The timer would not need to be onboard the spinning flywheel, it could be on an observing quasite orbiting higher. When it's time to launch it could shine a control laser at the flywheel, which is used to time the triggering of a cutting laser at the right position to slice the payload off at the correct angle.
One timer could be used to launch multiple flywheel payloads over time
That's true but the reality for many will be selling at least the amount of shares to cover the cost of executing their options. And because the next window to sell could be undetermined (possibly many years in the future), many employees will find it prudent to get liquidity that would cover their cash needs for the next fair-number-of-years. (Based on their understanding of what their stake is worth now. Of course they're going to have that number in mind even if it wasn't able to be realized until now...)
I'm not talking about tampering, not in the sense of a 51% double spend or anything. I'm talking about off-chain real world human influence. I'm talking about things like The DAO, an organization that was such a huge player in ethereum at the time that when they suffered an exploit like so many others have over the years ethereum did a hard fork for just them to fix things.
How many smaller players in the crypto scene have received that kind white glove treatment, going against the "code is law" principle, when they've lost huge sums of money? Code was law right up until The DAO massively screwed up and was deemed Too Big to Fail. No different than traditional financial institutions.
As the mining resources of the various trustless Proof of $X models needed to makes crypto work are increasingly centralized into the hands of massive players in the field the principle of crypto democratizing control of money & finance is becoming an Emperor With [increasingly] No Clothes.
If all the large entities band together and frame the issue as something negative that needs to be prevented/reverted, then nobody will care enough to attempt punishment. We've seen this when ETH and ETC split after Vitalik used ETH in the premine to vote for a split, then framed it as "the majority wants to split".
"Majority" doesn't mean anything better than traditional finance when the majority is increasingly a small handful of massive players using their control to avoid the consequences of massive screwups. Instead they make a hard turn towards the same exact "too big to fail" dynamics in traditional finance.
With proof of stake there will be no more abstraction layer to hide this fact any more either. Majority will mean the very small number of organizations holding a majority of ethereum, not the majority of __people__ holding ethereum.
Very roughly by eyeballing the numbers here [1] about 450 walled own about 51% of ethereum. Out of about 0.000225% of ethereum wallets in control of 51%, and that's not even taking into account whales that may control multiple of those largest wallets.
So your what's your definition of "majority" here when it comes to future governance issues, the 450 or the 200,000,000 other holders?
True democratization of crypto would have it be the latter, but that's not where I see things going.
Ethereum, like any financial instrument, has always been valued by willingness to pay. It is unavoidable that willingness to pay is impacted more by those with more wealth. You cannot sell an asset if nobody wants to buy it and people with money can buy things.
If someone told you otherwise, I am sorry that you were misled.
My ability to address screwups or fraud on an individual level with banks is significantly higher than anything I'd have with crypto.
All your statement does is agree with my sentiment that crypto like ethereum is controlled by a very small number of very large players in the field. It is not the democratization of money & finance that proponents & crypto idealists use in their rhetoric to promote a supposed revolution in the field. It's substantially similar to traditional systems with a few minor (relative to the proposed revolution) features that might offer improvements on the traditional systems.
And yes, lots of people have told me otherwise-- that crypto will put the the aggregated power of traditional financial systems into the hands of the people and all sorts of things along those lines. It's not hard to find such crypto evangelicals. But no I have __never__ been misled by them.
It's always been obvious to me that any actual promise that crypto may have in improving financial systems falls massively short of promises made.
> My ability to address screwups or fraud on an individual level with banks is significantly higher than anything I'd have with crypto.
Yes, nobody ever suggested that irreversible transactions would make it easier to address fraud. You don't have a central entity to appeal to.
> All your statement does is agree with my sentiment that crypto like ethereum is controlled by a very small number of very large players in the field.
No, it does not agree with that. But the value of ethereum is determined by willingness to pay. There are not a "very small number" of actors with willingness to pay for ethereum.
Crypto is explicitly anti-democratic in that you cannot democratically (ie. by vote) decide to take away someone's asset.
- Use URIs in your datasets; e.g. describe the columns of the CSVs with URIs: CSVW
# Web3 ("Zero-Trust")
SK: Secret Key
PK: Public Key
Crypto P2P: resilient distributed system application architectures with no points of failure
ENS (Ethereum Name Service) instead of DNS. ENS binds unique strings to accounts; just like NFTs.
(A non-fungible-token is a like a coin where each bill has a unique serial number. A fungible-token is a thing that there are transactable fractions of that needn't have unique identities: US coinage, barrels of oil, ounces of gold/silver. Non-fungible tokens are indivisible: you can't tear a bill in half because there's only the one serial number (and that's actually a federal crime in the USA, to deface money). Similarly, ENS entries - which map a string to an account id (hash of a public key) - can't be split into fractions and sold, so they're Non-FTs; NFTs)
(DNS is somewhat unfixably broken due to the permissiveness necessary to interact with non-DNSSEC-compliant domains resulting in downgrade attack risks: even with e.g. DNS-over-TLS, DNS-over-HTTPS, or DNS-over-QUIC securing the channel; if the DNS client does not reject DNS responses that do not have DNSSEC signatures, a DNS MITM will succeed. If you deny access to DNSSEC-unsigned domains at your DNS client config or the (maybe forwarding) DNS resolver on the router, what is the error message in the browser?)
