> Might as well call it money-laundering coin

The state's concept of money is private and it has just enjoyed help in getting data about electronic ledgers for the last 55 years, by deputizing banks. And for the last 18 it has also enjoyed public ledgers of crypto currencies.

But the successful stigma of financial privacy doesn't invent its right to having data. This is just a privilege, and private money is a reversion to the mean.

I long used to think that private money was a good thing for freedom helping the little guy living under state repression, but I'm recently starting to worry that it will do the opposite, by helping the ultra-rich engage in corrupt schemes.

The rumors that people bought Trump-coin for the sole purpose of currying favor got to me.

None of the transactions systems are aiming to solve for that. The legacy financial system enables this too. Trump coin just happens to be more liquid than expensive dinner seats, campaign donations, and less cumbersome than a Trust. It is not private.

So its fine to feel disillusioned from that goal because it was a misplaced goal.

Monero on the other hand is private by default, and you can disclose transactions. It has optional auditability. This is a power dynamic I can appreciate.

a bigger better thing it does is fund the north korean nuclear program.

easy to steal, liquid to sell, cant be confiscated.

North Koreans are getting employed by US tech companies and just getting payroll over clearnet to normal banking, and wiring that to the state. They’re not even hacking

Yeah their expropriations in Monero are occurring too, but I can’t levy a separate higher standard when this other thing is happening

> but I'm recently starting to worry that it will do the opposite, by helping the ultra-rich engage in corrupt schemes. The rumors that people bought Trump-coin for the sole purpose of currying favor got to me.

How would government knowing exactly who spends what where help in that scenario?

Do you think that is a likely scenario under this government?

IDK about this particular administration, but the government did place Tornado cash on the sanctions list (now removed). Which does operate differently than monero, but from the view of a bureaucrat I think similar effect.

Yes. I would bet on it. Certain Democrats don't like Monero because of the criminal activity around it. If the king told Republicans to ban it, they would be able to get enough Dems on board to avoid any filibuster problems.

I use http://google.com.au/maps for maps now because of that sneaky behavior.

I use openstreetmap for years now. Because of a never ending shit stream of abuse and rule bending and just plain illegal activities from Google.

Interesting that the colors are different for parks and water.

Clever workaround!

I agree with you, but one could argue that R&D money comes from a desire to patent.

One could, and one could counter with "then that is R&D done for the wrong reasons"

This is why we (at least used to) have things like wide-sweeping federally funded research grants aimed at advancing science and technology in areas and ways short-sighted profit-seeking R&D can seldom touch

Not discovering a thing is almost better than someone discovering it and then patenting it, imo. It's negative progress.

And I would point to the entirety of Open Source software

The worlds best scientists don’t even know how to make room temp superconductors but this one person on HN is certain that purity doesn’t matter.

I think the correct people and processes were followed, but they could have saved a great deal of time aligning on the importance and priority of the task by putting together a meeting with the leads.

For a time-sensitive and critical update to core functionality, the director of operations should have been aware of the mean time to deployment for the software and put together a team to fast track it, instead of entering it into the normal development pipeline with a high priority.

No not really any reason. Docker has a bit of overhead but greatly simplifies most of the things the author is doing manually with his self-described “better than the vast majority of off the shelf solutions” software.

How is setting up a Dockerfile and then a docker-compose file any simpler than just writing a unit file?

This seems like a perfect application of the init system.

The author does say double digit equity. Not sure where you got 0.1 to 2% from.

the author said double digit equity should be given to cofounder, * not founding engineer *.

You can browse startup boards and generally you'll get 0.1% to 2% equity of the company for being a "founding engineer".

I agree that you should not be trying to find an engineer to take on a huge amount of risk co-founding a business and offer them a measly 0.1 to 2% stake in the company.

It seems to me like the author is arguing that the you don't need a CTO, you need a technical co-founder, AKA a founding engineer, and that they should be given double-digit equity. Am I reading this wrong?

This is just simple prejudice.

Either nothing is significant or everything is. As a matter of faith I chose the later. You are welcome to chose the former.

I wouldn't go a surgeon named Butcher or a financial advisor named Broke, would you?

> Either nothing is significant or everything is

Alternatively: some things are significant and other things aren’t? As a matter of living in reality, I choose that middle option :P

I've had great success using this helm chart to install the entire stack into my EKS clusters. Even if you're not using Kubernetes, it's still a useful example for how everything should fit together. https://github.com/prometheus-community/helm-charts/tree/mai...

Good luck! It's a lot.