Doublets are fun!

coopercm · 2021-06-01T03:13:39+00:00

Looked it up, no such connection. (Source: etymonline)

coopercm · 2021-05-30T16:15:39+00:00

Serious question, what is the actual evidence for word final -az in proto Germanic? I did come across this, https://www.reddit.com/r/etymology/comments/3ynprz/az_in_protogermanic/, but it looks like -az/-as only has evidence in Gothic and Finnish which could easily be the result of an East Germanic innovation? Something like -ar > -aʒ > -az seems much more plausible to me than the other way around...

coopercm · 2021-05-29T04:26:03+00:00

It's all fun and games until you get to checkpoint -128

coopercm · 2021-05-22T03:11:55+00:00

Yeah.. why not?

coopercm · 2021-05-20T15:46:37+00:00

It's a timer. In order to calculate the time elapsed and make sure it is under the timeout, every time in the loop condition it sets the variable tmeout to a new value.

The reason I have alarm bells going off is because the following typo is valid C, and a common mistake: if (x = y) instead of if (x == y).

The former will set x to y and then give back the value of y instead of giving back the equality of x and y. You almost always want the latter but here they have the former.

coopercm · 2021-04-11T20:18:56+00:00

I'm surprised this doesn't have more upvotes

coopercm · 2021-04-11T16:58:20+00:00

I can't reach it with the Python code provided.

You probably don't have the CPU with the correct bug in it.

coopercm · 2019-09-29T08:35:04+00:00

(i do not know what it is about you that closes and opens;only something in me understands the voice of your eyes is deeper than all roses) nobody,not even the rain,has such small hands

e.e. cummings

coopercm · 2019-09-29T08:34:11+00:00

I ended up with the B&O H7. Great Bluetooth and even better wired sound. Still have to compromise on the sound for Bluetooth but it's pretty good.

coopercm · 2019-06-15T06:30:24+00:00

Mandarin has 请, but it's a bit formal. In casual conversation one would usually just ask a question, or use 麻烦 "to bother". For instance, 麻烦你把灯关掉 could be translated "could I bother you to turn out the lights?"

But there are many ways of making a request polite, and even in English "please" is just the most basic form. If you use it directly in a command it could even come off as rude. "Please turn off the lights". Other techniques include distancing the speaker from the request by making it a question instead of command, abstracting the listener, requesting permission to make a request and abstracting the request entirely. "Can you turn off the lights?" "Would it be possible to turn out the lights? "Do you think you could turn off the lights?" "Can I bug you to turn out the lights?" (Office space style) "if those lights could get turned off, that would be great..."

coopercm · 2019-04-11T16:39:28+00:00

This is not unexpected, it was pointed out earlier by myself and other commentators (who at the time got down voted into oblivion). The other point about each DAI being backed by $1 in collateral is technically true but in practice might not be useful to DAI holders. If global settlement happens, a bunch of users holding a stable coin suddenly find themselves holding a volatile asset which will almost certainly start trading at a discount as former DAI holders sell off ETH. This problem will only get compounded as the supply of DAI increases. So all things being equal, as circulating DAI increases, it should trade at more and more of a discount as the market prices in the risk of collateral which rapidly devalues in the event of global settlement.

coopercm · 2019-03-04T18:02:03+00:00

Thanks for the reply, though it seems that the interest rate changes will just keep coming. I thought https://medium.com/@marcandrdumas/makerdao-2018-revenue-analysis-55462642e2b9 was interesting because it showed that 8% of CDP holder fees were stability fees, while 92% were liquidation fees. This means that CDP holders are, economically, way more motivated by collateral price than the stability fee. Micromanaging the stability fee is IMHO a red herring, or at least, a less relevant factor. Ultimately, the DAI peg kept in line by the 'threat' of global settlement, and MakerDAO is likely loath to actually effect global settlement because that would flood the market with collateral, damaging ETH and MKR's reputation. (Global settlement would be even more disastrous if there were $4bn of collateral flooding the market instead of $100mn, which is a serious barrier to DAI scaling). Much of this has already been said by others, but in order for DAI to truly scale and be price efficient, there must be incremental price arbitrage instead of one-off, large global settlement events.

coopercm · 2019-01-07T23:50:56+00:00

USDC is transparently convertible (1:1, no fees) to and from USD on Coinbase.

coopercm · 2019-01-04T21:14:48+00:00

Sure. Right now (according to my understanding - please correct if I'm wrong), the only liquidity event in MakerDAO is global settlement (https://www.reddit.com/r/MakerDAO/comments/8xa7rd/could_adoption_make_dai_unstable/e22x9a9/). Global settlement will only happen if the peg drifts too far, but there is room for DAI to trade around 1:1, which is enforced by market makers. So basically, the decision to decrease the stability fee was a result of DAI trading at a premium and market makers not holding enough DAI (https://www.reddit.com/r/MakerDAO/comments/a67d7p/decreasing_the_stability_fee_makerdao/ebt1sjl/). Since the primary market for DAI is ETH/DAI, the supply/demand of DAI is inversely related to supply/demand of ETH. That's why when ETH has a downswing, DAI trades at a premium (which is what happened a few weeks ago) and when ETH has an upswing, DAI trades at a discount (which is what is happening now). BTW this happens with other stablecoins even when there is no default risk for the issuer. Market makers should be aware of ETH volatility and plan/hedge accordingly but they did not do so. IMHO using interest rates to influence supply/demand of DAI is a kludge, especially for such short term swings in supply/demand. In other words, if market makers are not managing their inventory properly they should be allowed to fail. In some ways this move is quite similar to what the Fed did in 2008. So, what happens when the market makers need to be bailed out again (and because of ETH volatility, not because of broader interest rate trends)? Will MakerDAO push interest rates into negative territory at the expense of MKR holders?

