After 10 years of being involved in crypto I've finally created a website - go look! https://t.co/eFWaZNrMNy
I've tried my best to bring together info about the project I love (XX) and there's a bit about me too if you fancy being nosey! Let me know what you think!
@Satsbuyer@StoriesDotFun@BryceWeiner That isn’t his XTO, it was originally an L1 bitcoin style blockchain of its own, the symbol flipped between TAO and XTO during its lifetime. It eventually ended up as a token on a tomochain EVM clone after a swap. I know because I was there from the start: https://t.co/YhMKnvEIi6
@spacer_lady Congrats on getting over the line on this, I’ve read it and it’s been a great primer for what I’ve seen you contend with in the last year. Well done on your first published work, looking forward to seeing what’s next.
Confirmation bias is not just rife but embedded into all of crypto now. It's all noise. My hope is that the human spirit latches onto something that comes out of the noise and actually benefits us all, as was the original intention. It'll likely be years but I can't wait.
The Quantum Doom Clock is ticking! ⏳
Stay updated on when quantum chips will crack encryption! Created by our very own @rcarback
Check it out: https://t.co/c10NAXZZJg
@Cointelegraph Fast forward 30 years and David Chaum created the https://t.co/04R2LC5Ten with his mixnet baked in for metadata shredding. We may be too far gone to have a widely used privacy coin but our comms and the threat of quantum computers are equally huge issues he seeks to address here.
@AminCad @ray_noOnes @chaumdotcom@noonesapp "Outlined", calm your boots. It's widely accepted that proof of work was the missing piece and yes these systems hadn't overcome the fact that computationally anything cryptographic in the hands of people was impossible 40+ years ago. There's still foundational work there.
@AminCad @ray_noOnes @chaumdotcom@noonesapp Actually he is recognised as publishing the first paper that outlined a blockchain back in the early 80s: https://t.co/gRQ3McnZIB
Why does privacy matter? What are the best principled arguments for it? Where to set the boundary [i.e., when is it best to require that certain actions be more broadly known]?
My own answer to this bundle of questions isn't very good. I've read a few classic books, papers, and essays, but overall I'm not especially well read in the history of privacy. Some incomplete and poorly-digested thoughts:
+ Surveillance creates a flow of power from the one surveilled to the surveiller. Most crudely with threats ("we saw you do such-and-such an activity, now you must do as we say or we will disclose"), but perhaps moreso with predictive models (if you know how someone acts you can build a model that helps you manipulate them - this is the basic premise of surveillance capitalism, which now dominates advertising, and which you and I are currently co-participating in, as I write & you read)
+ In general, "the right to do things, provided they don't hurt others" [i.e., freedom] is one of the most important inventions in human history. And surveillance is often justified on the basis of preventing "hurt others" (good), but in practice used to prevent action against incumbent powers (bad), or simply things which busy-bodies don't like (also bad).
+ It's interesting how difficult I find that "right to do things, provided they don't hurt others". Instinctively, I feel it enormously strongly. But when I try to write out justifications they're insipid. It's like the principle is so vast I can only see tiny bits of it.
Anyway, curious if others have unusually powerful answers to these questions
@ArtCandee I think David was instrumental to its creation but he isn't known for his modesty when it comes to his achievements. IMO there's no way would he keep it quiet.