• temptest [any]@hexbear.net
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    8
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    edit-2
    1 year ago

    I disagree that cryptocurrency in itself is a scam. It can have legitimate utility, for example I want to exchange money for international services without a credit card or mailing an envelope of cash/cheque. Bitcoin and some others are mainstream enough that I can do this.

    That said, investing in them is absolutely a scam, using it as a marketing buzzhype is a scam, and most of them are founded as scams.

    • UlyssesT [he/him]@hexbear.net
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      15
      arrow-down
      3
      ·
      edit-2
      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.

      • temptest [any]@hexbear.net
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        4
        arrow-down
        3
        ·
        edit-2
        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.

        • UlyssesT [he/him]@hexbear.net
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          6
          ·
          edit-2
          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.

          doubt

          • temptest [any]@hexbear.net
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            2
            ·
            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)

            • UlyssesT [he/him]@hexbear.net
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              3
              ·
              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.cryptopolitan.com/3-4-billion-penalty-in-cftc-bitcoin-fraud/

              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

              • temptest [any]@hexbear.net
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                3
                ·
                edit-2
                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.

                  • temptest [any]@hexbear.net
                    link
                    fedilink
                    English
                    arrow-up
                    3
                    ·
                    1 year ago

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

                    The origin of the term sealioning is traced to a webcomic called Wondermark by David Malki. In a strip called “The Terrible Sea Lion,” which was published on September 19, 2014, a character expresses a strong dislike for sea lions, only for a sea lion to appear suddenly and pursue the character relentlessly—to the point of following her and her partner into her bedroom—insisting that she justify her beliefs.

                    Your source agrees too. No-one is perusing anyone. You’re willingly replying to me and I’m willingly replying back within a thread. That’s called a conversation.

                    [re: https://hexbear.net/comment/3697897 ]

                    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.

                    No.

                    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.

                    I explicitly said it wasn’t ok, multiple times. Nor did I suggest either of those would make it ok. Nor is there anything ‘technically’ about the concept of a scam, and why that’s different to a wrongdoing.

                    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.

                    If you’re a leftist in any form, stop making bullshit assumptions and listen to what people actually say instead of projecting some irrelevant ridiculous strawman stuffed full of shit-no-one-said. If you want to pull this nonsense online here then whatever, but if this is how you behave in person then it’s actively harmful to the socialist movement, and that’s everyone’s business. We have a world to take, comrade, and this kind of false-premise ranting isn’t how we do it.

                • UlyssesT [he/him]@hexbear.net
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  1
                  ·
                  edit-2
                  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. morshupls

                  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.

    • yata@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      2
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      1 year ago

      It can have legitimate utility, for example I want to exchange money for international services without a credit card or mailing an envelope of cash/cheque.

      It does it infinitely more inefficient, slower and insecure than all other existing alternatives that can do this (and there are a lot of alternatives which doesn’t involve blockchain). Which is also why people doesn’t use it for this.