when you talking about balance, you must associate a timeframe with it. the amount of safety you get by sacrificing a single unit of privacy can be changed through technological advancement.
In your subconsciousness you think that a genius has to be imbalanced somewhere in life. a dear cost to be paid, even. I wonder if that is really the case?
for this kind of gadgets to truly win the favor of security-minded folk, first it has to be durable, which most of the product (include this one) failed to show.
> David I always enjoyed working with you and I thought we had a degree of respect for each other so I'm pretty disappointed in your tone here. I don't really want to get into a big back and forth about this but this just isn't correct. When I left ripple the board was 2 people; myself and Chris.
> I left because I made the mistake of bringing Chris on as CEO and it ended up being untenable to work with him for a variety of reasons.
> I feel like I've been extremely restrained in my criticism of ripple despite the frivolous lawsuits from you guys the constant attacks on my character and my family. I know you are actually a good person but I think you are in too deep to see how horrible Chris has acted toward me.
> Stellar hasn't abandoned the idea of distributing the lumens widely and the original facebook distribution was actually a success but the software/ecosystem wasn't ready for it at the time so we stopped it. We will do something similar in the future. I don't think any attempt at an internet level protocol like stellar or ripple can be widely adopted with a for profit company owning the majority of the tokens.
> Stellar has always been focused on cross border payments so the IBM announcement isn't a pivot by any means.
> Stellar and ripple are going after two completely different use cases as far as I can tell so I don't understand the continued hostility.
