My question as well. My experience using notebooks with 3rd party Jupyter clients has been poor, eg Nteract and Pycharm. Whereas Jupyterlab Desktop just works. You would have to convince me to switch to anything else.
The scanner uses some neural nets and an IR camera to see if everything around the iris checks out.
So you can’t (easily at least) scan some disembodied eyes, or your dog’s eyes.
It allows iCloud or obsidian syncing. I tried to set it up with Dropbox because I didn’t trust iClouds conflict resolution and couldn’t get it to work.
I think that's a limitation of the Files API. In the least, I've yet to come across an app that allows syncing with third-party storage apps through Files. I've only seen one-way saving or using the file picker to retrieve a file.
"KeePassium can work both offline and with your favorite cloud provider.
There is no setup: pick your database through the familiar Files interface — and that's it. By integrating with the Files app, KeePassium supports almost all storage providers, including..."
Interesting. I don't have a chance to mess with the app, but I wonder if it works because it's syncing individual kdbx files that the user gives access to one at a time rather than a whole directory (including subdirectories). Logseq and Obsidian, for example, would require syncing an entire directory along with subdirectories. My assumption is that they work with iCloud because they're given their own app-specific folder to do as they wish.
If that is the limitation, I wonder if they could get around that by using some type of bundle or archive. Regardless, thanks for the additional information.
One thing to note is that this requires manually pulling and pushing in Working Copy as well as paying to unlock pro features ($20 one-time payment) to push to a remote repository.
You can just save to a folder on your iOS device and push/pull changes with the app “working copy”, which is a full gift client. It costs a pretty penny though.
With proof of stake, a complete chain history is not strictly required by validating nodes.
You don’t want everyone to delete it, but it’s not required for consensus.
The consensus among distributed systems people without a financial stake in it seems to be that practical proof of stake remains an open problem. Obviously no one that owns SOL or DOT or ADA or whatever is going to say that, but I’ve looked hard for a scalable, secure, reasonably cost effective PoS L1 and come up empty so far.
There isn’t a Cardanos consensus protocol per se: there are a family of them under the umbrella term “Ourobouros”. In production it’s the BFT variant which is sort of a warmed over tendermint or algorand.
The more ambitious variants are very mathematically rigorous but axiomatize a wall-clock oracle, as well as in some cases mathematically-interesting but practically absurd assumptions about synchronicity.
Hoff has deployed his private fortune doing (among other, uh, things) serious research on distributed Byzantine consensus.
The example in the article had a way to enforce contract breaking - the person had to put up collateral until the work was done.
There’s problems with that particular mechanism, but in general if contracts can automatically decrease someone’s money, reputation, access etc, they can do enforcement.
So, let's say I pay you 200 ETH and get an NFT signifying ownership of a flat in downtown Kinshasa. I fly to Kinshasa, find the key as you have described, start living in the flat. A year later as I come home I find that the key has been changed and someone else has moved in. They present a purchase agreement, as well as a deed.
Exactly, the whole web3 blockchain movement seems to assume these contracts are legally binding in real world. For that to happen the same 'untrustworthy' government authority will have to trust the decentralized contracts on internet.
All these schemes always still might need some higher authority in the end e.g. who decides when the work is done? Putting up collateral only ensures that someone has the money, it does not ensure that one actually gets the money. Because defining when "the work" is done, can be really complicated in real life projects. Contracts in real life are complicated. Real life is messy etc.
I’d imagine they would, kind of like the levels of arbitrators and courts today.
The article said the neighbours first vote that work is done. Most of the time that could work. But it also mentions the neighbours could collude to steal the collateral. In that case courts could get involved and force money be returned etc.
I’m very far from a legal expert, but smart contracts seem like a potentially useful tool, within the current system. Not as a complete replacement.
Aave has $11 billion deposited on it right now and safety of those funds depend completely on getting accurate price data to trigger liquidations. So you can say that the oracle problem is solved, at least for price data.
Getting data in isn’t the big issue though, and we’ve had market data streams since forever. I’m talking about the example above, where a smart contract would need some way of knowing when to flip the “Bob has satisfactorily finished community refurbishment” flag. This would require an abundance of interoperable data sources for bizzare things. Where do I subscribe to the count(dogshit_pile_in_the_playground) stream, and who or what is publishing to it in a trust-less manner?
