2/
Thread:
While the entire US crypto industry (exchanges, funds, associations, PsPs, lobbyists, etc) is currently focused on fighting the AML rules proposed by FinCEN, the XRP Community has been left ALONE fighting the securities battle FOR THE BENEFIT of the whole industry.
1/
2/
3/
4/
With such precedent (which the SEC hasn't been able to obtain so far, as a result of the early settlements reached with other crypto projects), the SEC would be ...
5/
6/
7/
8/
More from Crypto
"Blockchain technology is energy-intensive..." => No, it doesn't have to be.
Let's look at Proof-Of-Stake, an alternative to the energy-intensive Proof-Of-Work algorithm.
🧵🔽
1️⃣ A Quick Recap On Proof-Of-Work
A Proof-Of-Work algorithm requires miners to do a certain amount of work that is compute-intensive to gain access to a service or the right to do something. This algorithm, by design, also requires that the work done shall not ...
... be reusable for anything else than what it was performed for. This lies at the core of the security concept of a blockchain. To gain the right to append a new block to a chain and to get some currency as a reward, there is work to be done, and this work must be verifyable.
That work is a race between different miners. Many miners try to compete and to be the first to find the answer to a problem presented to them. This implies that a lot of energy is wasted as only the first correct solution is accepted.
You can find a more detailed thread on Proof-Of-Work
Let's look at Proof-Of-Stake, an alternative to the energy-intensive Proof-Of-Work algorithm.
🧵🔽
1️⃣ A Quick Recap On Proof-Of-Work
A Proof-Of-Work algorithm requires miners to do a certain amount of work that is compute-intensive to gain access to a service or the right to do something. This algorithm, by design, also requires that the work done shall not ...
... be reusable for anything else than what it was performed for. This lies at the core of the security concept of a blockchain. To gain the right to append a new block to a chain and to get some currency as a reward, there is work to be done, and this work must be verifyable.
That work is a race between different miners. Many miners try to compete and to be the first to find the answer to a problem presented to them. This implies that a lot of energy is wasted as only the first correct solution is accepted.
You can find a more detailed thread on Proof-Of-Work
Proof-Of-Work is the name of a cryptographic algorithm that is used for some blockchains when new blocks are to be appended to the chain.
— Oliver Jumpertz (@oliverjumpertz) April 3, 2021
Let's take a higher-level look at how this one works, shall we?
\U0001f9f5\U0001f53d
Out of curiosity I dug into how NFT's actually reference the media you're "buying" and my eyebrows are now orbiting the moon
Short version:
The NFT token you bought either points to a URL on the internet, or an IPFS hash. In most circumstances it references an IPFS gateway on the internet run by the startup you bought the NFT from.
Oh, and that URL is not the media. That URL is a JSON metadata file
Here's an example. This artwork is by Beeple and sold via Nifty:
https://t.co/TlJKH8kAew
The NFT token is for this JSON file hosted directly on Nifty's servers:
https://t.co/GQUaCnObvX
THAT file refers to the actual media you just "bought". Which in this case is hosted via a @cloudinary CDN, served by Nifty's servers again.
So if Nifty goes bust, your token is now worthless. It refers to nothing. This can't be changed.
"But you said some use IPFS!"
Let's look at the $65m Beeple, sold by Christies. Fancy.
https://t.co/1G9nCAdetk
That NFT token refers directly to an IPFS hash (https://t.co/QUdtdgtssH). We can take that IPFS hash and fetch the JSON metadata using a public gateway:
https://t.co/CoML7psBhF
Short version:
The NFT token you bought either points to a URL on the internet, or an IPFS hash. In most circumstances it references an IPFS gateway on the internet run by the startup you bought the NFT from.
Oh, and that URL is not the media. That URL is a JSON metadata file
Here's an example. This artwork is by Beeple and sold via Nifty:
https://t.co/TlJKH8kAew
The NFT token is for this JSON file hosted directly on Nifty's servers:
https://t.co/GQUaCnObvX
THAT file refers to the actual media you just "bought". Which in this case is hosted via a @cloudinary CDN, served by Nifty's servers again.
So if Nifty goes bust, your token is now worthless. It refers to nothing. This can't be changed.
"But you said some use IPFS!"
Let's look at the $65m Beeple, sold by Christies. Fancy.
https://t.co/1G9nCAdetk
That NFT token refers directly to an IPFS hash (https://t.co/QUdtdgtssH). We can take that IPFS hash and fetch the JSON metadata using a public gateway:
https://t.co/CoML7psBhF
You May Also Like
"I lied about my basic beliefs in order to keep a prestigious job. Now that it will be zero-cost to me, I have a few things to say."
We know that elite institutions like the one Flier was in (partial) charge of rely on irrelevant status markers like private school education, whiteness, legacy, and ability to charm an old white guy at an interview.
Harvard's discriminatory policies are becoming increasingly well known, across the political spectrum (see, e.g., the recent lawsuit on discrimination against East Asian applications.)
It's refreshing to hear a senior administrator admits to personally opposing policies that attempt to remedy these basic flaws. These are flaws that harm his institution's ability to do cutting-edge research and to serve the public.
Harvard is being eclipsed by institutions that have different ideas about how to run a 21st Century institution. Stanford, for one; the UC system; the "public Ivys".
As a dean of a major academic institution, I could not have said this. But I will now. Requiring such statements in applications for appointments and promotions is an affront to academic freedom, and diminishes the true value of diversity, equity of inclusion by trivializing it. https://t.co/NfcI5VLODi
— Jeffrey Flier (@jflier) November 10, 2018
We know that elite institutions like the one Flier was in (partial) charge of rely on irrelevant status markers like private school education, whiteness, legacy, and ability to charm an old white guy at an interview.
Harvard's discriminatory policies are becoming increasingly well known, across the political spectrum (see, e.g., the recent lawsuit on discrimination against East Asian applications.)
It's refreshing to hear a senior administrator admits to personally opposing policies that attempt to remedy these basic flaws. These are flaws that harm his institution's ability to do cutting-edge research and to serve the public.
Harvard is being eclipsed by institutions that have different ideas about how to run a 21st Century institution. Stanford, for one; the UC system; the "public Ivys".
