hahainternet

No you completely lied and are now trying to save face.

Yours is the only post in this entire thread adding the needed context.

The article doesn't either. Yet somehow you were at the bottom of the page for me. I don't understand why.

Is it appropriate for you to be trying to attack the guy's credibility?

Seems odd that it would be the first and only response given this video.

It's clear you're not looking at this from a neutral perspective. Given that the situation is significantly different than you imagined and your view has not changed.

> Many defendents refuse a plea bargain of "guilty" because they don't want to be put on that list.

This is not the US.

> Non-police residents can inquire about felons on the list because of Sarah's Law

This is no different than an extended check which any company allowing you to work with children can carry out. The difference is here that vulnerable new partners of the person can enquire if they see fit.

It is about keeping people safe, not punishing people. It's literally a criminal offence to reveal information about someone having to sign the register.

Except that if you click the link, that's not what this means.

> I was willing to tolerate Ledger's issues here ... if they fixed them

> Unfortunately, the Ledger team appear to be asshats, so there's every reason to fear using them in the future, even if they've fixed this specific issue

Your first two lines completely contradict each other.

The Nano S is #3 in your list.

Perhaps someone could help me.

Lightning seems quite sound in theory, but I have misgivings about the order in which a fresh transaction is signed, and the secret to the old transaction revealed.

It would seem that by interrupting this chain before both old secrets are revealed, the attacker could safely claim all coins in the channel.

I'm probably wrong, but I'd like to know why.

The link you've posted

a) Does not work b) Seems to be specific to Ethereum c) According to a mirror, has its information sourced from an unverified Reddit post.

Is there anything but FUD here?

> 3 days? In contrast, your liability is capped at $500 if you inform your bank of debit card fraud within 60 days.

Unless your bank considers the fraud to have been caused by a lack of care on your behalf, in which case you will not be refunded and have virtually no means of appeal

(note: Obviously depends on your country and local laws)

You need to physically connect your premesis to the middlemen.

In lightning, you need only virtually connect them.

There's a literal world of difference between the two.

I noticed you've posted the same thing in many different posts with increasing inaccuracy.

> instead they have to be given permission to transact by monolithic liquidity hubs

Completely false

> who of course must take their own fee

May, and routes aren't prescribed so they may take a fee on a payment that may be routed through them.

> I would want a rate of return similar to stocks but times some multiple to account for the very high risk of my hot wallet getting hacked and losing all my money.

What. This is completely disconnected from Lightning's functionality.

Please stop spreading FUD.

> lol, with lightning you have to rely on a small number of centralized payment hubs

There is no requirement for this. This is FUD.

Is what `end-users should care about` any business of yours? I don't mean that insultingly, I mean genuinely.

I think renaming a bunch of packages with a prefix is probably silly, but your response also strikes me as incredibly prescriptive.

I like brew, but I don't like that attitude.