One positive thing I'd add - as a user - under logistics is high availability. Life is messy, servers go down planned or unplanned for whatever reasons - IRC networks are in a sense truly 'federated' in that the client will get a new server on reconnect attempts much like webservers behind a load balancer. You never have to worry about your 'home instance' being unavailable, as they're all your home instance. (I speak about the public networks like Libera or OFTC)
Bitcoin valuation "crashed" -$4k USD (I think that's about 8-10%?) just two days ago on the 7th (and within the span of 4 hours, check the charts); if you had created your transfer that morning and they received it the next day to "cash out" to USD, you would have lost a lot of the valuation of your transfer.
> But the delay is after the bitcoins are converted to fiat (...)
If you're trying to discuss aspects of the transaction then either you focus specifically on the crypto-to-crypto part of the transaction, or the fiat-to-fiat. The crypto-to-crypto part of the transaction is arguably fast but you are forced to address Bitcoin's volatility, which makes it unsuited as a store of value. The fiat-to-fiat aspect of the transaction on the other hand is arguably slower than simple bank transactions, and often with higher cost.
Every crypto proponent is doing a colossal disservice to crypto by portraying a romanticized and intensely rose-tainted view of crypto. In truth you're just setting up everyone around you to be disappointed. Between magical schemes where crypto transactions are magically instant and cost-free and pretending that crypto is not highly volatile (see the last Bitcoin 50% crash a couple months ago, or yesterday's flash crash) you're unwittingly pulling a bait-and-switch and in the process turning everyone away from it.
If it takes the converting entity 24 hours to perform KYC checks (& perform whatever other settlements they need to do to convert), do they give you the conversion rate at the time you asked for it or at the time they did the conversion? Or do you get the worst of the two?
yeah and it "pumped" +$3k USD 2 days before that. If you have created your transfer before it and they "cashed out" after it they would have gained valuation of the transfer.
You completely ignored the the part where OP said they often made money in REAL LIFE and injected your own hypothetical of how they could lose money if they chose to buy, send, and sell their assets at a very specific worst case scenario point in time...
Has nothing to do with "real life". They could either win money, or lose money, that's how volatile bitcoin is. The fact they got lucky and transferred in moments where they made money, doesn't make it a better "real life" scenario. Just makes it a lucky scenario, anecdata that might have been the complete opposite.
But if he was making money on average (which he said he did), then bayesian logic would imply that the average outcome would be to make money. So it's not luck, it's the average outcome.
The "unlucky" and unusual event in this case is losing money on Bitcoin based on the prior evidence.
> No. In the United States, parties are not required to register their marks to obtain protectable rights. You can establish "common law" rights in a mark based solely on use of the mark in commerce, without a registration.
I have read that the US is also "first use" and not "first to file", eliminating a race to registration.
Correct, but those marks are limited to the specific areas where you practice business, whereas federal trademarks grant you the mark outside of only the areas where you practice business.
You've basically just described duplicity with rclone as the backend (their term). I personally add duply in front for usability (it handles your includes, excludes, "profile", etc.). Restoring is easy with these 3 working in tandem, and you can manually extract the data as needed for SHTF - just gpg encrypted tarballs. duply runs duplicity who runs rclone in a soundbite.
I'm on a shared IP with millions of people using the same public IP (T-Mobile CGNAT), there is one IP (many of them, actually) doing that right now from every T-Mobile customer. Your one server will be a blip on their radar if it even registers.
Dude, thanks for letting me know that everyone uses Google.
I'm talking about static IPs like servers in the cloud, not your home. That stuff is automated and I am sure static IPs get banned but here must be a quota of something.
Dude, CGNAT is handled at the ISP layer, I do not have an IPv4 address at all locally, it's a 464XLAT done on T-Mobile's side. All users come from a shared IPv4 on their network, not mine. Dude.
Dude - Each of those users behind the NAT will have a different set of cookies, user agents, screen sizes, among other fingerprints that qualify them as unique. ISPs also routinely place their CGNAT addresses on specific whitelists so that services don't block them for abuse (you can look through the NANOG email list to find examples of this.) IP addresses are also classified as residential, cloud/server, etc. If Google sees rapid requests from the same IP classified as a server that's sending a Python Requests user-agent, they can absolutely block it.
Obviously I can't answer how long Google should block an abusive IP address since I'm not Google.
A CGNAT IP address is not reassigned to a home, it's shared among many homes. If you meant from my example the cloud server IP, that is one issue that comes up pretty often on cloud services and there's not a clean way around it.
For example I use Linode as my VPN server, I used to have all sorts of trouble with Google making me enter captchas or blocking my search just because of the abuse coming from the same IP range. I actually can't even login to some apps while on my VPN, and I've had this same IP address on my Linode for close to 10 years, so it's not an issue with my /32 specifically.
You'll see the same thing on AWS, many of those ec2 instances can't be used for sending email or for VPN services because previous users of the IP space abused their way onto block lists.
I get "you appear to be a robot" whenever I use my DigitalOcean box as an exit node. I'd imagine you'd have to host this at home or get really lucky there
The moment I switch it on and use Google, no excessive searches etc
> because while you can remember v4 addresses and v4 address assignments, this is impossible for v6 addresses
A thousand times this (and your other points, great reply thank you) - the ergonomics of using IPv6 at a local scale are atrocious for mere mortals. And you didn't touch on "should I use Stable Privacy or EUI64 for my laptop IP?" and other small cuts and bruises which technologists think everyone should "just know".
All the "but ipv6 is better because... xyz" just don't ring true to me, but I'm not a full time admin.
