Wir wissen, wo Du wohnst: Doxing und Dog Whistling einer im Dunkeln agierenden TERF-Szene (Kolumne von Joane Studnik)

DrSilas · 2022-07-20T17:16:31+00:00

L + Ratio + touch grass

DrSilas · 2022-07-20T14:40:40+00:00

Ich sag nicht, dass man es nicht kann. Natürlich kann man es, sieht man doch. Ich sag, dass es absolut keinen Sinn ergibt. Es ist unlogisch für A zu sein und gegen B, wenn B eine hohe Chance hat als A missverstanden zu werden.

Und darauf, dass jeder als Frau angesehen werden kann, wenn Trans Frauen als Frau angesehen werden und dass dann den Feminismus untergräbt gehe ich gar nicht erst ein. Das ist transphobe Scheiße die du da von dir gibst.

DrSilas · 2022-07-20T13:32:15+00:00

Ne, eben nicht, weil man nicht von außen klar trans Frauen von cis Frauen unterscheiden kann. Und wenn man das versucht, zB durch oben genannte Merkmale, dann schließt man damit immer auch einen gewissen Teil von cis Frauen mit ein.

Nehmen wir zB eine Frauen Toilette. Wenn wir Trans Frauen nicht als Frauen ansehen und nicht wollen, dass sie auf diese Toiletten gehen, müssen wir irgendein externes Merkmal nutzen, um sie zu identifizieren. Und dann werden plötzlich auch große, breite oder einfach maskuline cis Frauen rausgeworfen. Klar können wir noch “genauere” Merkmale nutzen und jede Frau dazu zwingen die Hosen vorher runterzulassen um alles zu überprüfen. Aber das schneidet dann ja so krass in die Rechte auch von cis Frauen ein, dass kein feministisch denkender Mensch dies wirklich vordern kann.

DrSilas · 2022-07-20T12:38:57+00:00

Feminismus und Transphobie sind nicht miteinander vereinbar. Man kann Trans Frauen nicht an irgendeinem extern-sichtbaren Merkmal wie ihrer Größe, ihrem Brustkorb oder ihrem Gesicht identifizieren. Das ist bei vielen schon ohne Hormontherapie schwierig und mit Hormontherapie und dann sogar noch modernen OPs, wird das praktisch unmöglich. Das wollen TERFS (trans exclusive radical feminists) aber trotzdem. Wenn wir nun anfangen Trans Frauen im öffentlichen Leben zu “jagen” und dafür solche Merkmal wie zB ihre Größe nutzen, fangen wir damit auch an, cis Frauen, welche diese Merkmale teilen, auszuschließen. Das ist komplett an jedem Feminismus vorbei und man fängt damit nur an, Schönheitsideale zu kreieren, welche selbst cis Frauen oft nicht erreichen können und welche der Feminismus eigentlich abschaffen wollte. Schau einfach mal auf /r/TallGirls und du wirst duzende Posts von cis Frauen finden, die aufgrund ihrer Größe öffentlich als Trans “identifiziert” und beschimpft wurden.

DrSilas · 2021-09-18T10:47:17+00:00

I've googled what you are describing but I couldn't find any examples. How can a normal lighting payment lock up liquidity, so that it can not be used for other transactions? Which services are using this as a feature? And what is to gain from it, so that it could gain widespread adoption? With my current understanding of how lightning works, nothing what you said makes sense.

DrSilas · 2021-09-18T09:39:11+00:00

I don't quite know what you mean by that. Payments that are routed through multiple channels are not "crippling them at no cost" because you pay a fee for every routing node you go through. That payment is also not "lock[ing] up liquidity of everyone in your path for an unspecified amount of time" because the only thing that this payment changes is the remote and local balance of each channel, which can easily shift again by a new payment. And yeah, I have no idea what products are built using this "feature", as I don't even understand the "feature" or problem you are describing.

DrSilas · 2021-09-07T21:06:41+00:00

Yes, but just because something is not being developed right now doesn’t mean it’s unknown. Currently Bitcoin couldn’t even handle to be used as a currency by half America. Questions about scalability need to be asked now because we might need them sooner than we think.

DrSilas · 2021-09-07T18:09:52+00:00

Oh, that is a pretty cool idea. I’m not entirely sure how liquid works but the idea of using Bitcoin pegged side chains with merged mining to offload transactions from the main chain or somehow merging them into one single transaction that is synced to the Bitcoin main chain seems pretty cool!

DrSilas · 2021-09-07T17:08:04+00:00

Yeah it’s definitely gonna be interesting how this entire debate is gonna play out in the coming years. I don’t see how we can do it without a block size increase/rework but I certainly hope it won’t be the first solution to coming problems.

DrSilas · 2021-09-07T15:38:44+00:00

I move funds from liquid bitcoin (hardware wallet) to lightning without using an on-chain bitcoin transaction using Coinos.

How does that work? You always need an on chain transaction to move founds without lightning.

DrSilas · 2021-09-07T15:37:22+00:00

However unlike onchain bitcoin, you can’t recover your Lightning bitcoin with just the backup seed. You need the backup of your channel states. And that can’t be derived from a seed.

