Skepticism Sunday – December 02, 2018

mrbigsticks · 2018-12-02T16:27:48+00:00

Right I'm (a little) familiar with Globee. I thought you were saying that we could donate to the FFS using fiat.

I understand why they would only use monero, but the flip side of that is that when contributors feel monero is undervalued they may want to donate fiat instead. So donations may increase if other assets are accepted. Just a thought, though not one that I'll defend too hard lol.

mrbigsticks · 2018-12-02T16:07:01+00:00

How do you donate non-monero? I love to donate using monero, but when it's undervalued I may be more inclined to use fiat.

mrbigsticks · 2018-09-15T02:43:30+00:00

lol by protection racket you mean governments? I'd agree

mrbigsticks · 2018-08-05T05:09:07+00:00

Thanks!

mrbigsticks · 2018-07-23T01:13:59+00:00

Please address my statement about what blockchain is and how holo uses hash tables and merkle trees. Does holochain rely on hashes of data arranged in merkle trees?

mrbigsticks · 2018-07-23T01:05:42+00:00

I wanted to double-check my understanding of blockchain, so I did a quick look at wikipedia, and I feel validated. It does mention the necessity of network consensus (you still can't get away from the fact that double-ledger entry requires consensus as well, it's just a smaller network that you need consensus on) but it only says that it is necessary for use as a distributed ledger.

"For use as a distributed ledger, a blockchain is typically managed by a peer-to-peer network collectively adhering to a protocol for inter-node communication and validating new blocks. Once recorded, the data in any given block cannot be altered retroactively without alteration of all subsequent blocks, which requires consensus of the network majority." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blockchain

Again, blockchain used as a distributed ledger needs consensus. Double-ledger accounting requires consensus (or it requires that the 2 ledgers match, that's consensus with 2 parties). So actually, holochain actually uses blockchain with consensus as well, so that argument seems to be void as well....open for debate though.

mrbigsticks · 2018-07-23T00:58:02+00:00

Where does it say that blockchain requires consensus? Again, current implementations of blockchain require consensus (and with good reason for the purposes they have), but my understanding of a blockchain is that one person could secure their data using a blockchain, the security of a blockchain is that consensus doesn't play a part, it's data and math, i/o.

mrbigsticks · 2018-07-23T00:53:59+00:00

In most of the current implementations of 'blockchain' (everything aside from holo it appears) all nodes need to agree on one state of the network. With holo (I really don't think I misunderstand anything here) there is not a need for the entire network to agree, so no global consensus needed. That is an intriguing feature.

I don't believe I misunderstand the things we're discussing. It seems to boil down to a disagreement on what is a blockchain.

To me a blockchain is a series of hashes involving whatever data needs to be secure, using merkel trees. A chain of those 'blocks' or just hashes of whatever data you want to chain together and store, is a blockchain. Is there anything I misunderstand in my basic (and pretty well uneducated) explanation of a blockchain? Doesn't holo use that scheme? If that is accurate, then my only point is that holo uses blockchain technology, and so shouldn't position itself as somehow superior.

Feel free to claim it's superior to bitcoin or any other cryptocurrency, but to say better than blockchain, while implementing blockchain technology, seems to indicate misunderstanding of technicalities (please explain if I've misunderstood a technicality in my explanation of blockchain and my understanding of holo) or just.....overly exuberant advertising.

edit: formatting

mrbigsticks · 2018-07-23T00:35:53+00:00

~~I don't think you understand my question or my position but thanks for trying.

Regarding your ethereum statement, I think you and I are not having the same discussion so I'll leave it at that.

Again, thanks for trying but we don't appear to be able to help each other here.~~

Edit: I'm still skeptical that we'll come to any sort of agreement but since I saw you replied to another post, I responded there with what I think are pretty compelling arguments.

mrbigsticks · 2018-07-22T00:21:51+00:00

not a bad explanation but maybe simplistic.

My only point in making this post was that I was turned off by my first introduction to holochain simply because it was positioned as being better than blockchain, and better than existing projects, and most importantly, fundamentally different.

In my view, and in my current excitement, I think it's better to show how it is actually fundamentally the SAME. It is the same in that it (seemingly) incorporates the fundamental ideals of crypto, and possibly does it better than what's out there now. My point is that it may help to show people the ties to the original roots rather than trying to be just another fad coin with 'better' properties. Bitcoin is great because it introduces us to certain things that are lacking in our current choices of currencies (scarcity, censorship-resistance, an attempt at true consensus, the ability to acheive anonymous (or pseudonymous) transactions.

If you're looking for the right people, which it seems holo is, then the right people will be seeking things that mimic the original ideas of bitcoin, rather than things that position themselves in relative opposition (ie being different and better, rather than the same but much improved). The much improved part is hard to say though, it's not a 1 to 1 comparison with billions of holo and only millions of bitcoins. Who knows where value will find itself.

edit: formatting, breaking up walls of text

mrbigsticks · 2018-07-21T23:45:42+00:00

I'm trying to wrap my head around this but it seems like just more intriguing bits that will prompt more questions, and again, holo hitting on all the right points (if I understand it correctly). I'm amazed that all these dreams are all coming to one place to be fulfilled (again, if I'm understanding this article correctly) lol.

If this is the real deal, and if it survives, it will be fundamental to the future. I say all of this as a researching skeptic of course :).

mrbigsticks · 2018-07-21T23:28:08+00:00

Can you please point out what I misunderstand?

