pull down to refresh
100 sats \ 1 reply \ @CruncherDefi 13h \ on: 🚨 Will Ukraine hold an election in 2025? 🗳️ Politics_And_Law
Is that even a question? Elections are not held while at war and are postpones till the war is over. At least that the case with law in most democratic countries so Ukraine probably also qualifies.
I see. I don't like it. It makes distribution in my opinion quite unfair.
This kind of distribution scheme works with bitcoin - all tokens are fungible - if you join mining late, those late mined bitcoins are fungible with early mined bitcoins. I argue that it makes it fair in bitcoin case.
But not so in names case. Names are not fungible. Short/better names are more desirable and are going to be taken first. So late joiners are at the mercy of early joiners - you cannot own a good taken name without a permission of early user who took it.
(Also it kinda explains why you don't have a token to finance yourself - early users will have short names that are worth more).
I bet they are the same 'russians' who blew up the european gas pipeline
No one claims that russians dit that lol.
You have to renew a name once per year, which is just a bitcoin tx
What is the cost of renewal? Is there another auction that gives others opportunity to take over the name?
I was interested in the project last time and I am getting confused why would we need the market.
For what duration you own the name after initial burning-bitcoin auction?
Like time I checked breathing recycles carbon in the loop (CO2 in air is collected by plants that collect solar energy -> we eat plants -> we exhale CO2 created from releasing chemical energy).
And burning fossil fuels add ADDITIONAL carbon to the current conditions system (carbon was blocked from the ecosystem loop hidden underground -> we extract it to the surface -> we burn it and release into atmosphere)
So, with due respect, comparing it to the breathing is just plain stupid.
Why not? Obviously they won't be opening channels to every client they have. And they need to decide on SOMEONE to peer with. So the good choice is picking someone with a lot of liquidity and good connectivity - like exchange.
I'm not interested in investing a year into something that can be done in 11 months and 3 weeks.
Doesn't seem like a good time investment. Optimizing something by ~2% is almost certainly not worth the mental cost and lost time on the research.
You deciding to sell might make some people think the coin is worthless (maybe they know you're a legislator who knows that the coin is going to be made illegal soon) but the other side of you deciding to sell is someone else deciding to buy.
I just provided examples for that. There are HODLers who don't care and DCA every week. There are speculators who sway easily. This creates asymmetry.
Therefore, you can't assume your decision to sell will have any more effect on the market than your trading partner's decision to buy does.
You seem to assume that information asymmetry doesn't exist. It does. Markets exists because of information asymmetry. If everyone had perfect information there would be no need for markets - resource allocation problem would be solved.
Her reasoning seems to assume that asset preferences of market actors are static. If you assume that it checks out, sure. But it's not a good assumption. People preferences are dynamic and even can change overnight.
Some traders might have strong, not easily shake-able belief about asset like bitcoin.
But there are also speculators and uncertain people who didn't yet form strong beliefs. Their preferences might change after seeing big dump that exhausted order books. They follow the crowd. They can get scared. They can panic sell. As price falls down liquidations can put it even further as system unleverages causing more people to suddenly change preferences.
The reasoning doesn't seem to hold under the dynamically changing preference landscape.
Don't think about it as double taxing. Think of it as splitting tax in 2 components, in which one component scales linearly with resource usage.
Game theory is a harsh mistress.
Decentralized still worthless because nobody is going to use your resolver.
No. Every device and webbrowser are going to have built in resolver and everyone is going to use it. It is really that simple.
See what I did? Arbitrary unchecked claims are hardly arguments. We need to wait and see.
not a spam on some other unrelated chain
Bitcoin is REUSABLE proof of work. Here we are just finding more USES for the POW in bitcoin network.
The fact that monetary usecase is the first usecase is just a requirement for self-bootstrapping of the protocol. Once it is bootstrapped its POW is much more general concept that can be applied to other use-cases requiring decentralization.
allowing any malicious spammer ability to set names.
It's not arbitrary. Control over domains is distributed by using POW. Similarly physical control over territories in physical world is distributed also by POW (but in a form of tanks and missiles). It works in bitcoin. It works for physical territories. It also work for names.
I call this the "CocaCola" problem. Any DNS system that lets an arbitrary user register 'cocacola.namespace' is fundamentally untrustworthy, and will never be adopted.
Same logic can be applied to bitcoin and its POW. "Any monetary system where arbitrary user (miner) can decide what transactions are going through is fundamentaly untrustworthy and will never be adopted". And yet you don't seem to have a problem with the same thing in a bitcoin.
Its never going to happen. Stop trying to make it happen.
It is gonna happen and you being confidently wrong about it not gonna change anything.
I have a policy that I don't engage for more than 3 replies (as a strategy of not wasting my time too much). So from my side it's a EOT. Hope you got something useful out of it!
There is no such thing as decentralized DNS.
Exactly, that's why they are trying to create it xD
We have a better chance of decentralizing the money (Bitcoin) than decentralizing names on the internet.
Yeah, and if you have decentralized money, you can use it to power other decentralized projects like decentralized domains.
And who you pay TO for that domain using decentralized money? To every participant pro-rata - that is the decentralized way.
If Namecoin failed and ENS failed and Handshake Failed and DNSchain failed and AlephZero failed
And that proves what? You do realize that before bitcoin there were dozens of failed projects, right? That's how you make stuff work - by trying over and over improving each time.
Also IMHO this idea is way better than shitcoin solutions like Namecoin. It directly uses bitcoin and its POW without any shitcoinery on top.
I never said anything about selling identity. As I understand the use-case here is something like domain registration.
Currently DNS system is permissioned and controlled by a human organization.
This allows for permission-less domain registration. When every web-browsers can resolve such domains we are one step closer towards truly decentralized and permision-less internet.
I had similar reaction at first, but after reading docs I frame it as "Names should be neutral and not personal, so you buy it out from everyone".
Winning an auction by burning coins is like paying everyone in the ecosystem pro rata. Which seems sensible for things like domains/names.
Saw the hint before trying to solve all by myself :((
k = sqrt(7-sqrt(7+k))
k^2 = 7-sqrt(7+k)
sqrt(7+k) = 7-k^2
7+k = (7-k^2)^2
7+k = 49 - 14k^2 + k^4
k^4 - 14k^2 - k + 42 = 0
You can probably solve it analytically, but I quickly guessed k=2 looking at the numbers.
I just gave it as an visual example. Other app developers might not be constrained by legal reasons when it comes to transferring out.
Also as an app developer I might prefer using open source standard and protocol rather than 3rd party solution like Stripe (or some other closed integration).
In this vision each app would be a small bank for its users and for their purchases.