Stefan Prodan posted:

idk how many of you guys are familiar with powerup comics, but the guy is not being serious

that entire comic is on like 9 levels of irony

Stefan Prodan posted:

idk how many of you guys are familiar with powerup comics, but the guy is not being serious

that entire comic is on like 9 levels of irony

chaosbreather posted:

He said the quiet part loud by not understanding what he’s saying. If something is conserved in a physics sense like he’s using, it can never be created or destroyed. If economic value cannot be created in bitcoin, which it can’t, that means that it is not a source of wealth generation merely redistribution. This is extremely true: it is a zero sum game where every time someone makes money they are taking it out of a bag holders’ pockets.

Stefan Prodan posted:

idk how many of you guys are familiar with powerup comics, but the guy is not being serious

that entire comic is on like 9 levels of irony

ultrafilter posted:

El Spamo posted:

Big "are we the baddies?" energy there

Wistful of Dollars posted:

https://twitter.com/allahliker/status/1494740266326102025?s=21

PhazonLink posted:

huh troll farms/bots must be super obvious or s new level of terrible if even the cesspool that is reddit is noticing or getting negative about it.

Space Fish posted:

https://twitter.com/__femb0t/status/1494789467084926980?t=vGLA2SDcye27TmBNc6x1bQ&s=19

So humanity is just running through all the lovely demonstrations of crypto/NFTs now so that the useful, utopian use cases can land in 10 years, right?

quote:

The freezing order, also known as a Mareva injunction, is separate from the federal government’s continuing efforts to seize the same funds. The order is in place so the donations to the convoy – as much as $20-million from around the world – could potentially be redistributed to the citizens of Ottawa if the class action proves successful.

The order, issued by Justice Calum MacLeod, tells the convoy protest leaders and fundraisers that they are now restrained from “selling, removing, dissipating, alienating, transferring” any of the assets raised for the protests. It is in effect globally.

“This court orders that each Mareva Respondent shall prepare and provide to the Plaintiffs, within 7 days of the date of service of this Order, a sworn statement describing the nature, value, and location of his or her assets worldwide,” the injunction says.

Justice MacLeod’s order says that such disclosures must also include “any digital assets (and any associated cryptocurrency wallet addresses).” It adds that any refusal to provide such information could amount to “contempt of court,” which in turn could lead to imprisonment or fines.

iwentdoodie posted:

https://twitter.com/TheKavernacle/status/1494643729432514603?t=GJI_AJ93s1dZ_mfpO_BEoQ&s=19

Even the bitcoin guys hate him now

Juul-Whip posted:

A civil action in Ontario court has won a rare Mareva injunction against the assets of the chud convoy including buttcoins

This is good for Bitcoin.

Paper abstract posted:

Cloud computing has become an irreversible trend. Together comes the pressing need for verifiability, to assure the client the correctness of computation outsourced to the cloud. Existing verifiable computation techniques all have a high overhead, thus if being deployed in the clouds, would render cloud computing more expensive than the on-premises counterpart. To achieve verifiability at a reasonable cost, we leverage game theory and propose a smart contract based solution. In a nutshell, a client lets two clouds compute the same task, and uses smart contracts to stimulate tension, betrayal and distrust between the clouds, so that rational clouds will not collude and cheat. In the absence of collusion, verification of correctness can be done easily by crosschecking the results from the two clouds. We provide a formal analysis of the games induced by the contracts, and prove that the contracts will be effective under certain reasonable assumptions. By resorting to game theory and smart contracts, we are able to avoid heavy cryptographic protocols. The client only needs to pay two clouds to compute in the clear, and a small transaction fee to use the smart contracts. We also conducted a feasibility study that involves implementing the contracts in Solidity and running them on the official Ethereum network

quote:

We demonstrate this by the Colluder’s Contract, which is a secret smart contract between the two clouds. In the contract, the cloud who initiates the collusion coalition agrees to pay a bribe to incentivize the other cloud to collude. More importantly, both clouds make a commitment by paying a deposit which will be taken if they do not follow the collusion strategy

quote:

the Traitor’s contract works not by countering the collusion agreement directly, but by forgiving one (and only one) cloud who follows the collusion strategy. The aim of the Traitor’s contract is not to incentivize the clouds to deviate from the collusion, but to encourage them to report the collusion to the client

Xanderkish posted:

So this is less about Bitcoin and more about smart contracts, but my Cloud Computing class has an assigned reading which proposes smart contracts to prevent two clouds from colluding on the same computation, where apparently both clouds agree to give the same wrong result to a client. I don't know, it seems...extremely stupid?

Emphasis mine. The dryness of the academic paper is somewhat offset by the sheer lunacy of what they're proposing, which includes a secret smart contract where one cloud agrees to pay the other a bribe.

Maybe I'm just not tech savvy enough, but I feel like fraud is illegal already? Is this supposed to be done in a bunch of Dark Web clouds? What is the business sense of two clouds agreeing to compute the same thing incorrectly? Why is a vein in my eyelid throbbing?

Edit: Wow, the next paragraph gets even more bonkers. They propose a contract to smart counter the smart contract they just proposed:

So the goal is to encourage the two clouds to give false information to the client, then encourage one of the clouds to tell the client they gave them false information? Why was this published in Newcastle University?

punishedkissinger posted:

the commercials theyre running for crypto seem especially desperate now

Xanderkish posted:

So this is less about Bitcoin and more about smart contracts, but my Cloud Computing class has an assigned reading which proposes smart contracts to prevent two clouds from colluding on the same computation, where apparently both clouds agree to give the same wrong result to a client. I don't know, it seems...extremely stupid?

Emphasis mine. The dryness of the academic paper is somewhat offset by the sheer lunacy of what they're proposing, which includes a secret smart contract where one cloud agrees to pay the other a bribe.

Edit: Wow, the next paragraph gets even more bonkers. They propose a contract to smart counter the smart contract they just proposed:

So the goal is to encourage the two clouds to give false information to the client, then encourage one of the clouds to tell the client they gave them false information? Why was this published in Newcastle University?

duffmensch posted:

Judging by that profile pic, he got scammed for a lot more and just hasn’t realized it yet.

LifeSunDeath posted: