17 years*
cross-posted from: lemmy.blahaj.zone/post/3791302…
mastodon.online/@FranckLeroy/1…
Franck Leroy (@FranckLeroy@mastodon.online)
Exactly 14 years ago , Satoshi Nakamoto designed the most pathetic / inefficient system ever invented by humankind : the blockchain.Franck Leroy (Mastodon)
like this
jonathan7luke
in reply to Sine_Fine_Belli • • •like this
LostWanderer and SolacefromSilence like this.
qkall
in reply to jonathan7luke • •Science Memes reshared this.
underisk
in reply to jonathan7luke • • •explodicle
in reply to underisk • • •blackbrook
in reply to explodicle • • •Goodeye8
in reply to jonathan7luke • • •Bitcoin never had the US economy dependent on it. It will slowly fizzle out as people realize their monopoly money becomes worthless when nobody wants to buy it.
AI on the other hand doesn't have luxury of fizzling out because the economy is dependent on it.
chemical_cutthroat
in reply to Sine_Fine_Belli • • •I'm glad I blocked the blahaj.zone instance just to get it crossposted into a barely relevant community.
...sigh. Here I go blocking again.
gigachad
in reply to chemical_cutthroat • • •RedSnt 🧩♂️👓🖥️
in reply to chemical_cutthroat • • •REDACTED
in reply to chemical_cutthroat • • •PrivateNoob
in reply to chemical_cutthroat • • •chemical_cutthroat
in reply to PrivateNoob • • •QuinnyCoded
in reply to chemical_cutthroat • • •Mythra
in reply to Sine_Fine_Belli • • •The dollar loses its centralization and I consider that a good thing.
like this
Benign likes this.
FireRetardant
in reply to Mythra • • •This is a big part of it. Its about decentralization. Currently it has a massive environmental impact, but as renewable energy and better cooling technology develops, decentralized cryptocurrencies could be better than fossil fuel invested banks.
The decentralized nature does mean that sometimes criminals can use it, but some countries will consider you a criminal based on the color of your skin.
Matty Roses
in reply to FireRetardant • • •zergtoshi
in reply to Matty Roses • • •Don't get me started on all the other issues Bitcoin has...
explodicle
in reply to Matty Roses • • •Matty Roses
in reply to explodicle • • •Well, yeah.
A blockchain is nothing more really than a database.
The use case is when I don't want or have a trusted keeper of that data.
See, if it's your excel spreadsheet, how do I know that you're not going to change the values on it? For some things that doesn't matter - but for things like funds between different parties, etc, that can be a big issue.
Traditionally this has worked by having a trusted third party - a bank, a court, a escrow company, etc. But all these require lots of effort to have as well, and can be bad actors.
MadMadBunny
in reply to Sine_Fine_Belli • • •zd9
in reply to Sine_Fine_Belli • • •It was never meant to be used in this way at this scale though. He put out a new method/paradigm and that was that. It was the asshole investor tech bros that destroyed the planet once they learned of it.
Just like anything, almost no tech or thing is inherently bad, but it becomes bad when the ruling class get their greedy grimy little grimy in it.
like this
BlueKey and Benign like this.
Tehdastehdas
in reply to zd9 • • •FauxLiving
in reply to Tehdastehdas • • •Tar_Alcaran
in reply to FauxLiving • • •zergtoshi
in reply to Tehdastehdas • • •Lots of the issues Bitcoin faces are not based on the design, but by and large what tech bros made out of it.
If you really want to learn more about it, have a look at the blocksize wars and Bitcoin Cash. Or just wait until Bitcoin finally collapses, which will happen eventually, but I'm not able to tell whether this year, decade or century.
What will break Bitcoin's neck eventually is the OPEX of its mining. Mining on the one hand is a crucial part of keeping the network secure, but on the other hand is expensive way beyond the money that can be earned from transaction fees collected when doing the mining.
Bitcoins being generated from thin air when a new block is being produced are a major part of the revenue for the miners, but the amount of BTC getting created this way gets reduced over time until it reaches 0.
The thing about the mining is that it's being done with more and more computing power, and it can't go below whatever the current amount of computing power is by a lot without putting the network at risk.
