381–390 of 518 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Then so should GPU powered generative AI. Just kidding. Just because you do not derive utility from something does not mean it a waste and should be banned.
Who derives utility from the PoW component of PoW crypto? Is the work doing something useful to you? Is the utility "I feel good about using electricity to do nothing"?
Is this fabled Bitcoin ETF really going to be the "to the moon" moment that everyone in the ecosystem seems to be expecting? From personal experience, I can't think of anyone who wants to buy Bitcoin but hasn't been able to by now. It takes a few clicks on Coinbase/Robinhood or a similar exchange. Plenty of 401k/IRA managers (including Fidelity) offer it as an option. So what exactly changes once this ETF is live?
It’s very important because if you don’t like the standard finance system and want to use an alternate one that isn’t corrupted by greed and incumbents, the best way to do that is… to buy it through the current financial system? It gives credibility to the thing that explicitly does not want credibility. Or at least didn’t. Maybe it does now. I don’t know.
Why do government agencies even have accounts on proprietary walled-garden online platforms? Those are for purposes like celebrity publicists, influencer brand promotion, disreputable mob behavior, and astroturfing. The SEC doesn't need brand promotion, nor to be caught up in nastiness like pervades X/Twitter. The SEC already has the authority, they do their job with it, and presumably they value respectability. Earl…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
This is quite literally not a pump and dump by the SEC. A pump and dump would require the same entity to be doing the buying, pumping up, and then dumping the asset. The SEC didn’t buy, nor did it sell, nor did it pump up the price (someone pretending to be the SEC pumped up the price). Even assuming that the “largest pump and dump” claim is correct, at most, the SEC was used for that purpose and isn’t “responsible”…
> The SEC didn’t buy, nor did it sell, nor did it pump up the price (someone pretending to be the SEC pumped up the price). How do we know it's not an inside job? Pretty tempting to pull a twitter account takeover and make potentially millions if you a lonely cog in the SEC wheel.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Being a trucker in Canada is a edge case. Also being a human interacting with police in the US. Did you mean intellectual property? You draw Mickey a year ago and a FBI helicopter would soon be overhead to kill your dog and take any cash they find in your wallet.
They were violating the law, and using the funds in the accounts to further the law breaking. They call it civil disobedience. People seem to forget part of civil disobedience is going to jail and paying a fine. That’s always been the deal.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
it’s also not a particularly good way to send money from one person to another
It's absolutely the fastest way to send larger sums of money.
but I sincerely doubt the average western crypto hater has ever had to deal with western union or some remittance company taking 30%+ in fees.
Why do government agencies even have accounts on proprietary walled-garden online platforms? Those are for purposes like celebrity publicists, influencer brand promotion, disreputable mob behavior, and astroturfing. The SEC doesn't need brand promotion, nor to be caught up in nastiness like pervades X/Twitter. The SEC already has the authority, they do their job with it, and presumably they value respectability. Earl…
Agreed. I don't see why they need to do interviews on the new fandangled television and radio programs either. If you want to learn about what the government is doing, pick up a newspaper or speak to your senator on congressman over the telephone line.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It’s such a reasonable thing to expect any level of hacking. Consider the idea that w3 is the transition of assets into literal Internet money. We digitized wealth and w3 concentrated those supplies into readily available large quantity targets. The idea that there would be anything but a massive acceleration of crime and fraud as a result of the digitization of actual money is actually hilarious. It’s a fact that No…
Maybe a bespoke (mostly) decentralized implementation that requires more power than mid-sized countries isn't worth it; especially if it's throughput is 7 TPS.
Did you know that China curtails more hydropower (200+ TWh/yr [1]) than the global electricity consumption of Bitcoin, than entire "mid-size countries"? China literally spills water through the dams without powering the turbines, because they have a hydropower surplus that they can't redistribute through their national grid. When you start learning things like that, you realize Bitcoin's electricity consumption is, fortunately, still a drop in the bucket compared to the immense waste from, well, everything else humans do on the planet.
[1] https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S13640...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
They would have made more money by tweeting the ETF got rejected. My guess is this was a mistake by an intern or something like that.
They sure managed to regain control of the allegedly "hacked" account in short order.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Should agencies never have published information to privately owned corporate newspapers? After all, you could just tell people they need to mosey down to city hall (or whatever govt agency) to look at the notice board for all the official topical information.
The government agency issues a press release, then the newspaper journalist writes an article based on that and other information.