271 karma · joined October 12, 2019
For example, you hold 100 bitcoins. Randall Munroe's wrench hacker holds you up for bitcoin because he knows you have some. You give him 0.1 from an address. He lets you go. You keep 99.9 of your bitcoins, but your attacker thinks he took got the whole bag.
Thats a feature not a bug. Not your keys not your coin. Neither scammers nor government can take it from you without you voluntarily giving it up.
Which makes "proof of a monopoly on the use of violence" obsolete since no amount of force can pry it from your dead body.
Replace any currency with any power generation you want.
In prison, its the work of smuggling that stores economic value in cigarettes. In a gold based system, its the work of mining elements out of the earth that stores economic value in base metals. In a peer to peer network, its the work of electricity(of any kind whatsoever, clean or polluting) that stores economic value on a fair distributed ledger.
Money is about storage of work, and quite frankly the weaker the money used to store energy, the more lethargic and rusted the whole economic system gets. Fiat, i.e. "proof of wasted energy" just does a lot of work and lets it evaporate in economic terms leaving the entire society that uses it in constant need of more and more fiat because that energy, that work done, keeps dissipating.
It doesn't matter what money is: seashells, carved rai stones, arrowheads, cigarettes, ramen, non-livable apartment homes sold solely for wealth storage, luxury cars, art, gold, printed paper with your uncle sam's face and "guarantee" stamped on it, centralized entry in a private database, decentralized entry on a public blockchain. Society needs money in order to achieve higher levels of cooperation. Might as well use the strongest form of money that exists. And as far as I know, it aint proof of wasted electricity, i.e. fiat.
Thats not new at all. We've used it for decades now it only leads to boom and bust cycles, while pushing the power of work done into the hands of people who didn't do the work.
Besides those places that are "defending themselves" the community is very healthy.
Dairy is only a fraction of the overall cattle industry, and an even smaller part of supplying the protein needs of people necessary to live healthy lives.
Not only that, as per article:
> A liter of dairy milk is not comparable to a liter of plant-based milk in terms of its nutritional profile.
I mean, I guess its not the end of the world if Amazon recommended to me laxatives, toilet paper, or a plunger when I needed one.
But if you think that one article by some internet person proves you right, then that's ever more the case that we should not do what you suggest.
`show dead: yes`
Having said that I'd prefer flagging to be used only for spam and the like. No one holds rights to what is or is not misinformation.
Ultimately what I'm getting at is: There's no market for DDG. Use Google for biased searches, and use other search engines that are not biased(which excludes DDG) for unbiased searches.
What are the use cases for DDG?
https://twitter.com/yegg/status/1501716484761997318?s=20&t=9...
Before someone chimes in, yes I understand the humanitarian perspective. That's not my point. My point is that DDG is not neutral, and is politically biased.
HaHa, nice try Xi Jinping.
Retweets that originate from filtered tweets simply don't get included in the filtering person's feed. Same with replies.
Engineering wise, these features should be peanuts for the HN crowd.
If you are okay with the default protections, closing that modal is one [x] away.
If for some reason you want spam, then toggle it back on.
Imagine: scam protection plugin. spam protection plugin. anti racism plugin.
Let users vote who gets ears. If users say they want to silence racists, by saying racists things a user ends up being blocked by all the people who want to silence all racists. Users then vote and racists know that algorithmically they cannot heard because they know the majority have silenced them. But they also aren't enraged that they are being silenced because they aren't. They're just blocked by the user base who doesn't think their words have value.
If twitter does not allow as much free speech as possible, that speech simply ends up moving to other platforms anyways. So much to all the pro censorship crowd's chagrin, their censorship isn't actually doing anything except protecting their ears from hearing what they don't want to hear, and in reality making the other side band together even more fiercely. Might as well keep all the speech and just allow people to choose their own protection.
You never have to listen to them if that's what you choose. Let people choose what gets silenced instead of letting some authority choose for you. Giving up that power has historically lead in only one direction, and I don't see why its any different in this case. Adults are not children. Let them discern what is right and what is wrong.
The only way forward is to keep free speech available, and we can keep it and have protections for those who want it, so why not?
Where is the smear of the intention? Was it because I said you are attacking the argument from the standpoint that something is a fraud, when the argument cant be attacked from a position that it was a fraud because that's a fact we cannot know?
Your communications of the reasons you've stated must have not come across very well because I didn't understand them from rereading your previous comments. What were the reasons again?
No one else has that power to make changes to the portion of the blockchain that you own the keys to. This is the aspect of ownership that matters.
Same thing with credit cards and databases. Those are centralized databases owned and operated by a central organization. When it comes to blockchain technology, to make entries regarding the portions of the blockchain that you control, no one else can make changes to that portion of the blockchain without the keys. This is the aspect of ownership that makes digital assets ownable. The ability to control the asset that no one else who doesn't own it can.
Look, I can't speak for ownership of NFT's, but to be honest, you probably can't either. Your entering the stage with a pitchfork and torch trying to hate it before you've even tried to see what its about.
