bwmilby Name and picture from twetch — not on-chain. The signature is; the profile is not.

$bwmilby

36606@moneybutton.com

What types of apps do you envision?

Wouldn't it need some form of split key to authorize? Like the alert that was removed, but requiring multiple parties to sign off. And yes, 51% could compile code that has a known key that could be exploited, but that would generate a hard fork if used.

The devs initially wouldn't be sued for the funds, but only to facilitate the recovery process. If they defied a court order, then there would be repercussions.

Assuming ownership is established, it would be reasonable to expect property to be returned to use after a theft. In the case of a car, the manufacturer could produce a copy of the key (not relevant here) or rekey the car (send the UTXOs to a new address)

bwmilby@relayx.io

Wait, are you saying that stealing the key to a house makes you the owner of the house? Car would probably be a better analogy since you could actually take it and drive it away. Isn’t that the essence of what is being contested in court by CSW now?

Cool. I was looking for an easy way to find the SDK payments when using my client ID (mainly to see if I did it correctly).

Baby step progress... now able to do a couple simple things from LiveCode using the Twetch SDK.

I'm doing it somewhat backwards. I'm trying to learn a bit trying to use the Twetch SDK outside of a browser but still leveraging the JS already written. Still figuring it out enough to take the next step though (i.e. moving outside of the browser).

Thanks!

Warning to those using BuyBSV.com (coinify.com) from the US with a CC... I just realized that I got hit with a cash advance fee and a foreign transaction fee. That’s on top of the fee they charged for the transaction.

Reminds me of something a pastor once said:

You reap WHAT you sow,
you reap AFTER you sow, and
you reap MORE than you sow.

The problem identified of connecting an individual to the key is valid. But if a multi-factor identity token is used to sign a message, then that moves the repudiation back to existing law (lost/stolen token claim, etc.) vice a technological exploit.

The more I ponder this, the more I think that a nuance is being missed. There is value in efforts to establish non-repudiation, but I agree that there are limits. It is reasonable to assert that the holder of a particular key signed the message.

Transaction ID is the unique identifier for any transaction that can be found on chain which is made from a hash of the transaction. @7145 @27546 @145

How would this work on chain? Would this end up being a purchase of “tokens” that have no cash value? (I’m all of one week into learning this, so pardon the question if I’m too off base.)

$bwmilby

$bwmilby

Missing New Orleans but can at least have some King Cake @27546

Happy Valentine's Day 2021 to my beautiful wife @27546

You got that right!

I was actually on set for Oblivion when they filmed in New Orleans. Pretty cool being an extra and seeing some of the behind the scenes stuff.

Just looked it up on Amazon. Wow... 550 pages for student edition. I’d never get through it.

@3 Not sure the best way to submit a feature request, but the Mac app really needs a "back" button. If you are viewing "latest" and look at someone's profile, there is no easy way to get back to where you were. Clicking home then latest is close.