Getting all the data in the world into the blockchain and coding smart contracts to infer judgement from it would be too complex and expensive.
A more practical approach is to transfer the funds to Bob once he clicks on the checkbox and have some lock-up period, so that Alice has the opportunity to trigger a dispute if she needs to.
Then the dispute can be resolved by a private court (composed of humans) that both Alice and Bob agreed on beforehand. See: https://kleros.io
Ok, but this isn’t purely a smart contract anymore. You’re describing a typical escrow (running on a blockchain, because ______) with human judges, conceptually identical to what goes on behind the scenes at EBay. What necessitates a blockchain here?
No, it's running completely on smart contracts. You get the regular advantages of running on blockchain: permissionless and trustless access to finance.
You don't have to trust the escrow holder, you don't have to worry about getting banned from Ebay.
The human judges/arbitrators aren’t, and they’re what’s critical. The contract cannot be sensibly completed without their input.
So you have an escrow system where human judges need to supply critical information. I’m left having to trust the human judges, unsurprisingly. Running this basic escrow code on the blockchain means that I no longer have to trust the kind of basic escrow code that’s used in centralised escrows. My question now is whether the escrow code of centralised providers (if condition then funds.release()) is really so unreliable that I’ll get get tonnes of benefit using blockchain escrows. Whenever there’s controversy over escrows, it comes down to the arbitration, which as you admitted would still be performed by humans.
> Running this basic escrow code on the blockchain means that I no longer have to trust the kind of basic escrow code that’s used in centralised escrows
Yes, it means that you will 100% know that the escrow website is not gambling your money away, that it won't out of the blue ask you to supply more documents when it finally comes the time for you to get paid, it means that the escrow won't get hacked and your PII won't be sold on darknet.
Smart contracts are just a simpler and more transparent way to deal with finance.
> He can work for Alice or anyone else in the world
what's stopping him now?
> without having to deal with intermediaries and bureaucracy.
you mean laws?
edit: immagine this situation, Bob does the job, the other party never clicks on "done", Bob doesn't get the money, what Bob can do if there's no intermediary and/or bureaucracy protecting him?
Laws are not ideal and are often used to discriminate against certain groups.
> immagine this situation, Bob does the job, the other party never clicks on "done", Bob doesn't get the money, what Bob can do if there's no intermediary and/or bureaucracy protecting him?
As I said, there is a period of funds lock-up. In the worst case, Bob has to wait some time until the smart contract sends him his payment.
> Laws are not ideal and are often used to discriminate against certain groups
and your virtual ideology is better, how?
since nobody can enforce anything.
> As I said, there is a period of funds lock-up. In the worst case, Bob has to wait some time until the smart contract sends him his payment.
What if they payment is never sent and "some time" is forever?
You need laws after all (AKA a solution outside of the chain, or a deus ex machina if you want)
If I was Bob I would not see this thing you're talking about like a great advancement and would continue doing my job like I do it now.
I mean, I get you watched a lot of fiction and wanna feel like living as an outlaw, but even outlaws have laws and follow some of them.
You are trading mid to low trust in your local community for zero trust to some entity you'll never know, who'll never know you, couldn't care less about you and respecting the terms of some virtual contract and pretend we all should do the same.
Do you understand that this is the exact definition of "out of touch"?
how does this solve the issue of authoritarian governments?
> You have no idea how smart contracts work, do you?
I was writing smart contracts in solidity in 2015
at least it was something new back then...
but back on topic, what if they payment is never sent and "some time" is forever?
can you tell me what tools can the poor Bob use to claim what is legitimately his in your perrmissionless world?
how would you encode the "work completed" in a smart contract?
should nodes run by people in the Philipines vote on Bob's work, when Bob lives in Yowa and only wanted to be paid for keeping the gardens in his neighborhood clean (as per job description)?
I was talking about Kleros at the beginning of the discussion, but it's just one possible option.
>You can only hire someone for a job if you have the money.
No, you can only hire someone for a job using this specific method if you have the money beforehand. This means that Bob can be 100% sure that his employer is capable of paying him.
>In reality many people hire someone for a job and thanks to their help they'll have the money to repay them in the future.
