I’m not attacking his credibility, I’m calling it into question. If you produce a video in a reality-tv/anger-inciting manner then I’m not going to take it at face value without knowing more.
Then you should spend a few minutes investigating the person before questioning his credibility
a cursory look at the channel will see this type of over acting is common for the channel.
While he is over the top, I do not doubt that Apple Refused to repair their device for their "customer" that is standard apple anyway. Apple has always been about consumerism meaning they want you to buy new devices not repair broken ones. Their policy is "If its not Warranty, buy a new one", and even under warranty it is mainly REPLACE not repair.
>It is not public, it exists to facilitate Police intelligence.
The "police intelligence" gives a misleading impression. Non-police residents can inquire about felons on the list because of Sarah's Law.[1]
In other words... "If I molested a child and served my 10 year prison sentence, I'm not truly _forgiven_ if people can check if I'm on a sex offender registry."
Therefore, don't use "forgive" as the framework. It should be clear that society really doesn't forgive and allow people a clean slate. If serving jail truly meant the "debt was paid to society", felons wouldn't be put on that list after jail was completed. Many defendents refuse a plea bargain of "guilty" because they don't want to be put on that list. To them, the lifetime sex offender list is worse than the jail sentence. It's an ongoing debt that's never repaid.
It's clear you're not looking at this from a neutral perspective. Given that the situation is significantly different than you imagined and your view has not changed.
> Many defendents refuse a plea bargain of "guilty" because they don't want to be put on that list.
This is not the US.
> Non-police residents can inquire about felons on the list because of Sarah's Law
This is no different than an extended check which any company allowing you to work with children can carry out. The difference is here that vulnerable new partners of the person can enquire if they see fit.
It is about keeping people safe, not punishing people. It's literally a criminal offence to reveal information about someone having to sign the register.
How can I verify that's not what it means? It's all about subtlety in language. It's just a fact that centralized DNS servers are a bad idea and cannot be trusted, regardless of what it very carefully says on a policy page or whatever speed gains you could get. It's a broken system and I have no reason to trust Google with even more data.
> I was willing to tolerate Ledger's issues here ... if they fixed them
> Unfortunately, the Ledger team appear to be asshats, so there's every reason to fear using them in the future, even if they've fixed this specific issue
Your first two lines completely contradict each other.
The problem wasn't the breach, it was their messaging around the breach. I accept that most products have bugs, even security-critical bugs in security products (although this one was a bit extreme to tolerate...).
The Nano S isn't really an HSM-containing-wallet. It (and the Trezor) are somewhere between a smartcard containing just the keys and an HSM. There's "trusted" display and input, but not the whole wallet. The Nano S also does have an element of "trust us" vs. an easily verifiable design.
Lightning seems quite sound in theory, but I have misgivings about the order in which a fresh transaction is signed, and the secret to the old transaction revealed.
It would seem that by interrupting this chain before both old secrets are revealed, the attacker could safely claim all coins in the channel.
So how does the system know what time it is? Host time is not reliable. Genuinly curious.
This is the reason why Ethereum contract usually set start time, end time and similar in block numbers. Block number is reliable while timestamp is just a local time of the miner that mined the transaction in which the contract call was included.
Timestamps in the block header. These timestamps are used to regulate the proof of work to maintain a block interval, so in the end both measures have the same time accuracy.
Each step in our protocol could set a different amount of delay to close the channel. Beginning the close process does not require waiting, but finishing it does. It's actually the opposite, if you wait too long to close, you may not be able to close at all. This means that if you need to close it, and you can't reach your peers for the honest_close case, you better get to it!
Because each step can pick delay, the honest_close case allows a channel to close without any delay.
Here's my understanding of how this works in a Poon-Dryja payment channel[1]. I haven't reviewed the Stellar proposal to see if it's substantially different.
Let's assume an Alice-Bob channel funded with 1 BTC, and look at how we get from payment state 1 (Alice: 0.5 BTC, Bob: 0.5 BTC) to payment state 2 (Alice: 0.4 BTC, Bob: 0.6 BTC), and who could do what during the transition. This is just a sketch, but I think it fills in what you're asking.
Payment state 1:
* Alice holds a transaction C1a, that only she can broadcast. C1a has two outputs: 0.5 BTC -> {Alice in the future; or, Bob if signed by Alice's key Ak1}; 0.5 BTC -> Bob.
* Bob holds C1b, which looks like C1a but with names reversed. [Names reversed except both transactions send the same amounts to each party. In this special example case of a 50/50 distribution, that comes to the same thing.]
Transition to payment state 2:
1. Alice and Bob create new transactions C2a and C2b, half-sign them, exchange them, yada yada. This is complicated and has internal steps where only some of the information has been exchanged, but I don't think it's the part you're asking about.
At this point, Alice could broadcast C1a or C2a without penalty, and Bob could broadcast C1b or C2b without penalty, so the channel hasn't conclusively moved to payment state 2. Any broadcast will either close the channel in payment state 1, which it's coming from, or payment state 2, which it's going to. So as long as everyone knows that payment state 2 isn't confirmed (which they do), this isn't really a threat.
(With physical currency: if I hand you a nickel, there's a period where it's not clear if you're going to take it and it's not clear if I'm going to let it go, but at the end of that period either I paid you — the new state — or I didn't — we're back where we were before I started to hand you the nickel, but no earlier.)
2. Alice sends Bob Ak1.
Now if Alice publishes C1a to the blockchain, he can take its both outputs. So she wouldn't do that. Alice can safely publish C2a, and Bob can publish either C1a or C2a. We're halfway to payment state 2.
3. Bob sends Alice Bk1.
Now Bob can't publish C1b without penalty, either.
If Alice and Bob are rational, nobody will ever broadcast C1a or C1b. (If Alice — the only person who can broadcast C1a — does so, she forfeits the channel funds to Bob; and vice versa.)
The channel is now in payment state 2.
---
[1] J. Poon, T. Dryja. “The Bitcoin Lightning Network: Scalable Off-Chain Instant Payments”, pp. 22–26, Section 3.3.4, “Creating a new Commitment Transaction and Revoking Prior Commitments”. This uses the terminology Commitment Transactions, Revocable Delivery Transaction, and Breach Remedy Transaction to describe the concepts that I've either waved my hands about or completely elided, above. It has lots of pictures. “Payment state” is my non-standard neologism.
---
“I got here the same way the coin did.” – C. McCarthy, No Country for Old Men.
The only way to close the channel before the deadline is by having all participants (in the channel) sign a closing transaction with all the updated balances.
> 3 days? In contrast, your liability is capped at $500 if you inform your bank of debit card fraud within 60 days.
Unless your bank considers the fraud to have been caused by a lack of care on your behalf, in which case you will not be refunded and have virtually no means of appeal
(note: Obviously depends on your country and local laws)
If you want to be lame and try to invalidate an argument sure you can say there's a literal world of difference in an analogy, but thats the entire point of an analogy, to show similarity by demonstrating something relatively simple often in a wildly different context.
Theres still a middleman with plain BTC, its just that there are a ton of them, and little barrier to entry to becoming a middleman yourself. Lightning requires things which realistically only banks will be able to provide, large payment channels. The whole point is that when you can store your balance on a decentralize ledger, there's no need for a bank.
