Spain did what
this post was submitted on 07 Jul 2024
286 points (100.0% liked)
Memes
1358 readers
33 users here now
Rules:
- Be civil and nice.
- Try not to excessively repost, as a rule of thumb, wait at least 2 months to do it if you have to.
founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS
España creó un pasaporte blockchain para ver por alguna razón, porque supongo que los tiddies ponen nerviosas a algunas personas.
Source: Sé dónde está la biblioteca.
¿Qué?
This could be the right time to use an interrobang.
interrobang.
I know it's a real thing, but I still think of a sexy FBI agent every time I see "interrobang"
I've never used one in my life, but I feel like it would have more impact in a language with writing rules such as Spanish's.
And also the sexy agent thing.
If so, it was a lucky guess.
load more comments
(1 replies)
load more comments
(1 replies)
me llamo t-bone la arana discoteca
Muy bien. Soy el langostino de los sueños.
Ahora esperemos que Porn Hub anuncie que no va a dar servicio en España como tantos estados Americanos que han hecho lo mismo.
load more comments
(1 replies)
Is it Blockchain based though?
It is a shitty porn passport, I'm Spanish, but I didn't hear that it was Blockchain based.
Why? It needs a centrar register not an uncentralized one.
A blockchain does not mean decentralized. It means a public ledger where each new item validates the one(s) before it
Do they need blockchain for it though?
A distributed pseudonymous ledger for use by a centralised authority that will hold sensitive, personal information.
I think the paper was right.
https://www.politico.eu/article/spain-builds-porn-passport-to-stop-kids-watching-smut/ I guess this? Wild stuff.
load more comments
(7 replies)
Guy who wrote a paper about Blockchain doesn't know the difference between a "digital wallet" and Blockchain...
What about all the games where you can shoot people? Why is that okay for kids, but a little tit here and there will destroy their view of the world?
Didn't these things get their starts by sucking on tits? So why hide them now?
I love it when people define porn as "just some titties", and ignore all the violent hardcore shit that's defining a generation of men who don't understand sex or women.
Let's pair it with proper sex ed. Destigmatise sex work, break the taboos, but also teach people what is and isn't okay or healthy, how arousal works for different sexes and why their dick isn't God's gift to womankind.
There is this famous spanish porn actor. Nacho vidal, who says that we would have a better world is kids would play around with plastic dildos instead of plastic guns.
I don't know the playing with plastic dildos, but it is true how wild is the normalization of giving kids a replica of a human killing instrument to play with.
well you can't have fun running around all summer squirting water at your friends from a dildo
at least, not without getting some truly vile looks from passersby
also it's just intrinsically fun to try to shoot each other with harmless little darts that let you know you've been hit but not do anything else
Why would anyone chain their porn?
Cockchains are not for that. Not really for anything, but not for that too.
You can downvote this because you're mad that blockchain exists, for those who don't know the actual real life use case: Bitcoin has been around for 15 years, it is a blockchain. It has a real life use case.
I can send money, with my android phone, from my couch, in my underwear, to anybody else on planet earth who also has a phone and a halfway reliable internet connection. The transaction is not only sent, but actually settles, in under a second with Bitcoin lightning. And I pay pennies in fees. No going to the bank, no bank holidays, no paying wire fees or making sure their bank can talk to my bank. It's just simple and instant and it works. It doesn't matter if they are a dissident or if their country doesn't allow women to own bank accounts, the transaction goes through anyways. In many countries, their app can also instantly convert that BTC into the currency of their choice and deposit it to their bank account. That's assuming they have access to stable banking infrastructure, which billions of people do not.
Bitcoin has delivered on its promise of being a currency with a capped supply (21 million coins) and transaction system consistently for 15 years without a single hack, without a single hour of downtime, without a single hiccup. It just works.
You can argue that Bitcoin isn't better than . You can argue that there are "better" solutions. But it has a clear use case. I use it on a daily basis and it has a fifteen year trend of continued growth whether you are looking at total market cap (bigger than Sweden's GDP), number of nodes, number of transactions, whatever.
Most everything negative you've heard about Bitcoin is either hyperbolic or about other crypto. FTX wasn't Bitcoin. Crypto coins collapsing or people being rugged? Not Bitcoin. For more information, FAQs, and myth-busting, check out http://bitcoin.rocks
Not even sure why I'm bothering replying to this bot, but guess misinformation should not be left alone
- It's not instant it takes a long time until enough confirmations have been done. It's not even clear how many confirmations are enough.
- It's only instant if you use the lightning network. Lightning network is literally a traditional bank transaction mechanism on top of bitcoin. If you are arguing for using lightning transactions, what is the point of bitcoin in the first place?
- fees are huge and will only increase in the future.
I'm not a bot, I'm just an idiot.
It’s not instant it takes a long time until enough confirmations have been done. It’s not even clear how many confirmations are enough.