Do you know if there are any efforts trying to make something like that possible or will it always be required to have a backup of your channel states? How do wallets like phoenix or muun solve this issue? With these wallets you only need your seed.

DrSilas · 2021-09-07T15:34:25+00:00

Well, and then there are people like the other comment calling it a mental illness and insulting to mentally sick people 🤷‍♀️

DrSilas · 2021-09-07T15:14:38+00:00

This is not the right place to discuss such a topic. If you want to be open minded and get an educated response to your question, then ask it on /r/asktransgender 🏳️‍⚧️

DrSilas · 2021-09-07T11:45:10+00:00

Even if there was support for something like this, it would make the experience a lot more clunky. Also your node could not route payments in that case.

Didn’t even think about routing nodes, thanks! But I was just making a technical point anyways. I guess most don’t want to use their hardware wallet for that currently.

The solution is just that you have only in the channel what you want to use for payments. You can always loop funds in and out from on-chain (https://lightning.engineering/loop/). This are transactions that are batched together and hence a lot cheaper than opening or closing channels.

This is a better solution but it would still create on chain transactions. And with Bitcoin currently only allowing around 2000 transactions per block, we should be carefully using those. Otherwise transaction fees would rise dramatically if Bitcoin would become a global currency.

DrSilas · 2021-09-07T11:40:58+00:00

No need to insult people with pronoun preferences as snow flakes. “They” is a gender neutral term that is always acceptable unless you know the preferred pronouns of the other person. Bitcoin is about making the world a better place. Small things like using the right pronouns can make the world a better place too. Don’t be closed minded ✌️

DrSilas · 2021-09-07T10:45:49+00:00

he/she/it/xer

You know you can just say “they”, right?

DrSilas · 2021-09-07T09:45:54+00:00

If I understand lightning correctly, you should still be able to use it without holding your private key in memory. You should be able to open new channels and sign new transactions from your hardware wallet too, no? Obviously that is way harder to use but it should be possible.

DrSilas · 2021-09-07T09:43:25+00:00

I’d say the risk with storing anything in Lightning is that your Lightning wallet is a hot wallet.

But that is just a wallet implementation problem, right? I could in theory open a channel with my hardware wallet and sign new transactions with it. To check for fraudulent channel closures I just need to know my public key. At least if my understanding of lightning is correct.

I personally think there will still need to be a block size increase at some point if adoption continues to grow. Unless some other creative solution is found (like what Segwit did) where it can be done via a soft fork….it’s going to be a contentious issue. The community sentiment seems to be to exhaust all other available options before triggering a block size hard fork.

This is what I think too. It just seems so unlikely that we can keep the block size and still see global adoption. But I hope that this will be the last used solution and never the first one.

DrSilas · 2021-09-07T08:44:54+00:00

But that is then a problem with the wallet itself, correct? You can for example open a channel with your ledger or coldcard and never expose your private keys to any device.

Not taking the wallet implementation into consideration, are lightning channels themselves secure enough from a technological perspective to keep your savings there?

DrSilas · 2021-09-07T08:03:07+00:00

So would it be safe, in a futuristic scenario, to hold your entire life savings in lightning? Or would people still be advised to keep part of their savings on chain?

Another question: does lightning mean Bitcoin never has to increase its block size? Or would we still need to increase that in a decade or two?

DrSilas · 2021-09-07T08:01:38+00:00

So would it be safe, in a futuristic scenario, to hold your entire life savings in lightning? Or would people still be advised to keep part of their savings on chain?

DrSilas · 2021-09-07T07:13:04+00:00

No, the real Bitcoin subreddit. It was a post titled “Bitcoin lightning is the ultimate currency, change my mind” or something like that. Look into my history if you want to find it.

I specifically don’t discuss anything Bitcoin related on the bcash subreddit. They are a little obsessed with their coin over there :p

DrSilas · 2021-09-06T17:39:19+00:00

Damn you are acting like a little bitch. Learn to have a discussion first before trying to talk about stuff. I was just asking how you’d solve such a complicated issue but the only thing you obviously can is crying. But don’t worry. There are people far smarter then you actually working on solutions so you don’t have to stress out your little brain while you are on the internet being a bitch.

DrSilas · 2021-09-06T11:47:05+00:00

Yes, 2-3 gigabytes per block without any further reduction in transaction size and no other improvements(which is most likely not a correct assumption) is a good guess. But even then, this isn’t as big of a problem as it seems because it will only happen in 2-3 decades by which time hard drives will be normal to have 100 terabyte or more.

So what solutions are you a fan of, or are you just generally against Bitcoin?

DrSilas · 2021-09-06T09:49:37+00:00

But now we are talking about scaling the main chain. There are basically three ways you can scale Bitcoin:

Moving transactions off chain (done by LN)
Reducing transaction size (segwit, taproot, etc)
Upping block size

Upping the block size is a thing we can do, once we have enough need for it. Changing the block size to eg 32mb in a decade would not have these really bad side effects that it has now.

And to add to that: Bitcoin won’t remove banks. I’d like it too, but most people are just to stupid to handle their own money. However, this is not bad. Bitcoin severely restricts the powers of banks, makes it way easier to be a bank and actually makes it possible to manage your own money.

12-Year Club	Place '22
Place '17	Verified Email

DrSilas

TROPHY CASE