pedja

> It's not as if a "big company" using the public domain in any way diminishes anyone else's ability to do so nor the original work.

Not OP, but big companies tend to abuse public goods after they use them. Think of all the DMCA takedown notices that these companies made for people playing classical music.

Downside existed before Let's Encrypt, it just got amplified with it.

General public does not differentiate between the SSL certificate validation level.

Let's Encrypt provides domain validation certificates, which only validates that one owns the domain in question.

There is another level - Organization Validation SSL certificates, which involves manual checking that this is the legal entity it claims to be. I would expect the financial institutions to use this kind of certificates to avoid phishing, but sadly I've seen some of them use Let's Encrypt.

Usefulness of the question aside, dismissing it as stupid is at the very least, shortsighted[1].

[1] - https://www.iusmentis.com/patents/priorart/donaldduck/

My view here is that crypto-currency doesn't have to be better, but it has to exist so that fiat currencies have something to compete against, and then the users have a choice. It should be guided by normal market laws as any two financial products, e.g. if your view of insurance proves a valuable market insight, I am sure that insurers will consider doing it for crypto.

News like this are common for any emerging markets and technologies. Same amount of volatility was probably present in the first years of dollar, and same amount of insecurity was present while banks and credit cards were still being established.

I wonder how much different the crypto-currency conversation would have been if they appeared around the time when dollar lost its gold convertibility.