You're thinking of main chain (which takes 10 minutes for the next block), though I would take a zero-conf transaction in any situation that isn't moving more money than a day's labor. A single confirmation means it made it into the next block which should be plenty for 99% of situations. If you're selling your house, maybe a wait a 2-3 blocks to be sure. Lightning is instant and uses main chain for security but does settlement/transaction data off-chain.
Lightning network is literally a traditional bank transaction mechanism on top of bitcoin.
It's not, you don't need a bank to use it. Banks don't settle instantly, banks have chargebacks, banks required six forms of ID, banks can't reach some places, banks may discriminate. Lightning is Bitcoin. You lock up BTC in a lightning channel, you can then send that BTC to anybody via lightning, and when you close your channel, you get the appropriate amount of BTC back. You can run a lightning node on a phone, a "routing" node on a raspberry pi, it's just as decentralized and trustless as the main chain is. You can open a channel directly w the person you're transacting with or you can forward the transaction through other channels/nodes, all trustlessly, all instantly, all automatically. Nobody ever has custody of the funds aside from you and your intended recipient. There's no central custodian (like a bank) you have to trust.
If you are arguing for using lightning transactions, what is the point of bitcoin in the first place?
Main chain and lightning have different use cases. Use main chain for long-term storage of funds or large transactions. Use lightning for everyday spending. Main chain secures lightning transactions. Main chain is layer one, lightning is layer two, it's possible there will be more layers, just like SMTP is built on TCP which is built on Ethernet or whatever.
fees are huge and will only increase in the future.
Main chain fees are around $1.50 for the next block, which is still cheaper than a bank wire or other equivalent payment methods in many situations. You're right though, they are expected to increase as adoption increases, but lightning has scaled that available blockspace several orders of magnitude. Lightning fees are <1% in almost all instances and aren't expected to increase since they are not tied directly to main chain fees and no mining is required. A lightning transaction uses about as much CPU power as sending an e-mail. A single main chain transaction can open a lightning channel. You can have billions of transactions inside a lightning channel.
I apologize, it looked like copy pasta.
You lock up BTC in a lightning channel, you can then send that BTC to anybody via lightning,
You can not send the BTC to just about anybody. Only to people with whom you have a channel open. If you want to send to anybody you need to hop through other channels using middlemen. That sounds very similar to the function of a bank.
It's fair, I assume a lot of people are bots too, but I like lemmy because it's mostly not bots :).
You can not send the BTC to just about anybody. Only to people with whom you have a channel open. If you want to send to anybody you need to hop through other channels using middlemen. That sounds very similar to the function of a bank.
You are right, if you want to send directly from your wallet to another user's wallet with no middlemen, you need to have a channel open with that user, which you totally can and will save you on fees in the long-term if you transact with that person frequently. But I don't do this because it's un-necessary, you can also send funds to any other person on lightning via these middlemen. The middlemen don't have custody of the funds, they can't block/reverse/do anything with the transaction aside from just forward it along. You can choose who those "middlemen" are, they are usually selected based on the lowest expected fee. They route data around, if they are banks, then so are other Bitcoin nodes you connect to on main chain. But we don't think of them as banks right? They just relay data around and they're decentralized. You are right that they share a similar function of routing payments, the difference is in how they do that and who controls what parts of that process. Banks have immense power over your funds. Lightning nodes you route a payment through have none and anybody can run one.
The last time I had to send 30 Euro to someone, I had to pay 5 Euro for gas fees. It used to be even worse. Your statements are bullshit, we all know what the usual use cases are (other than speculation)
load more comments
(3 replies)
One of the things blockchain could do is become a digital proof of ownership, augmenting or replacing things like property deeds and car titles. We already agree that a written record of ownership of such things is legally binding (even if the writing is stored digitally), but transfer of that ownership to another person is still a very manual process. Imagine an NFT that represents ownership of your house, and when you want to sell your house, you transfer that NFT to someone else's custody - adding their ownership information to it. It would record the entire chain of ownership, and specific details about the piece of property involved.
Without law enforcement, which is centralized anyway, your documented ownership is worthless. So if the state or a similar centralized real life organization, whiches existence people agree on, is needed to grant and enforce that ownership, blockchain is unnecessary. They can instead just store that shit in a database.
And who would the largest nodes on that blockchain be? The banks? Who could say and do whatever they conspired since they command >50% of the computing power and/or value?
The average person isn’t going to build a fucking blockchain node just to keep the deed to their house.
“Grandma, please you need to fill your basement with these ASICs or else script kiddies will steal your house”
That's not how that works.
NFT is issued determining ownership to a property. Property sells, another NFT is issued, tied to the original one to maintain a chain of ownership. Issuance of a second NFT for a sale to a new owner would depend on authorization by the previous NFT holder. Lienholder information could also be stored, and linked to a mortgage NFT with payment history.
The "NF" part of that stands for "non-fungible." As in, once created, cannot be changed.