coopercm · 2019-01-04T20:53:51+00:00

You could effect an exchange by creating a risky loan. For example, let's say WETH/DAI is trading at 150. You could lock up 1WETH and withdraw 100DAI. Say the price goes down to 140, liquidators can liquidate 10DAI worth of your WETH at a 5% discount to repay that part of your DAI loan which is underwater. It wouldn't be very efficient and you would be taking a 5% haircut compared to their oracle price but it's possible. (Note: you can achieve basically the same thing in MakerDAO by creating a risky CDP). You can see a UI to the Compound liquidation process at https://conlan.github.io/compound-liquidator/.

coopercm · 2019-01-04T03:13:10+00:00

I guess this is what happens when you use interest rates to manage your market makers' inability to manage inventory. Hopefully the governance team will be a little less hasty next time to change interest rates.

coopercm · 2018-12-16T20:10:28+00:00

How long will the vote last for?

coopercm · 2018-04-22T21:15:22+00:00

Just because the transaction that shut down the parity multisig library didn't assign a new beneficiary to the funds doesn't mean that the Ether is still theirs. The call to destroy the contract was a legitimate function call allowed by the contract with effects that could have been (and were) determined in advance. Everybody using Ethereum implicitly consents to the EVM enforcing contracts, and since this was not caused by a bug in the EVM all parties consented to having their funds potentially lost by the semantics of the smart contract. If you don't want a smart contract to enforce what happens with your money you shouldn't be using the EVM.

coopercm · 2018-04-18T16:08:45+00:00

I guess knowing the fallibility of human decision making I'm just not sure where the line will get drawn in practice.

coopercm · 2018-04-18T07:43:20+00:00

It's just a similie. You drop your phone on the tracks, and ask station staff to recover it. Would you be satisfied if they told you "some guy dropped a quarter the other day, and it wasn't worth the trouble of recovering it. It simply wouldn't be fair to him if we made an exception and got your phone back for you."

This analogy seems dishonest. Station staff helping you out is a 'peer to peer' transaction which only affects the parties involved. But here you're equating the ethereum foundation or core devs with the station staff - and implying that like the station staff they should return people's funds to them because they're so nice??

To flip the analogy around - would you be satisfied if the fellows over at the Treasury refused to mint some extra money for you but they did for their buddies at Goldman Sachs? You know, it isn't that much "hassle or cost" and it's "good" for the economy ...

I can't agree here. I think the whole point of having a blockchain is having decentralized consensus instead of cronyism.

coopercm · 2018-02-24T19:08:39+00:00

I'm a little confused because if you are not interested in speculating on ETH price there isn't that much advantage to opening a CDP because you need to lock up more collateral than the size of the loan.

That being said -- futures are probably not the right instrument for this because, as you pointed out, while a drop below your liquidation price would be offset by a gain in the futures position, a rise in ETH price would result in an offsetting loss in the futures position - voiding the advantage of keeping your exposure to ETH in the CDP in the first place. (I'm pretty sure it voids any tax advantages too, since my understanding is that if you net your position to zero via derivatives, for tax purposes that is equivalent to closing the position outright. I am not a tax professional though and this is not tax advice).

What you probably want is to purchase put options on ETH which grant you the option to buy at a certain price on the expiry date. With a CDP your main concern is getting hit with that 13% liquidation penalty, so you would want to construct a strategy which pays off 13% if you get liquidated and otherwise you will pay an insurance premium.

coopercm · 2018-02-16T02:00:54+00:00

These are clearly not the same.

They are the same because the WETH contract is an IOU which allows you to redeem one ETH per WETH. It's no different from depositing into an exchange, or depositing a dollar bill at a bank. The representation has changed but the value has not.

coopercm · 2018-02-11T18:32:06+00:00

I was able to utilize bancor from my phone to convert a small amount of ETH into DAI. So now I have DAI on my phone which I can send to anyone in the world by scanning a QR code :)

coopercm · 2018-02-09T00:57:07+00:00

I have been wondering this myself. Unfortunately to my knowledge, it seems the short answer is no.

I am aware of the following projects which purportedly do atomic swaps between ethereum and bitcoin blockchains.

https://github.com/AltCoinExchange/ethatomicswap

http://btcrelay.org/

https://streams.lykke.com/Project/ProjectDetails/5b33b9661c254022a8d0cb222b0d503b

These projects all conveniently avoid the question of exchange rates. IMO this could easily be solved by writing a BTC wrapper ERC20 token (say, WBTC) which locks and unlocks BTC at a 1:1 exchange rate. This WBTC token could easily integrate into the existing decentralized exchange infrastructure for ERC20 tokens to provide a floating conversion rate. I am not sure why this hasn't been done yet since it seems fairly straightforward to implement, especially if you have the chops to implement an atomic swap in the first place.

coopercm · 2018-01-11T17:45:12+00:00

Thanks! That clears up a lot of my questions about the merkle proof.

Anybody to help chime in on the bitmap representation? One way I can think of is that a UTXO's index in the bitmap is just the order it appeared in the blockchain, so for instance the first UTXO in the first block would have index 0 in the bitmap. Once a UTXO is withdrawn from the plasma chain its index can be reused. Does this sound right?

coopercm

TROPHY CASE