I still see "Quit remembering addresses - we have DNS!". My consumer equipment all have "192.168.0.1" and "192.168.2.1" type addresses. Relying on my browsers to be able to discover 'cable_modem.dyn' on a local network doesn't work - instructions will just say "go to 192.168.0.1" and put in a password. Good luck trying to get people to go to "[ff00]:0:0" or... whatever the heck you'd have to put in. Having foreign CSRs trying to explain what a square bracket is to people at home trying to set up a new cable modem... way too much headache.
And... there are millions of people that have to do this. There's perhaps tens of thousands of high-level network admins working to route everything through major global networks, but there's hundreds of millions of people that have to deal with and use all the stuff at the end points, and millions of us who serve as defacto "tech support" people for families/friends/neighbors.
People did that because they had no choice - here people are just not opting in to v6 because they can still use v4, which is easier. Very different situation.
You shouldn't remember numeric addresses anyway, and we had reasonable ways to deal with that for decades now. It's really just human unwillingness (ok, and maybe a bit of BSD Sockets shitshow, but as much as I hate them for keeping networking broken it's not their fault this time).
>And you didn't touch on "should I use Stable Privacy or EUI64 for my laptop IP?"
yes. because this has by now been solved by using a non-outdated OS. The defaults have become good enough for this not to be an issue any more, at least in my experience.
I'm literally on Arch using NetworKManager, when creating a new connection it defaults to Stable Privacy in the dropdown, but EUI64 is listed first in the dropdown itself. So, since you didn't actually state which one to use, now what? Point being: don't be condescending claiming "outdated OS", IPv6 is a minefield of footguns and there are many of them just like this choice.
The sane default is Stable Privacy. It's a good thing that NetworkManager agrees if it has offered that to you as the default. Ultimately though any confusion that arises from how that option is presented to the user is really a bug in NetworkManager and not in IPv6. The footgun here is that NetworkManager allows you to change it so easily without offering any explanation as to what changing it will do.
For me, "crate" is now associated with anything rust (and I'm neither a rust person or a programmer) - if I see crate in relation to tech, "it has something to do with rust."
I'm with you! It's possible that at one time I thought as you (also being a music fan), but in the past 5 (?) years you can't trip but to find someone talking about rust in the tech spaces. Not only context, but era (point in time?) as well.
One of the most popular ways is to use the F-Droid repositories, which if you know a little Linux concepts it's like plugging in another software repository to the same package manager. (see f-droid.org) It can be confusing though because F-Droid is both an app, and the name of the primary software repo which is pure FOSS software (no ads, no trackers).
The F-Droid app supports adding more repositories (think like apt/yum/dnf on Linux) easily, so you can source software from anywhere which runs their own repository. One of the most popular "other" repos is Izzy (apt.izzysoft.de/fdroid), and there is an alternate project called "microG" which can allow you to use Google Play store apps (microg.org/fdroid.html). microG is how you will get your Google Play apps onto the device, usually (there are other solutions besides microG out there however).
The CalyxOS install ROM includes F-Droid (app and repos) and offers to install microG for you on your first boot (as well as some other opt-in stuff). Calyx runs their own F-Droid repo which is pre-added to the app so you get updates from them as well (think the built-in apps most smartphones have).
Nit rebuttal: I was referring to the F-Droid repository which I thought was clear from context. These elements are scanned for and apps called out (tagged) should they contain something not-free, even connecting to network services like Reddit or Twitter. The are referred to as Anti-Features: https://f-droid.org/en/docs/Anti-Features/
Trivia: by default (unless it has changed upstream), the F-Droid app defaults to "Include anti-feature apps: Off" in the Settings. The user must go in there and manually opt-in to see all the anti-feature apps on the mobile client.
It doesn't actually hide apps with "anti-features", you can still see them by default. The only thing it does is hide the description and install button of apps with "anti-features" in the search screen. It seems like a half-baked feature.
That's true, but the date of the most recent release is clearly shown, and it's easy to avoid the unmaintained ones. Also, F-Droid most likely has newer alternatives for the kind of app you're looking for.
Calyx VPN uses the same tech stack as Riseup VPN, which are branded versions of the Bitmask client - CalyxOS is a part of the Calyx Institute family. You can instead use the Bitmask client from the F-Droid repo and choose to connect to either service with the same app (rather than using branded apps for each service).
Curious, does anyone know what's their business model to monetizing the "free" VPN service? How do they make their money back or is it a donation kind of thing?
The tech stack matters far less than the trustworthiness and competence of the operators running it. And the hard part with VPN services is that it is very difficult to prove those things to others.
Thanks for sharing, I as well didn't know about this. I've enrolled/used Zelle (via my bank app) and it's just a travesty of usability to me, after awhile I ditched it (and I don't hear a lot in the news about Zelle these days).
What's your hot take on this new FedNow system vs. what Zelle tries to achieve via ACH? Do you think it'll be more "Venmo-like" (low friction) or will it end up a usability mess due to regulation requirements?
Zelle is owned by a consortium of the largest US banks [1], and does much more volume than Venmo (because its built into the UX of those participating in Zelle's real time payment network [2]). Congress strongly encouraged the Fed to develop FedNow to prevent Zelle from keeping smaller banks out of instant payment infra. FedNow will eventually replace the ACH system.
Hot take: banks being banks, they'll crowd out fintechs because fintechs aren't chartered banks regardless of the UX (which is why Bancorp Bank is the underlying for so many fintechs).
Now that's interesting - does that imply that the clearing delays in transfer (say your US Bank to your Brokerage, ~3 days ACH) will disappear and FedNow makes that an "instant" (within 1 day let's say) settled transfer? Very intriguing.
Yep - the goal is to move to ~real time transactions so settlement is instantaneous for most transactions with a much shorter window for settlement for those txs over some threshold (initial working docs said $25k, but it'll likely be larger by the time it rolls out).
