Liquidity has value too. Many FTX customers needed immediate liquidity. If you need immediate liquidity the value proposition years later is meaningless for most people because most people can’t get any bridge financing to cover the gap.
Mt. Gox also ran a fractional exchange for a long time until the bottom fell out. The trouble is that you simply can’t run an unannounced fractional exchange.
Isn't the bigger issue with the parent's argument that its comparing apples and oranges?
Like the customers were largely owed _not_ USD and so compared the USD value owed _4 years ago_ to the _current day_ USD value of something else that wasn't owed is just not correct.
---
To do some of the math, assuming all the funds owed were bitcoin then 9 Billion / $17,000 ~= 47 thousand BTC owed.
At current $64k/BTC prices that's roughly $30 Billion. Which while still lower than $75B is much higher than just $9B and doesn't excuse SBF from fraudulently and very publicly claiming that all the money invested as backed 1:1 when it wasn't.
I also don't know how much more FTX's stake would be diluted as well and another commentator talked about nearly half so then it might not cover the "actual" owed value.
A fractional bank is one that doesn't have liquidity to cover all obligations, but has enough non-liquid assets to cover all obligations. They can get the money if all customers withdraw, it just might take them a few days.
A fraudulent bank is one that doesn't have enough liquidity or assets to cover all their obligations. Mt Gox and FTX were perfect examples of this.
The fact that some of their assets went up in the years or decades since is irrelevant. Madoff would probably be in the green now, too, simply thanks to asset inflation.
Is there any information on if this is the same attack vector (orphaned packages that were adopted)? I believe they already locked down adoption, but maybe also a combination of existing maintainers being taken over?
The reported commit [1] suggests to me that it was an account compromise of some sort, not orphan+adopt: the committer is the same in git, but the contact email changes in the PKGBUILD.
This doesn't necessarily seem 'more elaborate': it is attempting to be better obfuscated against automated checks at the cost of being very obvious to anyone doing even a cursory review of the install scripts. It's also likely something that would be caught instantly by even an extremely naive LLM, as seems to have been the case here. There's simply no legitimate reason why an install script would ever do something like this:
I'm not certain that the git committer tells you the full story. I don't believe the AUR enforces that the git commit email is the same as the current maintainer email. So this could have been an orphan package, adopted by a malicious user, generated a malicious commit with the previous maintainer's git info.
Unfortunately, I don't see a way of viewing the ownership history of a package in the AUR. I know you get emails with ownership changes if you're subscribed to a package, but I don't see this info in the web interface anywhere.
I’m on an M1 Max device and the GPU performance drops have not gotten back to Sequoia levels on Tahoe patches. Golden Gate hasn’t changed anything either.
I'm so upset that Liquid Glass is visibly pixelated now. Like, it's barely even blurred at the least transparent setting -- it just looks like a very obviously downsampled background. Like distractingly/annoyingly downsampled. Ugh!!
They're trying to waste it less. For example, it's now very common for me to see it simply not update when I move a window that's behind another window. Which kinda ruins part of the magic for me.
I've been there. When Compiz on Linux was all the rage. I grew out of it in like 2-3 months and turned everything off. The problem is with Apple you don't get to turn it off.
Automated systems that don’t sleep and are often programmed to aggressively scrape and are limited only by compute capacity outstripped humanity? I am not surprised by this at all.
Shopify runs a payment network called Shop Pay, and that network has relationships with the credit card companies like Visa. Honestly how do you expect to transact in goods that almost nobody will do business in? Even if you have the listing, what supported Shopify payment system will do the business?
Yes I know about Shop Pay (it’s a wrapper around Stripe). And just like Stripe and PayPal, Shop Pay gives Shopify the right to stop users from selling certain products.
I’m talking about connecting Shopify to authorize.net (credit card gateway) and a custom high risk processor. In that case, we are not using Shop Pay. But Shopify can still unpublish and restrict what you sell. That’s the issue. No one is saying Shopify has to allow sellers to sell high risk items under Shop Pay. It’s when you connect to a different payment processor.
For context, Japanese mobile lines for children include net filtering by default. Also, mobile lines require positive ID to get, so you can't simply get a burner mobile line. A phone number that can send or receive phone calls or SMS is tied to a real world identity, and transferring is illegal.
So, a neat way of requiring ID checks is to simply offload these things to carriers with phone number validation.
In contrast, the US is an example of a country where getting a phone number with no stringent ID check is trivial and it can easily do SMS and phone calls without a second glance.
*ID verification was recently tightened to require reading the IC card data from My Number Card (the national identity card) or in-person KYC for non-IC card users (like a copy of family registry).
> In contrast, the US is an example of a country where getting a phone number with no stringent ID check is trivial and it can easily do SMS and phone calls without a second glance.
And the funny part: you buy it from the at&t store, you start receiving dodgy calls and texts almost immediately because those numbers are recycled.
I've tried Thunderbird, Kmail, and Apple's client, and maybe I just have too many emails, but these apps completely crumble under my inbox. I don't see any "shine" with these third-party clients. Mimestream, my favorite email client on macOS, "just works" because it uses the Gmail API. It seems like Fastmail made JMAP, but this doesn't seem widely supported.
Are there mail clients that actually support things like priority inbox and categorization that don't simply crumble for large inboxes?
> Are there mail clients that actually support things like priority inbox and categorization that don't simply crumble for large inboxes?
Of the exemplars listed, nmh is by far the most flexible and capable of handling large inboxes. The reason why is that it is a set of command-line executables which can be scripted with whatever language you prefer. So prioritization and/or categorization is a matter of how one wants each to be defined.
I used IMAP via fetchmail[0] with nmh to allow multiple MUAs (on different machines and/or OSs) access/management to the same email accounts with great success. IIRC, for nmh I used lynx to render HTML messages and xview to display image attachments. Other attachments were processed separately but had similar workflows.
Mt. Gox also ran a fractional exchange for a long time until the bottom fell out. The trouble is that you simply can’t run an unannounced fractional exchange.
reply