Yeah the whole “rationalist” movement is full of those lying fks that use a thin veneer of fallacious logic and self aggrandising discourse to rationalise their hoarding of resources and bottomless greed. They’re very well established in Bay Area and AI world.
The movement itself is consistently aligned with Tech Bros interests, the philosophical foundation is interesting, but the movement itself is quite problematic
Lol you guys are really in a cult aren’t you? You’re implying that journalists should never out people that are too wealthy? Do you not see the massive red flag here?
It’s the logical conclusion to his statement, why should Satoshi be treated differently, given more privacy rights, only because he’s a billionaire? Or do you think that making an exception for him is the logical choice here?
I don't have anything to add that isn't already argued in other comments in this thread. I'm just pointing out that your opinions are not logical derivations.
You still have to pay the interest from somewhere. And presumably you'd need to put the coins into some kind of escrow so that the lender can get their money back even if you conveniently forget your private key.
In this case it's not basic stuff. You would need to prove that you own the actual bitcoin or transfer it for it to be collateral on a loan. It's the same as spending it.
I was replying purely to 'Oh really, there was a vote?'
Most places have votes every few years. And the elected representatives can generally make and amend or keep laws. The candidates can also generally make any promises they wish to make, and if the general public wants some specific laws changed, it's often a good idea for candidates to make that a part of their platform. And if people generally don't want a law changed, candidates tend to ignore them. Basic representative democracy stuff.
They actually need it because the demand is higher than expected from consumers. And because they need a moat since every big corporation trying to capture that market too, they need the moat for the biggest compute and energy they can get.
Also businesses is were the money at, not regular consumers (especially tech-savvy folk who run models locally).
The amount of work that goes into moats, for stuff that nobody will care about in 6 months, is kind of insane. I understand it for security reasons, but in video games? Just more bloat for nothing
people love repeating this little line without a single thought of their own.
security through obscurity is an effective defensive layer with a relatively low implementation effort. it raises the minimum effort required for bypass.
the quote you have parroted is only applicable when obscurity is the only defense layer. when obscurity is used in addition to other defensive layers, it is a great first line of defense.
>Ah yes closed source software has such a great track record compared to open source security… lol
what does this have to do with anything i said or the contents of article?
>You are wrong, if you need to hide your code for it to be secured, then it was never secure to begin with.
did you just ignore the entirety of my last comment? obscurity is a first layer, solely to raise the barrier of entry and slow the game-crackers down. it is not the entire security model.
it is effective at what it is designed to do, and it is low effort to implement.
>But it’s a great way to give a false sense of security through half baked metaphors.
my comments dont have any metaphors. what are you talking about? i think you may be out of your depth here.
your entire comment is based on the premise of obscurity being the only security. i can only say the same thing so many times, but here it is one more time: your original comment is only applicable if obscurity is the sole line of defense. it is not the sole line of defense here.
If you can’t understand very simple logic like, how open source vs closed source is the perfect example of open vs closed… well source, then guess who is out of his depth here?
calling me obnoxious and not responding to literally any point i have made in the entire comment chain is an interesting way to win an argument.
Yeah you’re trying to win an argument, I’m trying to find what’s true.
I won’t lose time trying to understand what your tech poser logic is trying to piece together. Hiding your source is not how you secure software. It’s how you pretend to be secure for your shareholders.
That’s the main reason open source software is more secure than closed source. You don’t need to hide secure code, it actually makes it less secure because less good actors will be able to help you secure it.
It won’t change a thing for malicious actors.
So again, for people who might read this, he’s very, very wrong.
i am telling you what is true, straight from someone with significant experience in the related fields.
>Hiding your source is not how yous secure software.
not once have i said that hiding your source = secure software.
you are intentionally ignoring and misrepresenting what i have said. i do not understand why.
>So again, for people who might read this, he’s very, very wrong.
for the context of other readers, i worked in cybersec for over a decade and now teach networking for the cybersec and game design programs at a post-secondary level (also in the pure networking program, but that is less relevant).
my opinions in this comment chain are not claims i came up with on a whim. i am happy to discuss them in more detail with anyone who has questions, provided that you will actually read what i have written instead of flailing around.
Because a vulnerability exists independently from the exploit. It’s a basic tenet of the current cybersecurity paradigm, that any IT related engineer should know about…
reply