> If you don't want your transactions to be public, don't use a public ledger.
That's exactly what people were attempting to do, with Tornado.
> You don't get to launder your money
There is no money laundering available with Tornado, it doesn't turn an illigitimate source of funds into a legitimate one. And it also has a compliance tool to allow proof of transfer between accounts.
> Tornado Cash wasn't free, there was a fee which as I understand it was sent back to various developers.
This wasn't sent to developers. It was a fee you would pay relayers to propagate transactions on the network and was optional. You could choose to fund withdrawals with a relayer or to use funds in your own wallet.
So I’ve read through the comments, and I can see that you’re adamant the seed phrase isn’t the attach vector, but I’m going to be listing things down in order of what I see as being a rough probability, please don’t see any of this as accusatory in anyway - it’s more that I keep an eye on OpSec for crypto generally despite not being an expert.
First question; was the amount stored on the ledger stolen during a transaction? If so then he may have been exposed to the same targeted Metamask attack as experienced by an NXM founder https://medium.com/@hugh_karp/nxm-hack-update-72c5c017b48. This wouldn’t explain the BTC and LTC transactions though.
My collection of possibilities:
1. The seed phrase was exposed. Maybe not from your piece of paper, but perhaps it was saved onto a text file, jotted down into notes, captured somewhere else. I realise given the other comments you are likely to disregard this one, I get it, but it still seems to be the most likely from the outside looking in.
2. The computer used to make transactions was hacked, as per the Metamask hack above.
3. Your nephew got into trouble and needed money. I’m not saying he’s lying to you, but he could be trying to save face.
4. A device on his network got hacked and he was subjected to a pretty targeted attack which could have made false transactions on his behalf if he accepted the certificates on his device, maybe. Perhaps a worm on his computer propagated to his iPhone to read the trust key.
5. Both ledger, and Trust are compromised to remote attacks. This would mean someone has found a way to read the seed phrase from ledger and trust remotely and then dump the wallet entirely. This would also make him probably the first person in the world to face these vulnerabilities on both apps. Hopefully you can see why 1 & 3 seem more likely than this.
I’d argue that just naming your app after it doesn’t even encourage the use of those drugs. Might as well enact a word blacklist on the app names if that’s all it takes.
Trillions have been spent in the US on bailouts. You could have paid for full time care for every single vulnerable person for a year at that cost, and left everyone else to live normally.
And how would this presumably completely non-disease-transmissible full time care manifest itself? With doctors and nurses that also have kids, and social lives, and thus a chance to transmit disease.
Presumably medical professionals would be tested frequently and would a much higher sterilization standards and training than the average person. They'd of course still use n95 masks and perhaps even full body suits when they are present.
We should gauge our society on how we treat our most vulnerable people, and if this is how people want to shape our society then stop the train and let me get off.
Locking up vulnerable people in quasi-concentration camps staffed by hazmat suit wearing doctors administering ‘care’ in the most basic and cruel manner is no way to treat any human being live, let alone a group of lab rats. I’d challenge anyone advocating this nonsense to lock themselves away for six months with only the most basic/essential of interactions and see how they get on. This lack of empathy or any sense of understanding of human nature and sociability is absolutely absurd.
I don’t really see what you’re objecting to. Locking up a part of the population is strictly better than locking up the whole population. You could even make it optional! “High-risk individuals welcome to go to protection centres”
You’re deriding this approach as “nonsense” but your reasoning seems illogical to me. And washing it with words like “empathy” and “sociability” doesn’t help, since it comes off as the worst kind of virtue signaling, employing shaming disguised as a moral superiority.
I agree being locked down would be tough. But that’s what we are asking EVERYONE to do right now. Why should the elderly or vulnerable not have to bear the burden of THEIR evaluation of the risks, by being quarantined, instead of subjecting the entire rest of the world to lockdowns just so they can have a better (sooner) path to normal for themselves? That just looks to me like a selfish imposition on everyone else.
I don’t understand what point you’re making about challenging people to lock themselves away for six months with only basic interactions. That’s the current situation we’re in. And yes it is especially bad for the young, who need socialization, education, play time, and even simply to see faces/emotions without a mask. We are sacrificing their well being and future to do what - give the elderly a faster path out of their own quarantine or a few more years towards the end of their life? It’s a bad trade off and is highly unjust towards the young.
