Peer to peer systems struggle to offer a competitive a competitive experience because few people are able/willing to volunteer significant bandwidth or take on the personal liability for serving content which is copyrighted or otherwise illegal. They’ll work okay for a hugely popular video but fall off the cliff for the long-tail of niche interests and there aren’t enough people who care about it enough to make “YouTube but slower and less reliable” work in general.
The only thing that DeFi changes about this scenario is that it's going to get easier for me to pay the people who make the content available in the format that I prefer. When it's sufficiently mature, that'll mean paying the artists as well. It's just a shame that we're not there yet.
The proposed web3 model seems far more likely to be like those abusive micro-payment games with constant prompts to pay for something, with a page's worth of content moved behind successive paywalls since publishers aren't going to switch to a system which pays even less and you'd need to ask permission before charging someone.
This also adds problems with people who don't have money or aren't allowed to spend it (children, elderly, etc.) or the same scandals when those people are taken advantage of, not to mention the privacy impacts of effectively creating a super-cookie which can be used to track people all over the web.
What seems to be working well in LA is building up buses. When I was out last June I noticed buses with dedicated right-of-way (physically separated) and that seemed to be running well during peak times, which is quite eye-opening when you count and realize that the bus which just went by was carrying more people than all of the vehicles in the 4 lanes of stopped traffic.
i do think that buses are a good lower-cost mass transit option, but without the reliability/security that comes with dedicated infrastructure, it will be hard to get more angelenos to rely on the bus for daily use. currently metro is focused on removing fares, but all that will do is lower their budget (modestly) and worsen service, which will be counterproductive to the goal of increasing ridership.
In particular, I think you'd see very different responses when people were asked to choose realistic options: it's easy to say you like the idyllic image realtors promote with luxurious houses, perfect landscaping, happy kids at great schools, etc. but quite another to say you want to spend a couple hours a day stuck in an expensive car because there's almost nothing to do within walking distance, take on additional expenses (landscaping, lower density requires higher taxes for infrastructure, etc.), and otherwise live the actual suburban lifestyle for most people rather than the postcard version.
> As to how they would know if it's the real smart contract: they would see what it was via their wallet after interacting with it the first time.
In other words, the system is not safe to use. People will reliably be fooled into thinking that they're interacting with someone else — the difference is that if you go to amaz0n.com and enter your credit card info, your liability is capped at a low amount and will likely be zero because the regulated financial industry has a fraud handling mechanism better than “the people who profited from you buying their tokens will mock you for being phished”.
Since this costs money to use, most people are not going to use it unless they're trying to hide something so the big risk I'd worry about is similar to the risks of running a Tor exit node in your house. What happens when someone else using that service is investigated for some serious crime? Anyone who has transactions going to or from that pool is going to be under suspicion and it's really hard to _prove_ that you weren't knowingly helping them launder money when you have a public log of transactions involving the target.
In this specific case, you’re talking about a service people have to pay to use. That lowers the pool of people using it considerably which makes techniques like timing analysis easier and increases the odds that your transactions will be mixed in with someone else’s criminal activity.
Timing analysis is a real concern, that's why they warn you about it on the front page and ask to wait before you withdraw.
Very few people are so ideologically committed that they're going to pay extra and live with those constraints, which is a major problem for a protocol which is critically dependent on volume to deliver privacy and repudiation.
> Plenty of people concerned with privacy use public blockchains - you don't need to dox yourself to use them, just need a private key. Unlike traditional finance, where you just have to hope that your PII data won't get leaked one day with all your transaction history.
This is confusing a number of things. Most PII breaches are not the banks but the merchants who collect things like addresses because they need them for shipping or to satisfy legal requirements, and paying with a blockchain won't change any of those needs.
Similarly, very few people have a way to generate and spend a significant amount of cryptocurrency entirely for anonymous online services and will thus need to identify themselves for most transactions — a cryptocurrency exchange isn't exempted from Know Your Customer, companies which have to deal with abuse are going to want to prevent sock puppets or shell accounts, airlines aren't going to lose interest in checking your identity, buying a house without showing where you got the funds is going to attract a lot of attention, etc.
That link to the real world is the common reason why these promises don't pan out. In general, ask yourself how a particular activity would go if you showed up with a suitcase full of cash and refused to say where it came from. Cryptocurrency will be exactly the same in all but a very few cases.
And I don't know why are you talking to a strawman about a suitcase full of cash, etc. I just said that Tornado.cash offers privacy and that privacy is not always used for evil things.
What it looks suspiciously like to me is a lack of an effective feedback loop for user frustration — if it takes a number of queries to get correct results or someone doesn't stop using Google search entirely, this would be easy to confuse with improved engagement and I'd especially believe that managers whose job it is to get a number to go up are not in a hurry to question whether that growth is meaningful.
This custom SSD hardware family is what powers the EBS (cloud SAN) service, which allows you to pay for the performance level you need, where they give it both higher absolute performance and [now] better worst-case latency.
This announcement is saying that you can now get your own instances with the same performance characteristics for situations where you need better performance than a SAN can deliver and/or the robustness benefits of using per-node storage rather than a separate networked service.
The other part of this announcement is the implicit message it sends about the competition: they're telling everyone that their storage performance is more consistent than their competitors and increasing the number of areas where they can say they have an option which a competitor does not. Noting that this was driven by the EBS storage team is also a reminder that they have more people working on lower-level infrastructure problems than you likely do.