I believe it can. Data is chucked, so different data may share the same chunks.
It is more about where the data is stored. On safe network, the chunk hashes dictate which section they will belong to on the network. The nodes associated with that section then take ownership of the data and supply it on request.
On IPFS, as far as I gather this is completely different. The hash of the chunk doesn’t dictate where it will be stored. Data exists initially on the node it is uploaded to. It may be pinned by others on an adhoc way. Caching is then used to push popular data around the network.
So, on safe network, if the cache doesn’t contain the chunk, it is easy to find the section responsible for it and request it. On ipfs, I gather nodes have to be asked if they have a copy and a network search commences until it is found (or not found, as no perpetual guarantee). I was trying to dig deeper into this the other week, but this is as far as I got. It sounded pretty rudimentary compared to how safe network handles this.
“It’s the first consensus change since Segwit activated in august 2017. It extends Bitcoin’s script capabilities in ways that make certain things cheaper (especially more complex applications like multisig and layer 2 things), and somewhat more private by often hiding what the exact spending rules were.”
Any of you people with more internet years put in than I can maybe help here: has there ever been a badge, or some sort of system, for a site to prove/claim that the article or video or whatever is not an advertisement, that money hasn’t changed hands? Maybe back in the glory days of personal web sites before the revolution of Web 2.0 crushed them?
Plenty of things are annoying about the slimenet and how it works, but one of the worst is these fake articles, fake tutorials, fake top ten lists, etc, which are just endorsements and advertisements.
I don’t know if it’s a hard or easy problem, or if the solution would be technical or social.
In any case, I look forward to displaying some sort of a badge at least for sites, to proclaim proudly.
“This is not advertising, and anyone who pretends to like something and is secretly getting money for that without saying should be booed off the stage”. Or something to that effect.
A major problem seems to be that it is written by an anarchist, an anarchist calling other people idiots is like throwing rocks inside a glass house, similar to if “flat earth” people would write something similar. There is no way to reach credibility when such poor intelectual thinking power is in play.
If you are anything like Anglo-Saxon, German, Russian, etc. you are a decendant of those you call for “brainless idiots”. Racism was science in the western world up to 1960s!
You aren’t actually debating my points in the article. Feel free to DM me with your points if you don’t want a public discussion. Or create a new thread.
From reading the blog post I feel a general problem that also relates to other subjects you write about or post about, money, enviromental, vaccine and similar. It seems very shallow, you only make basic general assumptions, you don’t seem to know the subject very well or interested in it. You write something that sounds nice but lacks foundation and backing and logical reasoning to how you reached conclusions and subjective opinions.
So Ecosia reported 20-30 million dollars in revenue year on and year and already planted 120 million trees, which is great yet it’s pretty messed up for Microsoft to basically charge a carbon capture tax. 73,000 euros may seem small but that number will keep growing.
But central banks are more worried about currencies issued by large corporations with billions of users and international reach such as the Diem currency, which is partly backed by Facebook, or redeemable platform tokens that large retail tech companies such as Amazon could issue, backed by the ability to spend on goods the platform sells. As these are generally pegged to one or more state currencies, they are less volatile and have the potential to become “systemic stablecoins”, to use the Bank of England’s terminology, becoming widely used as a trusted form of payment by households and non-financial businesses. The worry is that such stablecoins could draw people’s savings away from the public-private hybrid system we have today and weaken the central bank’s regulatory power.
By creating a CBDC, a central bank would considerably reduce the threat posed by these non-bank currencies. A key advantage would be that public digital cash would never be subject to a risk of a “run” as with commercial bank money and would not require vast taxpayer bailouts for banks at times of crisis or deposit insurance. It would be the safest “store of value” possible, backed by the state itself.
But a well-designed public digital cash could also provide the central bank with a new and potentially highly effective tool for monetary policy. The impact of changes in interest rates would be more direct on households and firms and not reliant on banks making loans, an issue that also came to the fore during the Covid-19 crisis.
A second concern is privacy. A CBDC would in theory enable the state to monitor digital payments. However, the Bank of England would be subject to the same rules around privacy as any other technology provider, including the General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR). Privacy concerns also need to be counterbalanced by the fact that an increasing amount of illegal activity and money laundering is moving to non-bank digital currencies (notably bitcoin) because of the anonymity they provide.
Re the last para above: except that the GDPR is not about privacy, but “data protection” and there’s no guarantee the government won’t try to water down or even abandon this and other privacy related constraints, as we already see them doing with other data, notably health records. The temptation here would be similar.
Article (worth reading as it is packed with info and seems well informed):
But would also allow negative interest rates on deposits, and, even if it were to be open source, who’s to say they can’t simply censor transactions with a keystroke. This could be like letting in all the demons of smart contracts and crypto-tracing, enabling hitherto-impossible fever dreams of theoretical economists, etc.
Money and credit created by Central bank’s as well as your local banks (via fractional reserve lending practices) - takes it’s value from the overall pool of value pre-existing in an economy.
Hence it is legalized theft. It particularly impacts the poor.
These banksters can dress it up in whatever obfuscating language they like - e.g. the need for central banks to have “regulatory power” over the currency. It doesn’t change the fact that what they are really talking about is the ability to steal from all of us.
Sound money crypto changes the paradigm, CBDC’s and stable coins do not. So when it comes to the latter, count me out.
I would argue that collateralized stable coins are in fact a paradigm break (tether is not). The key being that they are fully backed and, if they unwind, will leave everyone with what they signed up for (e.g. all creditors end up holding the collateral they agreed to in the contract, all risk is realized, etc.).
No it makes new value on the promise that the loan will be re-payed in a given future time frame, with interest added, interest to cover risk and revenue.
A security of let’s say 20% might be needed, that gives a fractional reserve banking of 5/1.
You don’t understand what you talking about. You seem to know about technology, why waste your time with economics which you have very little knowledge about? I’am not writing about medicine because I don’t have that education. I focus on what I know.
The problem as I understand it, is that CBDC’s and stable coins - whether they backed or not by some sort of hard collateral, is that a proxy is introduced that is not transparent. So, just as I would not buy a shitcoin that has closed-source code, I wouldn’t buy a stable coin either. Perhaps if the collateral were another digital asset(s) and that was provably wrapped by the stable coin as is possible with Safe’s DBC’s. But otherwise, at some stage you are trusting a third party to insure the collateral … which for me is the same thing as closed-source code … you don’t know what’s really going on behind the scenes.
This is a misconception. Some stablecoins (tether, USDC) are not transparent. Some are (DAI), but you have to put up with ETH network fees to use it. Also, there are others that are transparent (not worth mentioning because not enough liquidity yet)… stay tuned. Not all stablecoins are the same species.
