Bitcoin firesale continues today. Maybe a great buying opportunity for hodler-investors.
1 Like
Yes, Black Friday discounts are very early this year!
2 Likes
This is why DeFi is the best way forward I think. Centralized exchanges, like banks can collapse if/when people pull out their funds. Central banks solved for this by insuring with the absolute guarantee of money printing to cover any and all collapses … of course the value of the new money comes from the holders of fiat, so it’s a cheat and a theft.
We can’t insure crypto in this manner as it’s not fiat and even if we could, we shouldn’t desire that as it hurts everyone except those who mismanaged the funds in the first place.
With DeFi we don’t have this specific problem as everyone always holds their own funds, so nothing to withdraw, no third party intermediary who might take secret risks with your capital.
But going to DeFi means just another reason why central banks and governments are not needed … that’s why the State and the Bankers (the oligarchs) hate it and will do all they can to stifle and block it.
We must fight them!!!
6 Likes
Sam made a huge mistake by supporting any form of DeFi regs in the DCCPA.
His shady practices with customer funds would still be going had he not got even more greedy.
This entire colossal mess is due to greed.
1 Like
Im really not sold on defi, if a cex is hacked often its just hot wallets and the exchange can make ppl whole again eventually.
If defi code is bad often they just collapse as centralised liquidity pots are drained.
Also wallets are sometimes linked and i fear if an exploit were found / injected those could potentially be drained to id guess.
2 Likes
This is just a matter of code quality and adequate testing. If an exploit is found (by a bad actor) in quality open source DeFi code, then it can also be found in bitcoin or other crypto and the whole of brought down.
You are saying it’s too hard, so don’t bother … but we are supporting the Safe Network, probably one of the most complex decentralized networks ever conceived … so if you can trust Maidsafe, then you should be able to trust a team that works to build a quality DeFi platform.
2 Likes
I suspect it’s overconfidence in his ability to control the speculative trades/investments he did with the funds held by the exchange. It’s like many gamblers, they make a small mistake and they double down instead of pull back and making more conservative moves
1 Like
I’m sure this is all on the up and up. Hope people in the UK are aware of what their NHS is doing.
1 Like
No, i was saying what i said.
Entirely different.
1 Like
Only “crisis-ridden” because lower-than-vermin right -wing scum make sure it is “crisis-ridden”
F_ck the US insurance companies and the banker tribe behind them who want to destroy our NHS
2 Likes
tl;dr: DeFi cannot be permissionless, allow arbitrary innovation and comply with any meaningful regulations. You can only choose two of those properties. If you accept a limited form of innovation you can have two-and-a-half of them.
Fundamental results in logic and computer science impose a trade-off on any permissionless system’s ability to both permit innovation and achieve compliance with non-trivial regulations. This result depends only on long-settled concepts and the assumption a financial system must provide a logically consistent view of payments and balances to users.
This is a semi-technical treatment, with more formal work proceeeding elsewhere. On this blog we are going to sketch the argument and link to Wikipedia. None of this math is new — the referenced papers are from 1931, 1943 and 1951 — and none of the assumptions or definitions is intended to feel controversial.
At the same time the works we build atop were considered groundbreaking when new and are considered foundational to mathematics today. That none of this math is traditionally considered related to finance is irrelevant. DeFi represents the first serious attempt to fully automate an intermediary-free financial system. These questions simply never came up before.
Trust
What does it mean to be trustless? Or to trust? These words are thrown around a lot in crypto but not carefully. So we are going to propose a definition for trust. If you can prove something is true you do not need trust. Trust but verifyis more properly classified as a joke — albeit a very Russian one — than a policy. While the precise origin of the phrase is unknown it is connected to both Lenin and Stalin. They are both quite famous but certainly not for being trusting.
