271–280 of 316 posts
It already is. ‘Jack Dorsey’s First Tweet’ NFT Went on Sale for $48M. It Ended With a Top Bid of Just $280. I'm actually shocked someone would pay $280 for it. https://www.coindesk.com/business/2022/04/13/jack-dorseys-fi...
This is beautiful.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Where is the divide? Crypto is 99% full of hucksters, and the remaining 1% are the sorry saps. The intelligent people I know want nothing to do with it. Folks I've met IRL who are into it usually aren't all that bright. The traits they do have are affinity for risk taking, and being somewhat technical but not too much so, just enough to be dangerous. They certainly won't be opening any PRs to fix Ethereum bugs. In ot…
So the intelligent people that do open the PRs to fix the ethereum bugs. Are they hucksters or sorry saps?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Ok. We'll see where this end up. I hate it too but it feels too late to turn back the tide.
You might be right. But just like crypto bros co-opted the term, it could very well be co-opted again by whatever tech seems like the next big thing after "everything is blockchain" fades into obscurity
But what do I know? I'm still sore that "content creator" now means "social media person" rather than "someone who creates content".
Earlier quoted context omitted.
We can have self-hosted, federated web sites with Web 1.0 technology.
I used to use this obscure little piece of software for that called Apache. Maybe y'all have heard of it. Though I think it's getting some competition from this unknown little project called nginx. Really looking forward to that stuff becoming mainstream, it'll be revolutionary.
Good for him.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
You should read more about Monero & especially Zcash, because their tech specifically overcomes this "pseudonymous" false-allegation in your 1st paragraph. If they in fact worked like Bitcoin, with balances & account-numbers transparent to everyone, I might believe as you do. But I know the tech obscures both amounts & recipients, so I don't. Your 2nd paragraph, that people are spraying all sorts of privacy-destroyin…
I have read plenty about them and it's still possible to track those coins through various means using various pieces of metadata. The worst problem with them is probably that the privacy gains are basically useless if you ever plan to cash out on a legitimate exchange. >But it's not essentially true, and with education, & software, & further technical advances, far more privacy than we have now is possible Yeah and…
I could give you my Zcash z-address right now, & there's no way known to cryptographic science for you to know its balance, when and how much ZEC it has received or sent, from or to whom, or even if it's ever been used at all.
None of the metadata thrown off gives any hints to that. Even godlike omniscience about my every interaction with the internet, or a man-in-the-middle attack against all my connections to other Zcash nodes always, would only indicate that I have interacted with the network, and likely sent transactions at cerain times. You'd still know nothing about my address's activities. (The case is somewhat weaker for Monero, though savvy Monero users can start to approach Zcash's privacy with some extra steps like 'churning'.)
If you keep spreading falsehoods, you're harming people who have a right to know what's technically possible, whether they like the implications or not.
And while I'm unlikely to convince you, any other lurkers who want to do their own research, and confirm my claims, should take note: I am providing truthful, reliable info here, under my real name, which you can use to discover many other facts against which to calibrate my credibility (including the fact that I'm a compensated advisor to Electric Coin Company, the original developers of the Zcash software). A anonymous account is spreading falsehoods that will mislead you. Proceed accordingly.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Cryptoeconomics has been a mix of successes & failures, among the very-privileged who can afford to take financial risks, for just the last ~13y. Everyone involved knows there's a lot of things left to solve, but sees reasons for hope. For 100+ years, the most fervently 'socialist' regimes have promised various utopias but actually delivered famines, prison camps, pathologically dishonest & oppressive police states,…
The phrase "most fervently" is carrying a lot of weight in your argument. ETA to make my point clear, it's an inverted "no true Scotsman" fallacy.
Many of us still have hope in crypto because in 13y, it's made amazing progress & hasn't yet done mass murder – and we're suspicious of those who rally under a banner of "socialism", without reservations, because there's now a long history of that having a large body count. If 100y from now, those patterns reverse, check with me then. YMMV.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
And thanks to you, for demonstrating your flimsy analogy can only be defended with attitude, not reasoning!
The point I think the parent was making is not that they are analogous situations, but that in the reasoning they've encountered (and you helpfully provided to illustrate their point), one could literally just swap the positive aspects for negative aspects, and it would read as supportive of socialism and against crypto. Here: Socialist governments have been a mix of successes & failures, among the very-privileged wh…
Of course you can always do a MadLibs-style search and replace on rhetoric.
But are the resulting linguistic similarities relevant in the real world? Isn’t all the real impact on people - who aren’t mere language models - dependent on the relevant magnitudes, & other salient distinctions?
We real people suffer financial losses, or bleed, or starve, or die in revolutionary purges & prison camps. Of those 4 outcomes, only the 1st one can be blamed on some subsets of the 13yo cryptoeconomics movement. For the last three, you've got to wage a "socialist" war on other traditional economic arrangements over decades.
Crypto believers don't have "limitless patience". If after 100y, the fiercest crypto zealots have killed tens or hundreds of millions, they'll update their beliefs. (Probably, much sooner.)
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Yes but so does any other distributed consensus algorithm. Blockchains just happen to be based on the worst ones that don't have any good properties but still keep all of the bad ones.
Yes, but blockchains were first. If your point is that we should evolve to newer, better solutions sure. But I'm guessing you're arguing something else. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s_T0oq_rQ9s#t=9m8s