There can be other smart contracts which allow this. The cool thing about them is that Bob is always fully aware whether his employer has the funds to pay him or it's just an IOU.
>But what if Alice disappeared because she's dead, and Bob id the one who killed her?
This is outside of our threat model. We're designing a smart contract for employing a freelancer, not high value SC where murder would be economically viable. If Bob murders Alice this is handled the same way as any other murder.
>You're avoiding the answer, and I understand you, it's hard to come with an answer when your design have bugs.
I'm not avoiding an answer, I gave you it clear and straight.
>If Alice dies Bob get his money.
Correct.
>There no way to stop it from happening.
>What if Bob is a minor or the employer is a minor?
>That would make the contract void in real life.
Depends on jurisdiction.
>Should people publish their personal info on the public blockchain so that the smart contract can exclude them from proposing or accepting a job?
They can do whatever they want.
>And how do you check that the informations are correct?
Idk. I wasn't proposing putting public info on the blockchain, it's your problem.
>What if Bob is an immigrant running from a regime and has no way to prove who he is, but needs the job to survive?
Bob would be delighted to know that he can interact with a permissionless network that does not require an ID and get paid for his work without revealing his identity.
>you'd need to basically recreate what government do today, without the enforcement of the law capability.
Nope.
>who would trust a system like that, except outlaws and scammers?
People who like efficiency and don't like intermediaries.
it's funny that people like you, who don't have a clue about what they're talking about, think they are so edgy that have something to teach to the humanity as a whole.
> Bob would be delighted to know that he can interact with a permissionless network that does not require an ID and get paid for his work without revealing his identity.
so basically Bob the pedophile could work with kids and nobody would ever know, until it's too late.
Or Bob the racist could employ black kids from developing country and everyone would be OK with that.
Bit most of all nobody could stop Bob, because nobody knows who he is!
That's a great advancement for society!
Of course bad people of the World would be delighted, I bet they would!
I'm starting to think you're one of them.
> People who like efficiency and don't like intermediaries.
exactly: mobsters, criminals, scammers, etc etc
there is nothing to gain for the common people. they can only lose the few protections they have left.
Crypto is the most anti-authoritarian and anti-nazi technology of 21st century. It empowers the individual and makes them less vulnerable to state violence, like getting their wealth confiscated because of their ethnicity.
You've proven multiple times that you have no idea what you're talking about.
So I have to trust the other party they will report in good faith on my delivered work. How is that trust working for Amazon product reviews? Why would be that net of lies any different for smart contracts?
>but in general if contracts can automatically decrease someone’s money, reputation, access etc, they can do enforcement.
No, they cannot. They can reduce these values, but that by itself doesn't enforce anything in the real world. If the entitiy doesn't care about these values (for example because it was a fake account/identity/whatever) then the only enforcement can come from outside.
That's why the word "force" is in "enforcement". States work because, among other things, they ultimately have a monopoly on the application of force.
Do we really think everyone has money for collateral? Small businesses and individual people are already struggling with money, where will they get the collateral?
Reminds me of some of the newer blockchains e.g. I think Binance Smart Chain works like this.
They don't use PoW or PoS. Instead they run on centralized servers like traditional databases. Only, they run on 10 or 20 or 50 centralized servers run by different people and processing the same input and cross-checking each other. Anybody who has money on the chain can stake it to vote for one of the servers (so I guess it is PoS really). Although anyone can connect to the chain and process input, the N servers with the highest stake-votes are the ones that actually count. Also the server owner has to put up some crazy collateral (currently in the realm of $500,000 I think, this is determined by market mechanisms, it used to be lower) and if they are caught cheating they lose it, a process called "slashing". Even having your server go down can cause you to lose some collateral. Conversely you earn collateral while it is up (like in PoS).
So it's really a lot like a traditional database cluster with an enforcement mechanism, and that enforcement mechanism makes all the difference unless your attacker has millions of dollars to waste.
No they can't, how could they? How is actionable events in the real world going to be translated without trust to a smart contract except by assessment by a third party?
Probably both sides can convince themselves the tech does or doesn't totally obviously beyond a doubt work (to differing definitions of "work"). But predicting public adoption and widespread use (which makes most things more inherently useful too) isn't easy for anyone.
