not a person so I'm guessing you missed a few words there?

How is building a competing chain to more efficiently solve a problem (high transaction fees) in a competitive market in any way "dismissing" that problem? That seems the exact opposite of dismissing a problem.

Do those new solutions come with new problems? Sure, that's true of any technology. Dynamo-based databases solved high availability and network partitionability of data but come with several trade-offs. That doesn't mean you shouldn't use Cassandra for anything.

That said, Solana is not the hill I'm willing to die on and it's hot garbage. Hedera seems good though.

Comment · 4 years ago
That creates opprotunities for other Level 1 chains. Solana for example charges $0.00025 per transaction (however this is still denominated in the SOL currency so it will fluctuate). Hedera network is $0.0001 per transaction and is fixed in USD.
Comment · 4 years ago
Would lightning network approach comply with KYC laws?
Comment · 4 years ago
SLA is simply an intent to provide a level of service. If that can't be met, then there'd be an agreement on what the consequence of that was. Don't meet an availability SLA and maybe you get some credit back. You can't offer a best effort for non-repudiation of data. It either is or it isn't.

Maybe trust is the wrong word. Like - yes they might say they intend to provide this level of service, but the only way they can actually guarantee that level of non-repudiation of data is with cryptographic proofs and decentralized consensus and now you've basically got a cryptographic ledger.

PoW Blockchain isn't the only technology to accomplish this, either. There's a whole host of blockchain and post-blockchain technologies seeking to corner that market - a more efficient blockchain. Hedera for example uses the hashgraph algorithm.

Comment · 4 years ago
Maybe a key distinction here is that TCB itself is not trustless - it requires KYC, etc. But where data is stored and redeemed is on the trustless, decentralized Hedera network. It functions as an automated, secure ledger.

You could replace Hedera with a private blockchain or another ledger - likely not a public one due to unpredictable transaction fees or high time to consensus - the value is the same.

Comment · 4 years ago
Comment · 4 years ago
The technology doesn't have to solve all problems to have economic value. Arguably the "cash alternative" problem is a fundamental problem of coupons themselves. And as you point out, these are not new problems, and does an immutable public ledger makes such activity easier to audit and prosecute? I would argue 'yes' and that web3 has not made the problem worse but in fact better. The authorities do not need to request your books for starters. And as a retailer you do not need to maintain the books. Its already in a trusted ledger. This is a market efficiency. Inefficiency is not a way to secure things.

As far as doubt whether customers are asking for this - I mean, again you can listen above but yes a number of large retailers and vendors like Wal-mart and P&G are going live with this use-case this year.

And who are we to decide what is economically viable and what isn't? Let the market decide.

Comment · 4 years ago
Here's a more concrete example: coupons.

I, as a supplier, want to prevent coupon fraud - a ~300M year problem. Today they mitigate this with trust relationships between retailers and distributers, which consequentially means that coupons are less widely distributed and more marginal in what discounts they offer than they could be.

When coupons are redeemed, a cashier stuffs them in a bag, they get counted and redeemed and the supplier cuts a check. A shady retailer can simply say they have double the coupons they actually received, and they will get the same check. There's nothing unique about the coupon to prevent this.

Ignoring web3, how could you solve this? You could set up some simple database and rest api and have the coupons have some unique identity. You'd need to make this cryptographically secure so you couldn't simply forge identities, you'd need to be able to issue these easily and in bulk, have them expire at a certain time, onboard retailers to easily redeem these coupons and then facilitate payments to the retailer.

And, well, that's essentially what Hedera does[1], as a cryptographic DLT. Its value is that the cryptographic proof of whether something is unique and how it can be redeemed is done via NFT, and this protects against a number of attacks at the "consensus level". It offers you a secure way to do this and not run any computer, for minimal and predictable fees. Every transaction is fixed to USD and costs 0.0001 USD and completes in 5 seconds.

https://hedera.com/users/coupon-bureau

If you don't believe me that the customer is asking for this maybe you can listen to them yourself:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?app=desktop&v=--Bw8yYwJL4

Comment · 4 years ago
He said he feels sad, not that it was unfair. Sad that, for reasons Will makes very clear, he could not forgive.
Comment · 4 years ago
If you don't smoke Tarrlytons...f** you!

Live from the official Hacker News API

A modern reader for Hacker News · SvelteKit + Skeleton