Lemdro.id

12 points

1 year ago

It can have legitimate utility

Sure, sure. But does it and can it actually stay that way?

I haven’t seen a functioning example actually out there yet of a planet-burning electricity-wasting math busywork generator that actually does anything it supposedly can do besides become another ruinous and wasteful grift that does more damage to the planet than whatever convenience it supposedly offers to comfort the comforted.

report

temptest [any]@hexbear.net

[ - ]

1 point

1 year ago

does it

Well, my transaction went through, so yes.

I agree that it is wasteful and overall a bad thing… now that I think about it could be somewhat excusable if they adopted a PoW algrothim that actually solves socially-useful expensive problems like protein-folding, through distributed computing.

But that doesn’t make it a scam. There’s not really any trickery. It’s just bad.

report

[ - ]

6 points

1 year ago

now that I think about it could be somewhat excusable if they adopted a PoW algrothim that actually solves socially-useful expensive problems like protein-folding, through distributed computing.

You’re claiming that cryptogrifts can theoretically cease being environmentally ruinous energy-wasting grifts (for Science!™) and so on, so why not go one further and state that such applications theoretically DON’T need Bitcoin or related blockchain monetization at all?

If it’s already an environmentally ruinous energy-wasting grift, and you’re claiming it can do good things while also being an environmentally ruinous energy-wasting grift, why not take the speculative fantasy a little further and lose the environmentally ruinous energy-wasting grift entirely?

There’s not really any trickery.

report

temptest [any]@hexbear.net

[ - ]

2 points

1 year ago

I’m not claiming that. It would still be environmentally ruinous (insofar as the energy production where miners live remains ruinous, which I guess is the foreseeable future) but at least the PoW would be actually contributing to tasks we wanted to do anyway that require large amounts of work. Hence the heavy emphasis on ‘somewhat’. I’m not saying it would be justified, but it would be far far far more useful to society.

Incidentally, why characterise non-profit medical research as “for Science!™)”? I hope we can both agree that understanding the human body is valuable to society and curing disease.

and state that such applications theoretically DON’T need Bitcoin or related blockchain monetization at all?

There are cryptographic requirements for securely conveying the necessary information for that application, an application that requires extremely limited identity and trust and centralization. I can’t think of an alternative covering those requirements that is plausible right now and not pure what-if (there is a big jump in feasibility between ‘change the proof of work algorithm’ and ‘invent an alternative to cryptocurrency’). If we can find an alternative to expensive PoW, wonderful!

Yes, if those requirements are relaxed, there are alternatives. If you’re fine with PayPal storing your personal and financial details and those of the recipient and exploiting you a little bit, then it’s an alternative. If your recipient is fine giving personal information, speed isn’t an option and you live in a country where sending cash in mail is legal and won’t get stolen, that’s an option. Of course, this all goes to shit if you’re trading with someone in a sanctioned country.

There’s not really any trickery.

(X)

Alright, what about Bitcoin is fraudulent? We agree it’s bad, but that doesn’t make it fraudulent (i.e. a scam)

report

[ - ]

https://www.cryptopolitan.com/3-4-billion-penalty-in-cftc-bitcoin-fraud/

3 points

1 year ago

It would still be environmentally ruinous (insofar as the energy production where miners live remains ruinous, which I guess is the foreseeable future) but at least the PoW would be actually contributing to tasks we wanted to do anyway that require large amounts of work. Hence the heavy emphasis on ‘somewhat’. I’m not saying it would be justified, but it would be far far far more useful to society.

“Less of a net negative” is still a net negative if it requires a massive and ever-growing bloated blockchain to verify every accumulating transactions for the vague and non-enforced promise of FOR SCIENCE™ benefits.

If we can find an alternative to expensive PoW, wonderful!

At present the alternative is not doing it because it’s still a net negative when it comes to wasted energy and environmental damage.

Alright, what about Bitcoin is fraudulent? We agree it’s bad, but that doesn’t make it fraudulent (i.e. a scam)

Sea lioning at this point is very bad form and I’m quite confident that you’re not going to accept any example or definition I give because you’re already sold on your particular investment, but fine.

Let’s start with the actual fucking fraud done with it, from phishing to theft to holding data hostage and demanding payment to decrypt that data before it’s destroyed, as is a growing common “use case” for Bitcoin when it isn’t being used for human trafficking and the like. You can piously claim in some pedantic “CODE IS LAW” thing that there’s no fraud in the code itself but splitting hairs like that doesn’t remove the incentive (or the risk, or the ongoing caseload) of fraud done with, around, and even against your favorite investment vehicle.

https://www.theblock.co/post/226534/silk-road-hacker-sentenced

https://www.newsmax.com/finance/streettalk/bitcoin-fraud-cftc/2023/04/28/id/1117850/?ns_mail_uid=8b680911-ae97-4076-9bbe-2f0447621e49&ns_mail_job=DM466889_04292023&s=acs&dkt_nbr=010102ydx2id

report

[ - ]

bigwag1@lemmy.ml

1 point

1 year ago

And the forks!

report

temptest [any]@hexbear.net

[ - ]

3 points

1 year ago

Agreeing with the parts re: net negative. No, I don’t invest in cryptocurrency; like I said, investing in them is a scam.

Let’s start with the actual fucking fraud done with it

Fraud is done with basically anything considered to have value. Cash, credit, signatures, votes, wine, wires, mail, licenses, taxes, recorded age. Fraud is the scam! And cryptocurrency is especially useful for scamming (has the anonymity of cash without the physical restrictions). But that’s not it’s purpose or main use. That’s not spiting hairs, it’s calling the hat the head. Your example of encrypting ransomware used to be done with the postal service, floppy discs and cash in the 90s. One example from 1989

edit: this of course is an advantage of non-transferable labour vouchers!

Sea lioning

That’s not what sea-lioning is. Someone asked us to name some scams, you said cryptocurrency, I disagreed that it qualified as a scam, you replied that you doubted my disagreement and I asked for clarification. If either of us wants to stop, we stop. Sea-lioning is stalking across the site like a debate pervert, it’s not replying to replies.

I’m not just running my mouth here, I’m evaluating my understanding of cryptocurrency and finding disagreements to make me question them. And also seeing if I’m able to have a constructive conversation - it’s good practice for real labour conversations in the workplace.

report

[ - ]

https://www.merriam-webster.com/wordplay/sealioning-internet-trolling

1 point

1 year ago

Oh, also:

Sea-lioning is stalking across the site like a debate pervert, it’s not replying to replies.

You just failed at sea lioning me about sea lioning.

report

Show more comments

[ - ]

1 point

1 year ago

So it is all pedantic arguments for the sake of some theoretical version of something that does not actually exist in a functioning and usable form right now without all of the net negative consequences that already exist, right now.

But you did a transaction! And in theory it can be for science™! That makes it all okay because technically a dictionary absolves the holy code of all the wrongdoing done with the holy code.

And also seeing if I’m able to have a constructive conversation

Bring me one that isn’t pedantic sea lioning and sure, maybe.

But that’s not it’s purpose or main use

It is the purpose and use for people buying into it, right now, and that’s what gets people interested and investing, no matter what claims are made by the grifters themselves.

it’s good practice for real labour conversations in the workplace.

If you’re a leftist in any actual form please reconsider peddling internet funny money to people that can (and often have) lost a lot of money buying into it, whether through volatility or outright fraud/theft done with the technically not theft holy code you’re apparently trying to peddle.

report