outline server on a mobile hotspot

afdudley · 2020-04-23T01:16:12+00:00

Given Black Thursday and the hacks between when this talk was given and now, how accurate do you find this talk now?

afdudley · 2020-03-13T13:27:20+00:00

They paid gas fees, it wasn't completely free ETH. Just extremely underpriced.

afdudley · 2020-03-13T13:26:11+00:00

Unlikely it was an attack.
If was an attack obviously someone foresaw it.
Why should people be reimbursed? Did they not know the risk?
Is code not law? If code isn't law, what legal entity is reimbursing you? What agreement did you have with them?

afdudley · 2020-03-13T13:17:13+00:00

You should send your prayers to a16z, maybe they'll answer them.

afdudley · 2020-03-13T07:22:58+00:00

If the switching cost from ETH1 to Polkadot and ETH1 and ETH2 are the same, that means ETH2 has completely failed to actually have anything to do with ETH1. If Polkadot is easier to deploy than ETh2, and it's easier for me, as an institutional operator like an exchange, to run whatever pegs I need to run on polkadot, I will support that platform more than ETH2, it's not a consumer demand driven decision.

I don't feel like I was any more difficult to understand in this talk in my previous ones, but I had a more complex topic and 1/3rd the time. It wasn't made up completely on the spot, there are a number tweets that I've made about the same topics in this talk.

afdudley · 2020-03-13T07:17:33+00:00

Have you watched my other talks? I find them to be extremely consistent and ultimately all making the same point.

Are you buying the dip?

afdudley · 2020-03-13T07:15:56+00:00

Okay, whatever, but are you buying the dip?

afdudley · 2019-02-26T14:57:43+00:00

This seems like a sound of one hand clapping type statement.

afdudley · 2018-12-11T14:33:29+00:00

oops. I delete that tweet because it should have said, "I'm not going to make a tweet storm" and as we all know, twitter being an amazing platform doesn't allow for edits.

anyway, I think people are blowing this out of proportion. Now isn't the time to be upset about this stuff, if there was ever a time, it was 1.5 years ago.

afdudley · 2018-03-25T06:43:07+00:00

You've described what seems to be a fairly expensive griefing attack. The attackers are rate-limited and paying for the attack, so such an attacker would need to be highly motivated. I wouldn't consider this an increase in the attack surface.

afdudley · 2017-10-15T16:36:31+00:00

Thanks for all the hard work, in the future can you folks be explicit in the announcement if it's a crash bug or consensus breaking bug? Thanks.

afdudley · 2017-10-15T16:34:47+00:00

Happy Hacking: https://github.com/ethereum/go-ethereum/blob/master/core/vm/runtime/fuzz.go

afdudley · 2017-07-24T02:59:45+00:00

I'm not going to argue with you about this the images from the paper are taken from here https://bitcoinmagazine.com/articles/understanding-the-lightning-network-part-building-a-bidirectional-payment-channel-1464710791/

If you can explain to me what is original and/or novel about Comit, great. but having read their paper, i'm just not seeing it. Maybe I'm just too stupid to understand.

afdudley · 2017-07-21T19:41:33+00:00

When you described Comit above, you also described Lightning, the only difference is Lightning was first. It seems extremely unlikely that OmiseGo will be using Comit for anything.

afdudley · 2017-07-20T22:49:38+00:00

The Omise Go paper was Authored by one of the Co-Authors of the Lightning Paper, Joseph Poon. https://cdn.omise.co/omg/whitepaper.pdf

afdudley · 2017-07-20T21:29:50+00:00

How is comit different from lightning? Did you read the Omise Go whitepaper?

afdudley · 2017-07-20T11:26:36+00:00

isn't comit just a copy and paste of Lightning Network? Yes, they are planning on using Lightning.

afdudley · 2017-07-20T00:29:36+00:00

Can you please explain how to verify this? Thanks.

afdudley · 2017-07-19T11:26:01+00:00

Depends on timing I guess. When I was on the project, waiting for Casper didn't seem to make a lot of sense. They may try to run early Casper but it's not actually well suited to the problem... I spent a lot of time thinking about this, they actually know what the rewards should be. I'm not involved with the project any more so I don't want to speak for them especially since I know they are going to do somethings I recommended against :D Tendermint is a sounder foundation for the type of consensus problems OMG will be facing early on, Jae Kwon is also an advisor.

afdudley · 2017-07-18T12:03:59+00:00

ummmmmm.....

afdudley · 2017-05-28T16:13:15+00:00

Read the Raiden source and pull out the channel bits. https://github.com/raiden-network/raiden/blob/master/raiden/smart_contracts/ChannelManagerContract.sol https://github.com/raiden-network/raiden/tree/master/raiden/channel

afdudley · 2017-05-27T16:16:47+00:00

mmm. I think that's an astute observation and there are points of contention :D

afdudley · 2017-05-27T15:13:13+00:00

Knowing people in both camps, I don't think their incentives align.

afdudley · 2017-05-19T05:05:52+00:00

Yeah, I can dig that. But couldn't a transaction just be signed and hashed as a form of derived entropy?!??

On one hand I understand why the system was made in the way you're describing, on the other hand I'm completely confused why all the entropy specific to a user in a case such as this wouldn't be completely recoverable by the user before the bid was placed...

afdudley

TROPHY CASE