It's a troll. "Optional activities" gets translated to "mandatory" and a game is "far more important" yet apparently in such a game nobody really likes each other, too.
> It's a troll. "Optional activities" gets translated to "mandatory"
It sounds to me that you are the one trolling. It should be quite clear that when someone who has power over you "invites" you to do an "optional" after work gathering with other people (who are often your direct career competitors), it is not really an optional thing.
> game is "far more important" yet apparently in such a game nobody really likes each other
And I am not sure what's your point here. It sounds like you are misunderstanding what I am saying.
That creates opprotunities for other Level 1 chains. Solana for example charges $0.00025 per transaction (however this is still denominated in the SOL currency so it will fluctuate). Hedera network is $0.0001 per transaction and is fixed in USD.
They have other problems. Solana's entire supply is said to be 5% of the current world population. I'll let you do the math on the rich/poor inequality this entails.
Each problem that's dismissed out of hand by crypto proponents is compounded by the endless streams of bigger and worse problems.
I'm very confused by both of your points. The supply of a cryptocurrency is equal to a person? A crypto token is not a person so I'm guessing you missed a few words there?
How is building a competing chain to more efficiently solve a problem (high transaction fees) in a competitive market in any way "dismissing" that problem? That seems the exact opposite of dismissing a problem.
Do those new solutions come with new problems? Sure, that's true of any technology. Dynamo-based databases solved high availability and network partitionability of data but come with several trade-offs. That doesn't mean you shouldn't use Cassandra for anything.
That said, Solana is not the hill I'm willing to die on and it's hot garbage. Hedera seems good though.
That question is highly dependent on jurisdiction. The prevailing opinion right now is that Lightning nodes are not subject to KYC regulations in the US.
I, as a supplier, want to prevent coupon fraud - a ~300M year problem. Today they mitigate this with trust relationships between retailers and distributers, which consequentially means that coupons are less widely distributed and more marginal in what discounts they offer than they could be.
When coupons are redeemed, a cashier stuffs them in a bag, they get counted and redeemed and the supplier cuts a check. A shady retailer can simply say they have double the coupons they actually received, and they will get the same check. There's nothing unique about the coupon to prevent this.
Ignoring web3, how could you solve this? You could set up some simple database and rest api and have the coupons have some unique identity. You'd need to make this cryptographically secure so you couldn't simply forge identities, you'd need to be able to issue these easily and in bulk, have them expire at a certain time, onboard retailers to easily redeem these coupons and then facilitate payments to the retailer.
And, well, that's essentially what Hedera does[1], as a cryptographic DLT. Its value is that the cryptographic proof of whether something is unique and how it can be redeemed is done via NFT, and this protects against a number of attacks at the "consensus level". It offers you a secure way to do this and not run any computer, for minimal and predictable fees. Every transaction is fixed to USD and costs 0.0001 USD and completes in 5 seconds.
"It's just not possible today to build a sophisticated purely digital, autonomous decentralized service/product today."
Granted, Hedera is digital, but from the description in the link you posted it's neither autonomous nor decentralized. "Target and General Mills" may have access to it, but I certainly can't post a "50% off my hand knitted sweater"-Coupon to it. I may also need some convincing that Hedera users are able to verify the cryptographic integrity of a coupon without running "any computer".
"Ignoring web3, how could you solve this?"
Roughly in the way you describe, with a database. You even go on to say "that's essentially what Hedera does", I fail to see the added benefit of slapping a blockchain/web3/NFT/whatever on top, but maybe I'm just ignorant.
The hedera network is autonomous and decentralized - TCB built on top of it. So to issue or redeem your coupon you'd need to participate in TCB, but as a result you'd be able to issue your coupons directly to consumers and then any retailer also in TCB would be able to redeem them.
> I fail to see the added benefit of slapping a blockchain/web3/NFT/whatever on top, but maybe I'm just ignorant.
Mainly being able to run this as a service and having assurance that the data you put onto it is correct, like a digital notary. And to provide assurances like no double spend and transaction ordering. A way to verify that something happened and not rely on an intermediary to decide that or to have custody of that data.
So for example Amazon could easily implement this, and do it at scale. Would you trust Amazon? To both keep custody of your data, ensure that it will always be available, that it would not be meddled with? Would an enterprise like Wal-Mart trust that?
That's essentially TCB's problem. Wal-Mart doesn't necessarily trust the TCB, either, even though it is industry non-profit. So TCB uses Hedera as its data layer - it does not own the data.