I don't think it has anything at all to do with seeing their name on some website, its about ownership.
> proof of the poisoned well seems silly when all you have to do is look in and take a whiff.
You're not making a lot of sense here. Maybe you don't know what "poisoning the well" means.
poising the well: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Poisoning_the_well
> is a type of informal fallacy where adverse information about a target is preemptively presented to an audience, with the intention of discrediting or ridiculing something that the target person is about to say.
Again, we don't know that NFT's are a fraud, so to say "Or do they realize its all a fraud as well and trying to make a quick buck" asserts the question from the standpoint that they are, when we can't know that.
You are coming to the stage proclaiming the New England Patriots have won the Superbowl when the Superbowl has yet to start. That's all I'm saying. That to me sounds more like the pretzel logic.
I don't know who the "they" you're referring to is, but I'm pretty sure the people who are really into NFT's actually believe in it. My guess is there's still more scammers than not, but they remind me of card traders. You can laugh at them all day, but some of those pokemon cards are worth a lot of money. I don't think they think its a fraud, they like the feeling of owning that NFT.
So getting back to it, "realize its all a fraud", that's already poising the well before you ask the question. It would actually have to be one(a fraud) for someone to "realize" that it is. Otherwise you need to talk objectively and work your question from the standpoint that "NFT's/crypto is a fraud" is merely an opinion and not a hidden fact that needs to be realized.
Never said that it did. Only that HN'ers suffer from a kind of overconfidence of other aspects of this world because they are used to being right on technical things.
> How are we using Bitcoin? As a ponzi scheme where the earliest of investors win by bringing more people in.
The US dollar fits a better definition of a ponzi scheme, its just a different kind of pyramid. The closer you are to the regulatory environment, the more disproportionate your gains. Bitcoin will store value better than the dollar. Doesn't matter if you're "late" or "early". So its not a system that favors those who got in early, its a system that favors everyone who uses it.
> How are we using Blockchains (specifically NFTs)? Outright fraud.
Lets not discuss nft's or other cryptos. Only bitcoin.
> Ponzi schemes and fraud won't solve our social or economic woes. What few good things Bitcoin and the blockchain ever provided has been completely overwhelmed by the crap.
Again lets not talk nft's or other cryptos. Only bitcoin.
> As a result, governments are going to crack down on these technologies hard. They've already started by taxing these virtual currencies the same way they do stocks.
Thank goodness. Regulations and legislature is necessary for this emerging market. We need to work with it, not against it.
>
> HN hates on bitcoin because it’s incredibly wasteful and overhyped.
>
> HN hates on blockchain because it’s a convoluted way of solving problems that could otherwise be done simply.
There is nothing in your comment that isn't accounted for in my original comment.
Bitcoin works exactly as technically scoped. Which part of "A Peer-to-Peer Electronic Cash System" is technobabble? I think its a pretty good choice of words.
> rather that HN readers see crypto's empty promises to fix existing issues for what they are: bullshit designed to lure in ever more dumb money.
I would say rather that HN readers are blinded by their own technical abilities, so much so that they think they are right when it comes to social or economic ones.
Good news is the future years will determine which theory is right. Either its "bullshit designed to lure in ever more dumb money", or its an innovation that created something that provides real value to the economy.
I promise, one of us will be deterministically wrong.
Gonna have to say, wikipedia is free to do what it wants, I'm all for free markets and freedom to choose what they want, I'm not opposed to their choice.
Having said that, there's a good population that exists that don't want to be lied to and we'll just choose somewhere else to get our information if censorship soft or hard continues to get in the way of truth. All I'm saying is people will recognize (and already have recognized) that wikipedia is no longer the source of truth ( and is in many ways controlled by the same personality type of people who are lvl 99 on world of warcraft whose life purpose is to pwn noobs and assert dominance with every living breath )
The website is not as neutral as it was in its heyday, and that reflection comes in this headline alone.
Housing supply is rising slower than the supply of dollars.
Simple supply and demand, you should expect housing prices to continue to rise long-term and it shouldn't be a surprise, nor should it be considered unsustainable if the supply of dollars continue to increase at this rate.
1. Its about the interface between your feet/hands and travelling across their respective landscapes.
2. Different shoes/keyboards lets to travel with differing levels of comfort.
Sure you dont need a pair of nikes to run, and you don't necessarily need a separate pair of shoes for the winter, or for that matter roller-shoes, but they certainly make travelling across the landscape significantly more comfortable (or just different) for various uses. More than just that, people who love to buy shoes love to buy shoes of varying types even if they don't necessarily need it.
Keep in mind, programmers are only one class of people who travel across the digital landscape.
What users do when seeing comments from accounts that have lower signals of quality is up to the user to decide. If they would rather listen to voices from unverified accounts over ones that have higher signals that's for them to ultimately choose. No one will be required to necessarily lock up capital to comment, and no one will be required to only look at comments from those who locked up capital.
This is just an example I thought up of on the spot, but I believe there are people who actually did a much deeper dive into these concepts.