Chakravanti
in reply to zergtoshi • • •MrRandom
in reply to zergtoshi • • •zergtoshi
in reply to MrRandom • • •MrRandom
in reply to zergtoshi • • •DigitalAudio
in reply to zd9 • • •Even gen AI, despite how it has been used as a tool for the enrichment of the more privileged 0.1% as a tool of suppression of artists' (and critics of technofascism's) voices, is not really a harmful technology.
With enough copyright protections, and regulation of deep fakes, digital formats, and a bunch of other things, I could see gen AI being a valuable collaborator to creative output and workflows.
Hell, other than weapons, I find it hard to justify calling any technology inherently evil or nefarious. And even then, weapons have saved many innocent people's lives against unjustified attacks, wild animals and other threats.
Still, if we don't treat each technological invention with the right amount of cautiousness and care, we risk the deaths of, sometimes, even thousands or tens of thousands of people.
Chakravanti
in reply to DigitalAudio • • •Tech is like a gun and a space ship. Neither have Will.
Also, apparently you haven't been paying attention to that Will's candid work. You're missing a few zeros on it's current work. Sure they're denying what is so fucking obvious. I hole you like cheese because our Madness Will make a Heidi face of being forced to eating something like Limburger.
zd9
in reply to DigitalAudio • • •josephc
in reply to DigitalAudio • • •The real kicker is it was and is used in productive and constructive ways. It was just invisible until very recently. The ability to search for other photos of your pets in your photos app, the spam filters that keep your email (relatively) usable, the special effects tools that let artists paint out wires were all possible because of machine learning (used to refer to the subgroup of AI) and were made better by transformers.
If this same tech were released in a post-Capitalist society there would be no need for every single company to ham fistedly shove it into every product that doesn't need it.
psx_crab
in reply to Sine_Fine_Belli • • •far_university1990
in reply to psx_crab • • •OpenStars
in reply to far_university1990 • • •Starski
in reply to OpenStars • • •"Checkers"
"I think you mean checkmate, dumbass"
glibg10b
in reply to Sine_Fine_Belli • • •What's worse is that there are modern alternatives that can process hundreds of transactions per second without any mining at all
But Bitcoin people don't care about that because they don't use Bitcoin for actual payments, they use the price to pump their bags
yogurtwrong
in reply to glibg10b • • •What is the modern alternative for decentralized, eco friendly money?
I know monero is praised a lot by the people of penguin but that one also requires mining.
Liketearsinrain
in reply to yogurtwrong • • •It is praised for its anonymity, and it uses an algorithm that purposefully works worse on GPUs and probably ASICS, but don't quote me on that.
A lot of malware bundles miners for it because of it.
explodicle
in reply to Liketearsinrain • • •ThrowawayPermanente
in reply to yogurtwrong • • •glibg10b
in reply to yogurtwrong • • •Node | Atto
atto.cashJayDee
in reply to glibg10b • • •zergtoshi
in reply to JayDee • • •Ripple and Stellar are popular examples of networks that can process lots of transactions fast and cheap, but in my perspective they're both examples of tech bros finding a new playground - especially true for Ripple.
But there are other gems such as nano.org/en, which come to mind. It's true open source, was distributed for free, has transactions without a fee and can process hundreds of transactions per second with a tiny ecological footprint.
Yeah, I know, it sounds too good to be true, but if you have a closer look, it just is good.
Monero does not exactly have the capacity for hundreds of transactions per second, but offers a degree of privacy that's awesome.
And then there's the OG Ethereum, which in fact can process lots of transactions per second often at a quite low cost, which offers a Turing complete smart contract language.
You see, there are at least some alternatives, which offer lots of fast and cheap or even feeless transactions or transac... Show more...
Ripple and Stellar are popular examples of networks that can process lots of transactions fast and cheap, but in my perspective they're both examples of tech bros finding a new playground - especially true for Ripple.
But there are other gems such as nano.org/en, which come to mind. It's true open source, was distributed for free, has transactions without a fee and can process hundreds of transactions per second with a tiny ecological footprint.
Yeah, I know, it sounds too good to be true, but if you have a closer look, it just is good.
Monero does not exactly have the capacity for hundreds of transactions per second, but offers a degree of privacy that's awesome.
And then there's the OG Ethereum, which in fact can process lots of transactions per second often at a quite low cost, which offers a Turing complete smart contract language.