What happens if a mistake was made and an NFT is erroneously issued (for example to the wrong person)?
What happens if the owner dies? How is the NFT transferred then?
Who checks that the original NFT was issued correctly?
What about properties that are split? What happens if the split isn't represented in the NFT correctly (e.g. due to an error)?
The whole non-fungible part can be a problem, not a solution. It very, very rarely happens that ownership of a property is contested. It happens quite often that a mistake is made during a property transfer/sale that needs to be corrected. How do NFTs deal with this, and are they a solution to a non-issue?
See that's the thing. Not being able to correct transaction errors is a feature of blockchain. I'd go as far as saying it's the #1 feature of the majority of crypto that brings in all the scammers.
Personally I prefer my money being insured and controlled by the government.
What happens if a mistake was made and an NFT is erroneously issued (for example to the wrong person)?
That person has it now. They mjght volountarily be willing to send it back with another transactions or the courts could force them to do so (as in give fines, request keys, send to prison, or just have the government own and ooerate all the wallet keys and simulate transactions eith blockchain just as the technology used in a very janky way)
What happens if the owner dies? How is the NFT transferred then?
Similarily, either the government does all the transactions with 'your' keys for you, or you write down the keys in your will and have someone of trust (e.g. a lawyer) do the partitioning/transactions part in your stead.
Who checks that the original NFT was issued correctly?
The seller and buyer beforehand, mostly
What about properties that are split? What happens if the split isn't represented in the NFT correctly (e.g. due to an error)?
Rebalance by having everone affected send their portions for redistribution to a trusted entity
As you've said yourself, NFTs seem wholly unsuited for keeping track of general ownership on a large scale. All the problems do have solutions, but they're either complicated for the owners or it's someone else controlling people's keys, defeating the entire point.
It could. It may or may not. I agree decentralization is a good thing, but do governments agree as well? First of all, governments are very resistant to change if that doesn't play into their interests (real or percieved like this privacy violation). Using a traditional database to keep track of ownership seems cheaper (since they already do it) but most of all simpler. I'm not too familiar with the way blockchain functions so I may be wrong, but say someone wants to sell a car. In the current state of most countries you just draw up a paper or fill out a form, maybe get it notarized and pay taxes. A database seems flexible enough that if your sale didn't get logged and the buyer got pulled over and questioned, they could provide the contract and clear up any questions about ownership. Or say the ownership was stripped as part of a court order. If it was a database, then changing the records is simple, but with blockchain the court would either have to get you to transfer the ownership volountarily, force you to disclose your keys or have some mechnism of forcing a transaction from the requester account (which as I understand it seems what blockchain is here to stop abd a core part of the specification). Alternatively the government just uses blockchain instead of a database, managing all the keys, wallets and identities (as in they have everyone's keys and do all the transactions) which is the same level of centralization as a database, but with extra steps.
Ownership was (and is) a social contract, and a flexible one at that. Things get gifted volountarily, sold, taken away lawfully and inherited in a single jurisdiction by the thousands daily, and not all of these are well documented. Blockchain seems very limited in what it can do flexibility-wise which makes it unsuitable for keeping track of ownership, and that's not taking into account that either everyone would have to actively use the blockchain for their sales and be familiar with the technology (decentralized) or having all the wallet keys operated by the government (defeating any useful feature of the blockchain for citizens). Adding blockchain into the mix will just complicate the transfer process and centralize it (as in we either do all validation on the blockchain or none), and with the fact that all the transfer history is centralised in the blockchain (despite it being decentralised in storage, it's still explicitly stored and accessible) it would serve as just another venue of privacy violation and opression.
Maybe blockchain could be useful for things like, say carbon credits, or similar government-issued 'currency', but I don't see it applicable to validating general ownership on a large scale for the general population, ever. The 'digital Euro' proposal, also being blessed by the buzzword Blockchain seems very distopian to me as well. Here, with currency being used I can see how it would be applicable in the real world (instead of heavily unstandardised land deeds, sales contracts and other proofs of ownership you have strictly defined currency units), but this also seems like a gross privacy violation as the government (and maybe anyone) can see where you got your money and where you're spending it down to the cent.
Git is a real-life use-case
Git is not a blockchain. Most importantly, it's not distributed. There's a singular git server that all git clients for that repository connect to and use as a source of truth.
https://git-scm.com/book/en/v2/Distributed-Git-Distributed-Workflows
In contrast with Centralized Version Control Systems (CVCSs), the distributed nature of Git allows you to be far more flexible in how developers collaborate on projects. In centralized systems, every developer is a node working more or less equally with a central hub. In Git, however, every developer is potentially both a node and a hub; that is, every developer can both contribute code to other repositories and maintain a public repository on which others can base their work and which they can contribute to.
Git was built specifically to avoid the necessity to have one authoritative server.
Oh no Spain has an "innovative" idea to fuck the internet!
view more: next ›