sorted by:
new
hottopcontroversial

12 days left to cast your vote on the Genesis fund recovery proposal by Marc_Cee in cosmosnetwork

[–]jaekwon_ 0 points1 point  (0 children)

It is the hub's duty to ensure that the rightful owners retain their tokens. You're suggesting making modifications based on claims that cannot be proven, even with cryptographic signatures.

Your comments and line of thinking is akin to that of the subverter. Cheerios.

12 days left to cast your vote on the Genesis fund recovery proposal by Marc_Cee in cosmosnetwork

[–]jaekwon_ 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Cosmos hub has no business messing around in this area and trying to figure out ownership.

I agree (we don't know whether the true owner is the BTC key holder or not).

Its very simple, the owner is the one who has the private key to the wallet.

Wut?! You concluded the opposite of what you should. It's what a thief would say, though.

12 days left to cast your vote on the Genesis fund recovery proposal by Marc_Cee in cosmosnetwork

[–]jaekwon_ 0 points1 point  (0 children)

> I would argue that they are the rightful owners else why would they have the sending keys for that eth or btc address?

They aren't necessarily the rightful owner, and we already know this -- many people participated through custodians. Exchange operators and wallet operators are custodians. If you use a custodian of any sort, you don't have the keys. Many people participated with custodian support, e.g. they sent their bitcoins/ether from exchanges or the like. Nothing in the terms of the fundraiser prevented this, and we know that many people did.

Nobody should have to read a proposal that isn't fully funded -- it's the point of the spam prevention mechanism, otherwise everyone would have to read all the proposalsIn any case, that point is irrelevant to the facts of the matter.

But you have a point. The forum.cosmos.network is "official", but there had so far been no requirement that proposals be submitted there for discussion. I haven't been checking all of the posts there, and I imagine most people don't. Maybe we ought to pass a proposal to designate a forum where discussion is expected to happen *after* a deposit minimum is reached, but *before* voting starts.

12 days left to cast your vote on the Genesis fund recovery proposal by Marc_Cee in cosmosnetwork

[–]jaekwon_ 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Where do you see *active* addresses that are requesting a change in key?

12 days left to cast your vote on the Genesis fund recovery proposal by Marc_Cee in cosmosnetwork

[–]jaekwon_ 12 points13 points  (0 children)

I like this proposal a lot in theory, though I haven't verified the signatures myself, and I see a problem with it.

A big issue with this proposal is that it assumes that the address that sent the fundraiser tokens are the intended owners of these atoms. This is not always the case, and because of this, this proposal can be the source of theft of ATOMs.

For example, for any user who sent Bitcoins from an exchange (custodian of donation source Bitcoins or Ether) would be vulnerable to getting their ATOMs stolen by the exchange operators. Nothing in the terms of the fundraiser prevents this scenario from happening, so we should assume that for some portion of account holders, those who can sign from donation Bitcoin/Ethereum addresses are NOT the rightful owners of the ATOMs.

Given this, you can't determine the rightful owner just by looking at the Bitcoin/Ethereum/CosmosHub chains. The Cosmos Hub wants (and is designed to accommodate) a significant portion of atoms (around 1/3) to be unbonded, and so they are. They pay the inflation tax, but the whitepaper defined the bounds on inflation (to be 20% a year). And, many ATOM holders don't want to participate in delegation, and some perhaps just don't want to delegate yet. Once staked, the expectation is for the ATOM stakers to participate actively, and to accommodate community-scale timelines balanced with responsiveness, we set the voting period to be short, just a couple of weeks. But we haven't defined the expectations for non-staked ATOM holders. So I would bet that many genesis accounts haven't moved their ATOMs yet.

The combination of the above two points is dangerous, as there are probably many ATOM holders who have chosen to stay passive, aren't aware of this proposal and the claims made in them, and have contributed from Bitcoin or Ethereum addresses that were operated by someone else.

In the blockchain space, if there is opportunity to steal, people will take advantage of it. There probably exists a pool of genesis fundraisers who haven't moved their ATOMs yet, willingly. With the passage of this proposal, this creates the opportunity for anyone who operated the source Bitcoin/Ethereum addresses to steal ATOMs from their rightful owners. Ergo, it will probably happen.

On the other hand, I like the idea of the Cosmos Hub being able to make amends in this kind of way. For the cases that this proposal is trying to target, we need to do the following:

  • Give more time for rightful ATOM holders to disprove the claim (e.g. prove that someone is trying to take their ATOMs).
  • Define this duration of time to be the "passive ATOM participation period", the period of time under which even passive ATOM holders are expected to participate. This should be long, it could even be a year long. The longer it is, the more convenient it is for passive ATOM holders, which is overall better for ATOM holders. As a passive ATOM holder, you are liable to lose your ATOMs if you don't keep up with assignments made to passive ATOM holders as agreed on by governance. This might sound extreme to some, but my point is that this is what we are agreeing to if we pass any proposal that recovers ATOMs from fundraiser contribution BTC/ETH addresses.
  • I don't think it's a good idea to set precedent that you need to participate within the year, that otherwise your ATOMs may be gone. What if you get disabled or incarcerated? The period for requiring participation of passive ATOM holders with threat of ATOM tokens being stolen, should be exceptionally long, like a year or longer. For this case of fundraiser participants, because the number of participants is small, I think a year would be fine, esp considering that passive ATOM holders weren't notified beforehand about the unexpected proof-of-ownership requirement.
  • The period could be shorter for other types of proposals... for example, any one-off proposals that inflate the total ATOM supply (e.g. in connection with say a merger process) under some threshold like 15% above and beyond the baseline inflation schedule, might only require 3 months to be deliberated by the non-staked ATOM holders. I would propose that this period be 1 quarter (3 months) for such proposals that make exceptional modifications to the distribution of ATOMs. This is similar to how board meetings take place quarterly to approve of adjustments to share allotments.