Anyway once we verify something we no longer need to trust anybody as we know the answer. At the same time Godel tells us that some times we know it is impossible to prove a given statement true or false. And this suggests a natural definition.
trust n to believe something is true with probability 1 even when in possession of a proof that no proof this belief is accurate, or mistaken, can ever be produced.
This is not a philosophy blog but we will briefly note this is not the same as faith. One can take on faith something that is manifestly false. One can also take on faith an assertion that could in theory be proven true or false without investigating which it is. By trust we are specifically focusing on questions that are formally unresolvable and not simply questions where we did not bother to find out.
Does the below section effect how updates can be safely applied to the Safe Network?
Permissions
So how does this relate to DeFi? It’s all about who gets to push updates. So let’s consider each case above in turn.
- If the system already makes external calls we can make no guarantees to start with.
- If arbitrary changes can be pushed then a permissionless system cannot make guarantees because anybody could change it.
- If we can only push changes via an LBA the system itself can enforce compliance with policies on a going-forward basis. It can reliably reject changes that would lead to non-compliance. so long as the initial state was compliant.
- If the system is immutable it does not matter who can access it — it can never be changed. It remains as compliant as it was on day 1.
Now we are getting somewhere. Permissionless systems that offer changeability >LBA cannot credibly comply with any regulations.
Permissioned systems can — to the extent we trust whoever set up the system and does the permissioning going forward.
General Impossibility
This proof encompasses a huge range of known impossibility results. We started talking about compliance but what we proved concerns any non-trivial subset of the recursively enumerable languages. For anyone that has not studied the theory of computation: that means pretty much any set of rules you can write down.
In math we call an important-but-straightforward result that easily falls out of something difficult a corollary. Usually the hard proof is technical in nature but it does 99% of the work for the important conclusion. We will leave as an exercise for the reader proof of the following corollaries:
- Trustless & permissionless bridges are impossible
- Decentralized & permissionless identity is impossible
- Trustless & permissionless escrow is impossible
- Decentralized & permissionless risk-free yield is impossible
- Decentralized & permissionless stablecoins are impossible
Note we insert the word permissionless into these claims. People do not generally include this word — but they mean it. We are now able to parse this difference.
Published proofs of these impossibilities, inclusive of the permisionless requirement, exist. We wrote some of them. But those are long and complex papers. Proving those results as corollaries here requires the following process:
- Define the thing you want as a proper subset of the recursively enumerable languages. This sort of exercise is a university first year homework assignment. Read the textbook above.
- Link the paper.
At the same time you can prove something is possible by showing how it restricts innovation, updates, arbitrary interactions or any number of other things. Plenty of products are possible — just not all of them. And this technique allows you to fairly easily constructively prove a working product really works.
This Is Not Deep
What Godel figured out was groundbreaking. Similarly Church and Turing’s work birthed the theory of computation. Kleene and Rice connected and generalized those insights.
All we have done here is take these earlier theorems seriously and ask “what happens if we assume a reasonable financial system and reason from there.” It turns out lots of very-visibly-difficult-to-solve problems are in fact unsolvable for the same reason Hilbert’s 10th problem was resolved in a weird way.
If you want to be able to make any credible promises about the future your system either needs permissions or to somehow limit edits to those that can be performed by a linear bounded automaton.
3 Likes
Scrap that, they bailed.
2 Likes
Mission accomplished … not sure it was how he envisioned it though.
2 Likes
Was that his or his customers funds
3 Likes
I think it was the value of the stock he held in the company. So his wealth technically, but only on paper.
1 Like
Write code without typing.
1 Like
“Six jurors ordered Jones to pay $965 million to compensate the 15 plaintiffs for defamation, infliction of emotional distress and violations of Connecticut’s Unfair Trade Practices Act, which bans deceptive business practices and unfair competition.”
That is a scam that makes its round, I watched it months ago. The actual video is very old.
The purpose is to run a BTC scam usually.
And I noticed the channel has already been taken down for scamming.
1 Like
Maybe a little DD before posting?