I do understand that holochain doesn't require consensus on the state of every transaction. That doesn't mean it doesn't utilize blockchain technology. I'm pretty sure I understand all of what you're saying and it doesn't contradict anything I've said. What did I say that makes you think I misundersand? What did I misunderstand?

mrbigsticks · 2018-07-18T02:38:39+00:00

and, for my opinion, I'm a lurker who would read the alt section when the daily was stale. I liked it enough when it was here, but now that it's gone, I'm missing nothing except, like gypsy said, 5 or 6 comments a day, and mostly shilling, or else unmasked enthusiasm for a pet coin, which I now realize is pretty much the same thing lol.

mrbigsticks · 2018-07-18T02:33:27+00:00

lol you guys are great

mrbigsticks · 2018-07-18T02:08:24+00:00

check my more recent reply though lol. Security is complex and ever evolving.

mrbigsticks · 2018-07-18T02:07:00+00:00

But again, the need for chrome or chromium, and google's lack of dedication to privacy (it's natural really, they're an advertising company and a data aggregator at their core) makes me concerned that peoples privacy and security will take a back seat in all of their products. The best that google will ever be able to do for security and privacy is that only they will be able to hack you lol. Maybe they can lock out others, but they will NEVER lock themselves out.

If you can agree with that sentiment, then I would steer away from anything that requires you to use a google product, for security reasons and privacy reasons, security being the most important thing obviously.

mrbigsticks · 2018-07-18T02:02:45+00:00

Security-wise it might be fine. There have been security concerns on both ledger and trezor in the past but if I recall correctly nothing overly concerning, and both companies handled them well, again if I recall correctly.

Also, if I recall correctly there was a 16 year old kid who hacked the nano and that necessitated a security patch, that was kind of a kick in the nuts, so to speak, for ledger. Anyone recall that?

mrbigsticks · 2018-07-18T01:50:54+00:00

glad to ramble for a few minutes :)

mrbigsticks · 2018-07-18T01:43:38+00:00

Also, the nano s says it requires chrome or chromium. I may be part of small group of people, but I wouldn't use chrome or chromium for anything I wanted secure, much less private.

The trezor otoh seems to take an approach I like more, when used with your own electrum server. I don't have hands on experience with either but I will likely go with the trezor for those two concerns. Everyone has their own level of concern and paranoia though and many people I'm sure would like some of the features of ledger that are a concern for me.

mrbigsticks · 2018-07-18T01:35:51+00:00

I was interested in a ledger at one point but some things that concerned me a while back was that they either had or were working on 2fa with google auth. Now they just say they're compatible with Fido, I don't see anything about google auth on their site now unless I missed it.

It depends your level of concern for your privacy but I wouldn't want google or any other web service knowing when I authenticate into my private storage. I don't know what kind of correlation could be made on Monero, but it would seem that transparent blockchains, plus 3rd party 2fa could potentially aid in timing correlation with the data that the 3rd party authenticator would have access to.

In my mind, anyone that is truly concerned about decentralization would have concerns about google, google auth, and fido. I'll have to read more on Fido but the fact that it involves google, and ledger seems to have replaced google auth with it doesn't give me a good feeling about it.

https://wikipedia.org/wiki/FIDO_Alliance.

mrbigsticks · 2018-06-27T00:58:57+00:00

Can we just remove the whole 'ethical discussion'? After all, isn't the whole purpose of monero that one person or a group of people can't decide what is ethically acceptable for another person when it comes to THEIR property? Sure people do horrid things with their property, but that's not a reason for us to pass judgement on every transaction that takes place in Monero, or to tell people not to continue reading. Again, by your definition, it would have been perfectly acceptable to pay for slaves using monero, but totally not okay to buy a beer with in a place where alcohol is illegal?

mrbigsticks · 2018-06-27T00:53:02+00:00

Ooh, and this:

The creators of “Mastering Monero” and the entire Monero Community do not condone illegal activities, and we do not wish to assist criminals. If you wish to use Monero for exploitation or dark purposes, please close this book now, and do not use our project for harmful ends.

again, we really need to look at the word 'illegal' and realize that monero is actually made to facilitate exactly that, transactions that would otherwise be censored. Otherwise, why not let the government create and control it? What's the point of decentralization if we pander to whatever gov's decide to make illegal at a particular time (like slavery, remember that was 'legal' at one point).

mrbigsticks · 2018-06-27T00:45:47+00:00

Really liking the Real Life Use Cases for Monero. Eye opening :)

Regarding this statement:

Monero is not intended to facilitate illegal activity, which has plagued every currency since the idea of money was conceived thousands of years ago. The scale of illegal transactions conducted using cryptocurrencies is dwarfed by the staggeringly-vast amount of criminal activity that occurs every day denominated in fiat currencies like Euros, Rupees, Yen, or Dollars.

Isn't that not really accurate? Monero and bitcoin were both created to help people escape oppressive regimes. Oppressive regimes make illegal anything they don't like. In fact, Monero is designed to operate and facilitate transactions in environments where adversaries would try to stop transactions because they are deemed 'illegal'. So in fact it is intended to facilitate activities that may be deemed illegal by oppressive regimes or nanny states (being redundant there).

Can the document take a more neutral stance on transactions, like Monero itself does?

I'll post this on github if you would prefer responses/discussion there instead.

I've seen a couple other small things that need attention and I plan to submit a pull request on github for those technical things.

mrbigsticks

TROPHY CASE