You see, there are at least some alternatives, which offer lots of fast and cheap or even feeless transactions or transactions with other benefits, wuch as privacy.
The development didn't stop with the "train wreck waiting to happen Bitcoin".
I'm glad Bitcoin created the whole crypto sphere.
At the same time I'm dumbstruck how most of the whole sphere is just a soulless, useless money grab.
It's hard to find the projects that aren't, but they are here, hidden in a pile of shit.
You might realize that the projects I listed are more or less random examples, which mostly have one thing in common: they've been around for quite some time.
Nano | Eco-friendly & feeless digital currency
Nano.orgmsage
in reply to zergtoshi • • •zergtoshi
in reply to msage • • •Nano had a rebranding and was called Raiblocks before. While it was a quite distinct name, people wouldn't even know how to pronounce it.
I'm not overly interested in the name, I do like the attributes of "Nano, the digital money" though.
zergtoshi
in reply to msage • • •msage
in reply to zergtoshi • • •One?
nano.
GNU nano - Wikipedia
Contributors to Wikimedia projects (Wikimedia Foundation, Inc.)zergtoshi
in reply to msage • • •cabillaud
in reply to msage • • •msage
in reply to cabillaud • • •glibg10b
in reply to zergtoshi • • •explodicle
in reply to zergtoshi • • •zergtoshi
in reply to explodicle • • •Well, maybe they have, maybe they haven't.
At least they made the effort and a better system than CAPTCHAs to make it available to people without the need for special hardware or other prerequisites aside from a computer with internet access was just not there.
Plus I wonder why they've continued developing that project for the last 10+ years in case it was just meant as cash grab for insiders.
People use Bitcoin, although it's clear that Satoshi (whoever that is) has shy of 10% of the total supply: bitslog.com/2013/04/17/the-wel…
Needless to ask what happens to BTC holders, if that amount of BTC appear on the sell side of the market.
The Well Deserved Fortune of Satoshi Nakamoto, Bitcoin creator, Visionary and Genius
SDLerner (Bitslog)explodicle
in reply to zergtoshi • • •Nobody cares how much effort they put in if it walks like a scam and quacks like a scam. You'd have to be nuts to trust anybody in the crypto space.
Why stop developing while it's still producing revenue? With >51% of the supply, they can leech off any remaining suckers indefinitely. The price of Nano relative to Bitcoin has done exactly what one should expect. It would need to have been done correctly to begin with and can't now be un-fucked.
zergtoshi
in reply to explodicle • • •That's where our perceptions differ. There'd be zero need to continue development, if scamming was the goal.
The revenue could be had without additonal effort.
How is done correctly?
How would it have been done correctly a decade ago in your opinion?
All distribution schemes I know or can think of (shy of using people's biometric data to stop them from getting more than their fair share) is at risk of being expoited by in-groups - see the fortune of Satoshi.
explodicle
in reply to zergtoshi • • •MrRandom
in reply to zergtoshi • • •MrRandom
in reply to zergtoshi • • •zergtoshi
in reply to MrRandom • • •I beg to differ!
Or did you want to insinuate something else?
glibg10b
in reply to JayDee • • •purrtastic
in reply to Sine_Fine_Belli • • •ThrowawayPermanente
in reply to purrtastic • • •A_Chilean_Cyborg
in reply to purrtastic • • •100%
I hate cripto and all, but i almost hate more people posting just statements in what's suppose to be a meme community, not funny statements, no memes about politics, just text, bastardizing the point of a meme community, wich is to see... memes.
mortemtyrannis
in reply to purrtastic • • •This definitionally is a meme.
My pet hate is people who say things aren’t memes when they definitionally are.
Screenshots of twitter posts are a meme genre.
You may not like that fact but it’s true.
The scientific content is debatable I’ll give you that.
some_guy
in reply to Sine_Fine_Belli • • •xthexder
in reply to some_guy • • •PointyFluff
in reply to Sine_Fine_Belli • • •BananaIsABerry
in reply to Sine_Fine_Belli • • •QuinnyCoded
in reply to BananaIsABerry • • •BananaIsABerry
in reply to QuinnyCoded • • •Efficient in terms of mechanics for the time.
Pretty damn inefficient considering the number of slaves who died for it. Wack that I get downvotes for that one lol