And how can Wal-Mart trust Hedera, ultimately? The governing council
> So for example Amazon could easily implement this, and do it at scale. Would you trust Amazon? To both keep custody of your data, ensure that it will always be available, that it would not be meddled with? Would an enterprise like Wal-Mart trust that?
Yes, far more so because Amazon will give you a legally binding contract with things like SLAs.
The problem with decentralized systems is that serious apps cost more to run but people generally don’t want to pay for things which don’t benefit them. You can ameliorate the performance and reliability problems of a blockchain by throwing capacity at it but there’s always the question of why you wouldn’t spend less to run your own private system to avoid the possibility of having problems caused by people you don’t even know about.
SLA is simply an intent to provide a level of service. If that can't be met, then there'd be an agreement on what the consequence of that was. Don't meet an availability SLA and maybe you get some credit back. You can't offer a best effort for non-repudiation of data. It either is or it isn't.
Maybe trust is the wrong word. Like - yes they might say they intend to provide this level of service, but the only way they can actually guarantee that level of non-repudiation of data is with cryptographic proofs and decentralized consensus and now you've basically got a cryptographic ledger.
PoW Blockchain isn't the only technology to accomplish this, either. There's a whole host of blockchain and post-blockchain technologies seeking to corner that market - a more efficient blockchain. Hedera for example uses the hashgraph algorithm.
If you built the coupon system you describe - one where any retailer can redeem the coupon at face value without a preexisting trust relationship with the coupon’s backer - you would not have ‘solved coupon fraud’, you would have created a cash alternative.
And a cash alternative has a bunch of problems of its own - most notably, money laundering and its utility in conducting fraud and getting payouts for extortion rackets like ransom ware.
These are issues that centralized coupons have. Trustless ones would have it even worse.
Are you sure the retail industry, or consumers, are crying out for a trustless coupon solution?
The technology doesn't have to solve all problems to have economic value. Arguably the "cash alternative" problem is a fundamental problem of coupons themselves. And as you point out, these are not new problems, and does an immutable public ledger makes such activity easier to audit and prosecute? I would argue 'yes' and that web3 has not made the problem worse but in fact better. The authorities do not need to request your books for starters. And as a retailer you do not need to maintain the books. Its already in a trusted ledger. This is a market efficiency. Inefficiency is not a way to secure things.
As far as doubt whether customers are asking for this - I mean, again you can listen above but yes a number of large retailers and vendors like Wal-mart and P&G are going live with this use-case this year.
And who are we to decide what is economically viable and what isn't? Let the market decide.
Maybe a key distinction here is that TCB itself is not trustless - it requires KYC, etc. But where data is stored and redeemed is on the trustless, decentralized Hedera network. It functions as an automated, secure ledger.
You could replace Hedera with a private blockchain or another ledger - likely not a public one due to unpredictable transaction fees or high time to consensus - the value is the same.
> This is an application built with least privilege in mind
Uh huh, makes sense
> Named SuperUser
Uhh...
It lists all the operations that it can't do, but not what it can do. Can they download a private SAML certificate? Can they impersonate a user? Can they configure SSO and MFA settings? Can they download audit logs?
Oh, that's a good one. Definitely something that the software should not allow, because I can't see a legitimate reason for this (allowing to download the certificate is fine, but not the key).
This was my topmost question too. The report very cleanly omits any and all mentions of SAML signing certificates.
Solar Winds was the first known incident to escalate to so called "Golden SAML" attack. If the support staff had access to signing certificates, then that would open the door to a wide-scale exploitation of Okta's clients.
Again, space-based intercept takes out the missile within 2 minutes of launch, before hypersonic is deployed. This also stops submarine launch (the space-based sensor layer detects it and intercept comes from space). It doesn't matter where the submarine is, the space-based launch-intercept system has whole earth coverage.
The Kinzhal does not enter space, therefore no space-based intercept is applicable. The Avangard is an example of a FOBS - will the space based intercept be able to intercept a FOBS vehicle? I'm unclear.
Is it really necessary to lead with "Again"? It makes me feel like you think
I can't understand, and therefore you're smarter than me, that you are some know-it-all who has to be right, and that it's zero sum so that I must also therefore be wrong for you to be right. Your informative and accurate point can be made without that word.
We can and should learn from each other. You know a lot and I want to learn from you.
I hope that wasn't too antagonistic, I just wanted to explain how your comment made me feel. I had some very mean things to say to you before writing this out. Thank you for posting, I wasn't aware of Starlink's military implications.