Lastly, we should gauge a society based on how we treat people’s fundamental rights, especially in a difficult situation. A society that gives up those rights easily and advocates for coercive governmental controls is not a great society.
It's not just a question of paying for the care for vulnerable persons. But young people sometimes also want to see their parents at least a few times a year, even if they aren't vulnerable and can care for themselves.
Wouldn't having a nurse or some other full time trained person present be more effective than anything at helping keep "young people" from getting too close? And if these "young people" are out of control, how does lockdown help anyway?
people who are affected are not just 90yo that need a nurse, there's a ton of people in their 60s and 70s (>2% chance of death by covid) who live a normal life and don't want to be locked in a room and cut from everyone else.
The lockdown helps because it protects people who don't care too, by relying on those who do _just a bit_.
Sadly, the option of segregating all at-risk people is not reasonably feasible.
As for those who don’t want to be locked in a room - sounds like they want to have it both ways - just the right amount of risk reduction and a sooner path to living their lives freely. But why is their desire for a normal life more important than others’ desire? Why should others have to give up their freedoms and endure an extended lockdown to enable them, instead of living their lives freely now?
but I wrote "in their 60s and 70s", replacing people 50-59 with 70-79 will obviously give you different results.
I agree with you, people want to have it both ways and it's easy to get upset with them, but that's how the world is, and if the healthcare system gets overwhelmed because of people who don't care everyone else still suffers.
For polio, only 0.5 % of those who contracted polio had nervous system symptoms. Of this small minority that developed muscle weakness, about 2 to 5 percent of children and 15 to 30 percent of adults died.
Still, it was a frightening disease, until it was eradicated by vaccines (except where it wasn't: now that covid has brought the world's focus back to vaccines, we should do something about that, too.)
In Italy those are exactly the super-spreaders who caused a spike of death in most ISOLATED caring homes in which only they could enter.
For your plan to remotely work you would have to:
- totally isolate the people over an age limit that you want to keep out of society, assuming they don't are still working and/or have the money to stay isolated
- isolate with them any professional they need. Not only nurses and doctors, which I think you already won't find in numbers high enough to be useful, indeed in most states they are not even enough to cover normal hospitals functions in case of spikes, but also for example electricians/plumbers/gardeners/etc only for them, people who have to go shopping for them, etc
- isolate the whole family group of ALL these professional above
- create a sparse amount of covid hospitals with yet another group of medic professionals just for them so to avoid cross contamination in hospitals which is the main sanitary risk at the moment
There are already numerous documented examples of COVID-19 spreading in care homes. Nurses some times get sick. Then you have admin staff, deliveries and their drivers, visitors, other engineers brought on site like electricians or cable guys.
You only need one person to badly wash their hands or forget to wipe down their deliveries for the whole care home to become a petri dish.
It’s slightly tangential, but I’m managing an engineering team of 28-30 and we’re currently considering a wholesale change to ARM CPUs across the board.
MacBooks are our de facto development laptop and all our services use skaffold for local development, Docker basically. If we consider the perhaps likely outcome that MacBooks will one day be ARM-only, that Docker will not offer cross-arch emulation, and that our development environment will be ARM only, it then becomes likely that we’ll migrate our UAT and PROD to ARM based instances.
If we go that route it’ll mean more money to the AWS Graviton programme and likely further development of ARM chips. I can’t see this affecting RISC-V but the M1 switch could very well benefit the wider ARM ecosystem.
You’re basically locking yourself to a single development eco system, and a highly limited deployment eco system.
It’s not clear what the benefits of either are either. I get that the MacBook gets great performance for battery life but the majority of work is gonna be done in desktop settings, so simply using more/equally powerful x86 chips is only gonna cost you a few dollars a developer per year in electricity costs.
And all that despite the fact that your development is on Docker which doesn’t even have a working solution for the workflow you’re considering at the moment.
It‘s currently in consideration and by the time we’re ready to make a call on it, Docker will be too. They almost are in fact.
But consider that we may be optimising for different things. Most new developers I hire can be thrown a MacBook and they’ll know what to do, Linux on the other hand doesn’t have that guarantee especially towards the junior and front-end market segments of where I work. It’s a (real) broad strokes opinion, but I’m of the belief that macOS and by extension MacBooks offer us fewer overheads in terms of setup, maintenance, onboarding, tooling suitability for the median developer. So that leaves us using macOS.
