sausman
sausman on Hacker News
A lot to like about DERO:
* Smart Contracts
* Homomorphic Encryption (not just obfuscation) for Privacy, Fungibility
* Σ-Mining (anyone mining on the DERO network can earn rewards based on the amount of work contributed, instead of a ‘winner-takes-all’ reward model)
* Account model
* Written from scratch in Go
It's been a pleasure to work with, and the community is great.
Posted by
sausman on Tuesday July 13, 2021 @08:00AM
from the youtube.com dept.
Posted by
sausman on Tuesday April 13, 2021 @07:11AM
from the stackd.com dept.
Posted by
sausman on Sunday July 14, 2019 @02:59PM
from the downsizedc.org dept.
I’m not sure all types of money have this characteristic, but debt-based money in a fractional reserve banking system certainly seems to. The banks are perpetually insolvent because the time structure of their assets (loans) doesn’t match the time structure of their liabilities (“deposits”). At any time a bank run can bring them and the entire economy down. Sure, the government guarantees their deposits, but AFAIK they don’t provide anywhere near enough insurance. Not to mention the moral hazard it creates for banks to act recklessly.
It’s been a while since I read up on the topic, but the origins of fractional-reserve banking sound a lot like fraud that got blamed on the hard money that exposed it. (https://www.amazon.com/dp/1933550287)
People (demos) and power (kratos) tend to not go well together, which is why the US was founded as a democratic
Republic with strictly limited power. Many of the founders viewed the state as a necessary evil.
Ben Franklin referred to the US as “A Republic, if you can keep it." I think it’s fair to say we haven’t. Power is no longer viewed as an evil to be restrained, but the solution to our problems.
We need to realize the state is force, and force is rarely the solution to our problems. In most cases it creates more problems than it solves.
> You might lose your job though.
That's what I was trying to get at. I didn't mean to make it sound like you'd go to jail.
Interesting, I thought you had to be a special type of corporation for that. My language is a bit strong then.
Who is supposed to benefit from this? I'm confused.
Facebook gives away Free Basics "internet". Although I'm not sure I'd call that internet...
This is my biggest qualm with building a company aimed to sell (either to public markets or another company). You are binding yourself to pursue as much profit as possible through whatever legal means possible. Even if those legal means go against everything you stand for, you have to pursue them because you have a fiduciary duty.
Was probably going to happen eventually since Lyft and Uber offer a better product, but it's interesting that the big ride sharing companies aren't profitable yet either.
I was wondering the same thing.. Maybe the developer was able to remotely flip a switch after the app went through approval to change its behavior and app review didn't catch it? What's really surprising is how long it's been out (almost 2 months)
Posted by
sausman on Thursday February 23, 2017 @09:35AM
from the youtube.com dept.
Posted by
sausman on Saturday January 21, 2017 @09:55AM
from the medium.com dept.
Another thing to consider is the size of Denmark compared to the US. It's a much smaller political unit which tends to translate into more responsive politicians. Danes have about half the number of representatives we have in the US but less than 5% of our population.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_congressional_...
I wish I could vote every day and have it count. Thankfully this is the case for many goods and services that are provided on the market. If I don't like the product I am getting or where my money is going I simply take my business elsewhere. Providers of goods and services that face market competition are encouraged on a continuous basis to be responsive to consumers or they risk going out of business.
By comparison, voting in elections feels ineffective. Monopolies, even those run by politicians elected every X years, are notoriously bad at serving the needs of consumers. Even if we could vote every day from our phones on who is in charge of a given monopoly, I still don't think it would change much.
Are my descriptions inaccurate?
Democratic government: Shitty and selfish people electing shitty and selfish people to initiate violence against shitty and selfish people and their property.
Libertarianism: Shitty and selfish people not condoning the use of violence against shitty and selfish people and their property.
Posted by
sausman on Friday June 20, 2014 @05:08PM
from the youtube.com dept.
Posted by
sausman on Thursday June 19, 2014 @01:24AM
from the youtube.com dept.
Posted by
sausman on Saturday March 22, 2014 @11:26PM
from the youtube.com dept.
Posted by
sausman on Wednesday March 19, 2014 @01:13PM
from the show-hn dept.
If your assumption were true, I wouldn't have bought a computer because I could have delayed my purchase and bought a cheaper+better one later. Even if I forecast computers falling from the sky in a year I would still buy one now if I didn't have one already. Wouldn't you?
If he's offering $200/mo and she accepts, it's the best she can get. If she were being offered more by someone else I imagine she "knows" enough to determine the bigger of two numbers and accept the better offer. Her options range from $0/mo to $200/mo. You think her best option, the one she chose, should be taken away by force because after reading a blog post you know how to make better life decisions for her? I find that morally objectionable.
If by regulations you mean enforcing property rights and laws against murder, I agree.
In a free market the initiation of force is not tolerated. The Bhopal disaster you cited is a perfect example of an initiation of force.
The government legitimizes the initiation of force on those who have done nothing to violate the rights of others -- similar to the disaster you cited. It seems you have a problem with companies initiating force, but not the government. Why is that?
What specific power(s) do you object to companies having? The power to voluntarily exchange with others?
Companies don't make money killing people, they make money improving the lives of customers and employees by offering them something they value more than their money/labor. If someone is working under poor working conditions, it's because their next best alternative is even worse.