That "or digital" is doing a lot of heavy lifting. You are effectively claiming that crypto has to be allowed or digital photos with friends are right behind.
You can have my cryptokitties.
This seems pretty out of touch.
I own some crypto. Mostly BTC, some ETH and even a bit of XRP I've held onto. I can see the utility, maybe. But, what innovation is happening in this space? It's mostly scam after scam.
There are literally thousands of coins on CoinMarketCap. What are they all doing?
Direct commodity and commodity-representational currencies were the first challengers to fiat currencies, and for about the first millenium after the first know fiat was introduced, generally won.
Cryptocurrency is not the “first challenger to fiat currency ever”.
Also, until the 70s, USD was backed by gold.
Yes, the simple past (“for the first millenium after the 10th century introduction of fiat, commodity currency alternatives mostly won”) has different meaning than the past perfect (“commodity currencies have won the battle with fiat currencies”), and I choose which one I used for the exact meaning intended.
> Also, until the 70s, USD was backed by gold.
Yes, the US dollar until recently was most of the time a commodity (either direct in coins traded for their metalli1a13@c value, or representational in redeemable notes) currency, part of the millenium of triumph of commodity over fiat.
Previously, you tried to say that FB was going to, I don't know, Sue startups who use LLAMA or something, due to them not yet releasing a commerical license, with a permissive license?
Do you still stand by this statement, now that FB has commercially released a large language model?
And then question 2 would be, what possible argument could someone say to you, to have convinced you that your previous argument was not justified, given that new evidence has proven that to be the case?
I’m not certain how to parse the last part of that sentence, but I'm fairly certain that I didn’t ever try to say that Facebook was going to sue LLaMa users, startups or otherwise.
I may have argued that the license terms created sufficient legal risk that most firms would be loathe to build on top of it, but that’s very much not the same thing.
> Do you still stand by this statement, now that FB has commercially released a large language model?
As far as I know, they have announced plans to release an LLM (which may or may not be LLaMa) with a commercially-usable (maybe open source) license in the near future, but have not yet done so.
But since I don’t recall making the claim (and have very clear reasons why I would have been unlikely to have), I won't stand by it even without the new information you indicate (which seems premature, AFAICT.)
Except they fail at that. Any further innovation will be more of the same: grift.
Cyberextortion rings still operate out of countries with weak law enforcement or tacit approval of their governments, so I don't know if disappearance of cryptocurrency would hurt them much.
You’re currently spewing nonsense.
Who is “we”? How would this “law” be compatible with the US constitution? How would this “law” be enforced? This must be the most naive take in this entire thread.