This is the factor we’re optimising for more than deployment portability - we optimise for vendor lock-in in less than the developer experience for the median of our developers. For many of us on this forum we may be best with Linux on a bleeding edge distro, but for our preferences we deploy MacBooks for portability. Whether it helps things overall, this is in Manila where a net monthly salary is often less than the cost of a laptop, so we deploy one device that can be transported between home and work as required for those that don’t have a personal device.
With that, I see this as Apple locking us into that ecosystem rather than a choice we’re making on our side, so I’d rather lean into this and explore it further than doing nothing. If it comes out positive then we’ll be ready to make the switch before Apple forces us into it, and if not we’ll deploy something thinkpad-esque and keep our production instances x86.
"With that, I see this as Apple locking us into that ecosystem rather than a choice we’re making on our side, so I’d rather lean into this and explore it further than doing nothing. If it comes out positive then we’ll be ready to make the switch before Apple forces us into it, and if not we’ll deploy something thinkpad-esque and keep our production instances x86."
As a long time Apple user (personally and staff wise), please don't tie your business decisions with company that treats professional users badly, every time they can. Your median developer benefits from Linux knowledge in general, you can deploy stable distribution without fear of compatibility problems after minor software update.
Apple marketing and lure is great, I have fallen for their game for 20 years. But I cannot be comfortable with ideas, business and management practices that this generation of Apple deploys.
They destroyed entire indie businesses by arbitrary changes and/or enforcement of App Store policies, not to mention they're leading the war on general purpose computing as we know it by locking everything down.
I want to be able to tell my children I didn't participate in that.
If I compile the list of all anti professional moves that Apple has made in recent years I will get depressed and I don't like to be depressed:)) Here, watch this funny rant from proven Apple professional user, may be it will give you some insight. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MKJjLwMUPJI
On other hand most valuable company in the world uses slave labor and gives the consumer highest possible price, I cannot support this dynamic anymore. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zeEERdbfH0c
M1 performance is about much more than just battery life, it’s screaming fast is raw execution power as well. In single core it’s even competitive with Ryzen for goodness sake. That’s just mental.
I don’t see this as a significant lock in risk. It’s not like Apple are the only company selling ARM laptops and desktops, and it seems clear Google, Microsoft and Amazon among others are serious about ARM.
x64 virtual machines, Docker, etc have to be supported on Apple's M chips for a long time to come. There's zero risk of this changing soon unless Apple wants to scuttle the non-iOS/non-Mac developer market for Mac.
M1 is a cool chip, but there's no reason for an average development company to rush into it unless targeting M1 MacOS specifically. Maybe the server world swings to ARM, but that will take decades to sort out, if it actually happens at all.
It took about 10 years for x86 to go to zero marketshare in servers into 80%+ in the 90's. Similar change in HPC market etc. So based on history the transition time is around 10 years, not tens of years.
That would mean 1 out of every million servers is not x64, which seems hyperbolic when amazon is making ARM servers and power chips are still out there.
So you think Sony did not notice the state of the game for ps4 and nobody in the Sony management did not aware of the problems? For most anticipated game of the year nobody at Sony warned, you kidding me.
I know it probably won’t be the advice you’ll expect to hear, but I’ve been there and perhaps just as badly.
What helped me was just to accept that I’ve probably got 10 good years, maybe 20, and I’m okay with that. My parents would be in old age, I don’t have kids to worry about right now either and I’ll do what I can to make it better - but I’ve accepted the worst. Even the worst case I’m at peace with. I’ll be 40 around then, which is probably better than most humans through the course of history.
Bleak but also liberating. Makes you value your time a lot more.
> If you don't want your transactions to be public, don't use a public ledger.
That's exactly what people were attempting to do, with Tornado.
> You don't get to launder your money
There is no money laundering available with Tornado, it doesn't turn an illigitimate source of funds into a legitimate one. And it also has a compliance tool to allow proof of transfer between accounts.
> Tornado Cash wasn't free, there was a fee which as I understand it was sent back to various developers.
This wasn't sent to developers. It was a fee you would pay relayers to propagate transactions on the network and was optional. You could choose to fund withdrawals with a relayer or to use funds in your own wallet.
> Money laundering
This isn't money laundering.