161–170 of 636 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
that's how i felt about social networking. People posting their breakfast, ridiculous. Baby pictures, silly. Cat pictures, kids these days. Yet somehow the vanity/reality show is making billions 10 years later
Advertising won't quit.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It's not about making people pedophiles , it's about giving existing pedophiles material . Or about exposing people with right-leaning views to more and more extreme content, or whatever the dangerous material in question is. What you are proposing is just censorship with extra steps, it seems to me, where the operators are the censors. What's the point, other than making everything more complicated and difficult to…
> Where the operators are the censors. In essence. Except it's by consensus, not by decree. That's my personal issue with censorship. One or a few people deciding "this is bad," which starts out with good intentions eventually gets abused and used to subjugate groups of people. In this design, it's voluntary. You can be on the network, but that doesn't mean your stuff will be propagated.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
There's a lot of things this misses. It also completely misses the point on stuff like CP. I know CP is bad and I have no interest in seeing it. However, I do also know that there is a group of people out there that do want to see it . Is the "anti-censorship" approach to just "shine a light on it" and let those people watch CP that's on the immutable data store? This whole post doesn't just assume that people are by…
Right. If you can see it, you can catch it. If you push them further and further into obscurity, you're less likely to catch it. You're increasing the chances that it happens by censoring it, not reducing the chances.
What are your thoughts on ‘forever chemicals’ like Teflon that are permanently in virtually every human’s blood stream? Does this mean that Dow Chemical will uh… fix it? Or whatever?
OK. The reason all this happening is that Bitcoin really did go to the moon. That's what powers all this speculation. If the price of Bitcoin had been stable for a decade, and it worked reliably, it would be a useful medium of exchange, but nobody would care. This is all about MAKE MONEY FAST. Bitcoin found some early use cases. Drugs first. Then getting money out of China. Money laundering. Tax evasion. Scams. Bitco…
A trillion dollars goes into Sovereign Debt. The government can issue endless sovereign debt to dilute that.
A trillion dollars goes into the stock market. The companies on the stock market can issue tons and tons of new shares to dilute that.
A trillion dollars goes into paper gold. The commodities markets can naked short paper gold for however long they want to since there's cash settlement allowed of futures contracts.
A trillion dollars goes into bitcoin, the price just goes up and there's no dilution. This is what makes it a symbol of resistance against those assets and the way corporations, sovereigns and commodity market makers use their particular rules to extract wealth from their investors.
Also, Bitcoin is open source. So you can download the Bitcoin code and fork it and call it THE SUPER NEW IMPROVED BITCOIN, and set the "super new improved bitcoin" generation to a trillion bitcoin an hour, but the original bitcoin nodes are still around and doing their thing. However, there's nothing stopping people who want to do it your way from using your chain.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Why is ‘ wiring ’ so bad from your point of view?
I'm not OP but I had to wire money earlier this year when I bought a house. To accomplish this, I had to drive to my nearest bank branch (1 hour drive), talk to a bank teller for 15 minutes while she filled out forms and printed out papers I had to sign, and then they told me the wire would probably arrive in time for the house signing (3 hours later). This was to send ~$15k. Compare this to sending USDC on [smart co…
Which are all reasons why someone makes you drive to the nearest bank.
As others have pointed out, these issues are highly US centric, as sending money in the UK/EU can be done almost instantaneously. And so, if they can be done almost instantaneously in other countries it means the technology is not the barrier, but the politics. Thus crypto's only advantage is not a technology one, but a political/market/bureaucratic one.
One good thing about crypto is that if it does take off and becomes a legitimate threat to wire transfers, then banks will change their tune VERY quick, and then once that system is in place then we can have all of the nice things that help protect your money in a US bank accountant (FDIC insurance, access to financing, fraud protection, etc.) with the advantages of crypto.
There is a reason the Winkelvoss twins store their crypto wallet pass-phrases in bank vaults.
For the record - I have my own thoughts about how bad the US finance system is, but I think crypto advocates love to ignore why these systems exist in the first place.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Who said you need to use your real name?
The overlap here is the centralization of identity, not the actual real name part. Is it desirable to have my hn handle also match my wow character name?
Commentators on crypto will simply have to get used to this - because it isn't an argument. > For that same reason, I think people can genuinely believe they're obsessed with web3 because of its inherent interestingness when in fact it’s because web3 has made them a lot of money very quickly. The nature of crypto-currencies means that you are free to invest in protocols you believe will make money - either by providi…
This is the technobabble that just drives me insane about this space.
People who can’t see or imagine use cases become sceptics.
But others who piece together enough observations to tell themselves stories of why it will work become believers.
But neither can explain why the tech will or won’t work, so we end up with technobabblers and angry sceptics.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I said this in another comment on this post, but check out ENS. I’ve been a blockchain skeptic for a long time (and still am about art NFTs and most other things) but the idea of “SSO without a company attached” feels like something the mainstream public actually does want (think of all the negative public sentiment around big tech companies harvesting data and the grudging acceptance people have of their dependence…
> And ENS works now, it’s the kind of thing you could just go ahead and add to a web app you’re working on without having to wait for “the tech to arrive” or anything. What they don't tell you is that every single operation for every dApp on Ethereum, the gas fess make using this totally useless, which mean you have no choice but to tell others to wait for 'the gas fees to go down'. Rendering it useless. Everyone kno…
To your point about operations in general on Ethereum, yes, they are expensive, prohibitively so for the general population.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
So is Bitcoin no longer being pushed as a currency? Is that “official”?
Who are you looking to "officially" decide that? Best you can probably do is look at what hard forks have occurred (such as bitcoin vs bitcash in this case) to see community splits.
I don’t participate in the community. So I’m not sure if the project maintainers have different visions than the investors or whatever.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
$150+ to own one for a year?
It's $5/yr in eth for the actual registration fee. The problem is that the transaction fee gas to register and maintain that registration is steep. So it's fairly common to register your ens for multiple years to save on gas. Once L2's/rollups are more mature and under community control, I expect ens to migrate to one and cut those transaction fees down substantially.
Unless you want a 3 or 4 character do... ENS name. Then it's spicy.