• 0 Posts
  • 17 Comments
Joined 3 years ago
cake
Cake day: September 13th, 2021

help-circle
  • Anonymous crypto-asset wallets would also be banned under the new law – just as anonymous bank accounts already are – in an effort to make transactions using Bitcoin and other cryptos fully traceable.

    The analogy between “crypto-asset wallets” and “bank accounts” is a bit infuriating.

    If you have a non-anonymous bank account, you can still withdraw your funds to CASH and store that in a safe. Is the safe “already” banned?

    Are they proposing to ban, say, use of Electrum style wallets? Or only banning things like monero?









  • Federation increases censorship resistance. I do not think it necessarily decreases privacy, although having metadata strewn across multiple servers may be a risk. Still, I think the comparison with email is a bit of a strawn man argument, since it is not only the federated nature of email which makes it easy to surveil but also the fact it is unencrypted by default.

    Moreover, email these days is concentrating in the hands of a small number of providers (gmail, etc).

    XMPP seems a lot more distributed at this point in time.



  • Ah your explanation clears it up. That whole conditional probability thing is in the wikipedia article, but I see now that my explanation of the haircut thing was not correct.

    I guess maybe this is a better formulation:

    p1 = P(not being guilty | evidence found)

    vs

    p2 = P(evidence found)

    Prosecutor’s fallacy would assert that, if p2 is small say 0.01%, then the defendent is guilty. But really the relevant probability is p1, which could be quite a bit larger than 0.01%.

    Anyways let me know if you agree lol.



  • pretty interesting, thx.

    here is an edited selection from wikipedia for posterity:

    Mathematically, the fallacy results from misunderstanding the concept of a conditional probability, which is defined as the probability that an event A occurs given that event B is known – or assumed – to have occurred, and it is written as P(A|B).

    The error is based on assuming that P(A|B) = P(B|A).

    For example, let A represent the event of getting a haircut, and B the event of reading a haircut meme.

    But this equality is not true: in fact, although P(A|B) is usually very small, P(B|A) may still be much higher.