octavian augustus.icp

MASSIVE: 🇦🇷 Argentinas's PESO has plunged to a NEW ALL-TIME LOW against the U.S. dollar this week. The Argentine peso LOST about 99% of its value over the past 10 YEARS. In 2016, $1 bought roughly 15 pesos. Today, it buys around 1,538 pesos. Just $650 is now enough to become a PESO MILLIONAIRE in Argentina. A decade ago, that same 1 MILLION pesos was worth approximately $66,000.

Urm.. are we to interpret what you've just said here as there being official NEAR Team support for this guy? Please can you confirm, or not, thanks.

This is the problem with an unregulated industry . In the end it’s about revenue. That needs to be demonstrated . I know you are working on that Near will not take you seriously without some legal involvement. They’ll just ignore you .

Firstly, there were two patents on the algorithm they took, one was issued *beginning* of this year. We want license fees at the least. Sorry to those that liked my previous post, I reworded this to be more precise. If they knew about the patent applications, then license fees could be recoverable from the beginning of their use of the proprietary tech (~2+ years) not from earlier this year. There are some things that point in that direction in my view, e.g. 1) GitHub posts like this, note what's in the quotes, which I read like pre-emptive non-infringement positioning github.com/near/mpc_old/pull… (the algo of course re-uses the invention with a minor tweak that make it less secure), and 2) they had hired a senior DFINITY engineering manager in April 2022, who I feel would have known full well about DFINITY efforts to patent major works. We need that Google doc referenced by that GitHub pull request; NEAR if you're reading this, deleting evidence won't be helpful, maybe you'd like to voluntarily share this. Secondly, it looks to us like their Confidential Key Derivation is basically derived from the vetKeys paper, and maybe they looked at our Rust implementation too. That wasn't patented, but completely wrong to go around passing off hard and substantial work by very serious cryptographers as your own, and also completely ridiculous. I'm sure Ilia is a more serious guy than that. We are not anti-NEAR, but this is obviously too much and has to be addressed. Note as well that passing off a competitor's academic work as your own to gain an advantage also transgresses various other laws around the world. But anyway, if this is what has happened, I'm sure Ilia, as a supporter of open source, will want proper credits and references to be added, and for their CKD article to explain where the math came from. We're busy but will be contacting them, first to try and resolve this amicably. Meanwhile, they also need to think hard about who they choose as friends. Some of the people that came after us for them are absolutely freaky and the worst web3 has to offer. Notably, we've heard no denial, nor apology.

John Ternus, CEO of Apple, was shown showing off his iPhone Duo earlier... and what is this??

ICP needs to get off all exchanges. We are willing to bet that if ICP was not on exchanges that the price would be much much different and would continually be increasing. This is so weird that people can keep buying more of ICP and the exchanges manipulate sales and price.