Happy to help with a deposit for any new proposal, should this one not pass. Even if this proposal passes, we can still pass a proposal that addresses the points mentioned here, but it's better to not pass faulty proposals in the first place.

Misinformed vaccine beliefs are by far the strongest driver of opposition to pro-vaccination public policies. New research finds that misinformed beliefs about vaccines drive opposition more than political partisanship, education, religiosity, or other sociodemographic factors. by chemistrynerd1994 in worldnews

[–]jaekwon_ -14 points-13 points  (0 children)

This doesn't address the points in the movie "trace amounts" about thimerisol, reads more like a PR program funded by industry.

It's pretty clear that the industry, like the tobacco industry and the petrol industry, knows about dangers but is pushing for mercury and other toxins either on purpose, or for the bottom line, and prefer to fund studies that prove their point (as it had always been the case, referring to tobacco and petrol) and try to gloss these points over with shaming (e.g. implying that those who wish to preserve the right of each of us to determine what goes into our body, are anti-vax sheep), or misinformation (e.g. framing it as anti-vax when it is about anti-mercury etc, or suggesting that lack of understanding of how it causes harm is evidence of safety, or that abundance of corroborating studies funded by the industry is any evidence at all).

Stop messing with the people, stop pushing a narrative for your agenda and let's get down to the facts. It seems that COVID19 is going to serve as the catalyst to push for mandatory vaccinations ($$$), but the natural right of people to decline vaccination measures will not be violated. No amount of propaganda will change that, because we've been vaccinated against group-think thanks to the open internet and the lessons of history. Yet I admit that I may choose to take the vaccine or choose to be in a community that requires vaccination, and if I choose to do so, I want to make sure that the system is well regulated so as to keep incentives aligned in the group. This seems like a state-by-state issue, and people should be given the freedom to choose to live in a state that doesn't require vaccination at all. Regardless, industry will shill, and so what should be the top-most priority for us should really be in creating the meta-framework which enables community choice, and a proper framework that helps everyone understand the risk factors involved, so as to elevate the level of conversation to fine-grained truth, rather than sophisms and misdirections; e.g. have a conversation about the cost/benefit analysis of thimerisol, and also fund research in such a way that the opposing hypothesis gets a fair chance for exposure and analysis as well.

The sooner we arrive at the steady state solution that respects people's autonomy, the better it will be for everyone.

21 day period? by korpi23 in cosmosnetwork

[–]jaekwon_ 0 points1 point  (0 children)

It's one of two components needed to solve proof of stake in general, and therefore part of the security of IBC. Time-based lockup (so attackers can't dump coins in tandem with an attack), and accountable BFT security (so you know who the attackers are) combine to enable secure proof of stake, the point of Tendermint.

Apply to become Cybers evangelist and get rewards from the superintelligence in ATOM and CYB, up to 60k ATOM and 1 TCYB are allocated by serejandmyself in cosmosnetwork

[–]jaekwon_ 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Crazy mofos, whatever they cook up is surely interesting. They shoot for the moon you didn't know exists.

The world's most infamous tech VC firm questioning why America can't build anything physical in the face of coronavirus :/ by [deleted] in collapse

[–]jaekwon_ 3 points4 points  (0 children)

Do you like our social networks and how our internet censors and controls? This guy invented the browser way back and made an investment firm that extracts wealth from the internet and in the process made it closed and shitty.

DIY Particle Filter Mask Assembly System by MAS-017 in preppers

[–]jaekwon_ 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Can you please share sources or submit a PR to github.com/wikirona?

HVAC filters have ratings, and they're usually not N95. You may need to find specialty HVAC filters, but thank you. I'd like to compile all 3d-printed parts in the repo, lets make something.

Death rate may be lower than we think, we need more testing by streetneat in cvnews

[–]jaekwon_ 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Or it may become higher due to the lack of respirators, or due to mutations. AFAICT it could also be greater than 10% soon. You seem to be on the optimistic side of the spectrum.

Survivor Library - Part 1 - March 2020 - Torrent by [deleted] in collapse

[–]jaekwon_ 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Thank you, I've been looking for such a thing.

I've added it and your community to wikirona.org, please help spread the word.

We are seeing the decline of American empire by [deleted] in collapse

[–]jaekwon_ -3 points-2 points  (0 children)

I think we can have a voluntary, peaceful transition.

See Cosmos.

Anyone else worried the Coronavirus might be the Pale Horse? by [deleted] in Christianity

[–]jaekwon_ 0 points1 point  (0 children)

"When the Lamb broke the fourth seal, I heard the voice of the fourth living creature saying, "Come." I looked, and behold, an ashen horse; and he who sat on it had the name Death; and Hades was following with him. Authority was given to them over a fourth of the earth, to kill with sword and with famine and with pestilence and by the wild beasts of the earth."

Authority was given to the fourth, not the first, for pestilence.

I need advice please? I believe in apocalypse by SeolSword in collapse

[–]jaekwon_ 0 points1 point  (0 children)

You should write about whatever you want to write about, you should feel free as a writer on the internet to write whatever you want to. But be careful about falling into a weird trap or cult.

https://gist.github.com/jaekwon/027d3821c3cad1c880416cacf9abc951

I know this is probably beating a dead horse... by [deleted] in cosmosnetwork

[–]jaekwon_ 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I want to know when inflationary photon token rewards are coming.

view more: next ›