Yep. My building "qualified" and a technician basically threw a line out the back to a pole. Apparently they only install in the rear of buildings, so if they can't get access back there, that can be an issue.
> I know this is OT but a language without a huge OR trending ecosystem is worthless.
Anecdotally speaking, I'm not sure I agree that the Clojure ecosystem is stagnating (it's relatively small and likely always will be) but a big draw of ClojureScript is the way it piggy backs on the Node/NPM community.
I recently spun up a React/Reagent UI paired with a Clojurescript node.js server. I was pleasantly surprised how easy it was to do ClojureScript <--> JS interop in Shadow-Cljs projects.
Exactly. The SEC has said they consider crytpos securities. That would mean the fraudulent price manipulation in the crytpo space (Bitfinex treating tether as USD and pushing up the bid) is securities fraud. This is probably why Wells Fargo stopped clearing Dollar transactions for Bitfinex.
I am an insider in the Bitcoin industry, and within 1 day of opening a new bank account we started seeing fraudulent wires flooding in. When we dug deeper, it was shocking to see how many Americans' bank credentials have been hacked. It takes almost no effort for a EEU/RUS hacker to send a wire from a hacked bank account.
Once the fraudulent wire is sent, rest of the wire transfer system is tediously manual. So wire network participants simply choose to block bank accounts that receive repeated bad wires. This is why Wells Fargo cut out Bitfinex and Visa has decided to stop working with Bitcoin companies.
ACH fraud is even more rampant because you can pull money from someone's account without their consent (as long as they don't notice/contest within certain number of days). Coinbase profit margin is 0.5% per trade, so they need to keep their ACH fraud rate below that number to not lose money. ACH fraud rate is well over 1% industry-wide. This is why I strongly believe that Coinbase has to be losing massive amounts to ACH chargebacks.
> "If some nefarious actor has the users credentials (e.g. username / password) won't they then be able to circumvent both of those checks?"
They would. However, typical ACH fraud entails pulling money using only the routing and account numbers, which can be found on all paper checks; this mechanism prevents that.
Regarding CB ACH, They had/have a huge exploitable hole in their ACH system that a friend discovered by accident. Long story short, they credited them for a large sum that they never took from his/her account. I won't put the exact detail of how to trigger the error but suffice it to say it was shocking to learn how a system that deals with large sums of real money could fail in such a way (and likely in a repeatable manner although my friend didn't try as repeating it would likely be seen as stealing).
It's really quite shocking how a ecosystem that touts decentralization has a glaringly centralized failure point - the fiat exit exchanges. When one or two of them goes, it will bring down the whole house of cards. And given how shitty CB's software was (or maybe still is) I just hope I can get my gains out before the whole thing comes crumbling down.
So your friend is benevolent enough to not trigger the bug again because it would be wrong, but not benevolent enough to report the bug to Coinbase? Right...
Coinbase code is still horrible. I have found couple of bugs/failure points in their code, but Fred Erhsam was a jerk to me so I don't feel like reporting these issues to CB.
This seems like a pretty sensible decision though, since most cryptos don't really work like a currency they work more like an investment. Especially now that the transaction fees are so high, and the transaction processing time takes so much longer than debit cards, credit cards, paypal or other electronic transfers.
Yes. For example, they've said that you could use a blockchain to keep track of book borrowing in a book club, where people expect to use the blockchain to get books and not to get rich.
I do think this is pretty reasonable, but it sounds like you meant something else.
In addition to those sorts of uses I specifically mean "currency," since in their Dec. 11 statement the SEC says "there are cryptocurrencies that do not appear to be securities."
Over the past couple of years, China has lost around a trillion dollars in foreign reserves (a 4 trillion dollar cash pile earned from exporting all those made in china goods) to capital flight. Whenever a Chinese citizen or business takes yuan and exchanges them for a foreign asset, China's fx cash pile is diminished. If china's "savings account" is bled dry, it would have to choice but to devalue and print its currency to handled some of it local fiscal issues.
To prevent "rocking the boat" with a currency devaluation before the Communist Party Meeting this fall, China has locked down it's capital account by blocking foreign company acquisitions, repatriation by multinational corporations (think blocking Apple's yuan accounts from withdrawals to USD), Toronto real estate purchases, etc.
Bitcoin was an unregulated and popular means of capital flight. It was just a matter of time before they cracked down on it as well.
>Why would WaPo write negatively about the CIA if that were the case?
To distract from something else or to downplay their ill deeds or to explain what they did in completely different context so that the real intent can be hidden.
Most houses here in Philly (especially in Kensington) are not new construction, so FIOS isn't really an option yet.
I for one welcome a new entrant into this arena.