Linux Inventor Says He Doesn’t Believe in Crypto
- Linus Torvalds, creator of Linux, does not believe in cryptocurrencies, calling them a vehicle for scams and a Ponzi scheme.
- Torvalds was once rumored to be Bitcoin creator Satoshi Nakamoto, but he clarified it was a joke and denied owning a Bitcoin fortune.
- Torvalds also dismissed the idea of technological singularity as a bedtime story for children, saying continuous exponential growth does not make sense.
https://u.today/linux-inventor-says-he-doesnt-believe-in-cryptoOpen linkView original on programming.dev1610
Comments670
It’s interesting to see Torvalds emerge as a kind of based tech hero. I’m thinking here also of his rant not long ago on social.kernel.org (a kernel devs microblog instance) that was essentially a pretty good anti-anti-leftism tirade in true Torvalds fashion.
EDIT:
Torvalds's anti-anti-left post (I was curious to read it again):
It's just that almost everyone else that could do it ended up being fucking ghouls of people.
Torvalds can be... brusque, sure. But he doesn't support child labor, he doesn't cheat on his wife, and he isn't some crazy cult leader waging a war against workers' rights.
Another interesting thing to consider.
To be clear, he is rich. But he's not crazy crazy rich, like nowhere near billionaire status.
With that in mind, his kernel is a key component of RedHat's, SuSE's and Canonical whole business, with at least two of those being multi billion dollar businesses.
His kernel is a key component of Android phones, which represent over 50 billion a year in hardware spend, and a bunch of software money on top of that.
His kernel is foundational to most hosting/cloud services with just mind blowing billions of revenue quarterly.
It's used in almost every embedded device on the planet, networking gear, set top boxes, thermostats, televisions, just nearly everything.
People with a fraction of that sort of relevance are billionaires several times over. A number of billionaires owe much of their success to him. Yet he is not among their numbers.
Now there's more to things than just a kernel to be sure, but across the hundreds of billions of dollars made while running Linux, there was probably plenty of room for him to carve out a few billion for himself were he that sort of person, but he cares about the work more than gaming the dollars. I have a great deal of respect for that.
Means that while he may not always be right, but I at least believe his assessments are sincere and not trying to drive some grift or cover some insecurity about being left behind.
gitis a way more important contribution to the world that the linux kernel IMO. Its basically the assembly line of almost all modern software production. And Linus actually wrote most of the initial code for it. With Linux he organized the project but was almost immediately not a major contributor. He developed git in the process of maintaining the linux repo.I disagree. Git is great but we'd have done fine with Subversion or whatever. Could you imagine the whole internet running on Windows Server though? The thought alone makes my skin crawl.
Free software would be just using freebsd or whatever, it wouldn't be that different
You probably need to learn a bit more about VCS fundamentals if you think Subversion would've been fine.
I'm old enough to remember the SVN days (he'll, even the CVS and....dare I say it.... source safe days).
Git is fantastic. It's pretty universally uses because it's the best dvcs out there and it's free. It wipes the pants with the likes of mercurial.
In certain industries (such as gaming) there's still a strong hold by perforce but we can ignore that as it's proprietary and a bit specialised.
Anyway, as great as git is for making things easier and cleaner when dealing with distributed development, it by no means makes something impossible "possible" - it just makes it a hell of a lot easier.
The Linux kernel on the other hand enabled a lot of impossible things. Remember back in the day there wasn't anything free and open source in the operating system world, it was all proprietary and licensed. If you wanted to create your own operating system, you basically had no option but to spend a fortune either writing your own kernel or licensing someone else's (and the licensing part means you cannot distribute it for free).
The fact that the FSF has always wanted to write their own OS and never been able to achieve it without the Linux Kernel, in spite of them essentially writing "everything else" that makes up an operating system, shows just how nontrivial this is.
Do you think the existence of the Linux kernel might've had an effect on how Hurd was prioritized? Also, FreeBSD wasn't too far behind, chronologically.
I'm not saying Linux is unimportant (or even less important), but I think some folks here are pretty clueless about the significance of widespread DVCS adoption.
Pijul and similar patch-based systems are a lot better. They match my understanding of independent changes combining. git does the stupidest thing and just compares states - which means it has less information to automatically merge correctly
Well, I don't know what you mean, so possibly? I just briefly used SVN in a small team for about half a year and would never claim to be an expert. It's alive and kicking though, so regardless what you say I don't believe it's a complete clusterfuck and a world without git would be doomed.
Torvalds didn't create git because he was passionate about version control systems, he created it because the existing solutions were not adequate.
Git is a distributed version control system (DVCS) that facilitated a fundamental shift in how people collaborate on software projects in general. So, comparing it to SVN and downplaying the significance of Git suggests you've kind of missed the point.
Edit: with you on the other thing though - fuck Windows.
lol. I'm old enough to have worked with SVN (and many others) as part of my day job, and I promise you that 99% of git users use literally the same exact workflow as they did/would have under any other VCS. Git's fine, but it's neither revolutionary nor important from a user's perspective.
Can't two things both be important in different ways? Why must we always relativise?
git is why we can't have nice things
There's many better VCS, but everyone just goes on GitHub and uses git.
I dread ever having to touch it. The CLI is unintuitive, the snapshot system is confusing, and may God have mercy on your soul if you mix merging and rebasing
Mercurial or darcs?
Pijul, actually
darcs_rsWell, I think Linus Torvalds is one of the rare rich people who actually "deserves" being rich.
I think the main motive behind leftism should be stopping 8 people from owning the 50% of the world's wealth, not to distribute Linus Torvalds' 50 million dollars which a well deserved amount of wealth for someone who created the OS which runs the modern world.
Besides, what Linus owns is not even a droplet compared to billionaires like Bezos, Musk or Bill Gates
I think it's a shining example of the 'right' sort of rich. Despite a significance that overwhelmingly exceeds usual billionaire level, he's not nearly so 'rich' and yet he has enough to just not worry about money, but he has earned it.
It’s a contribution thing. He contributed enough to society to deserve to not worry about money for the rest of his life. It’s rare though since we have a bunch of billionaires who skim the rewards from huge swaths of the population who also have contributed their part.
The financialization of retirement is a huge part of the problem for the middle class (or what’s left of it, upper-lower-class is probably more accurate). We have to invest in these assholes in order to save for retirement. The harder workers in services, laborers, and fields don’t even get that.
Yea. It's almost like caring about your craft and being motivated chiefly to just make good things and fix things ... aren't terrible character traits?!?
he doesn't cheat on his wife so far.
Well, we all know he beats his wife......
...................in monopoly! Give me those brown properties!!!
Why's it gotta be the brown properties?
The man loves going to brown town, what's wrong with that?
They're the cheapest to aquire, put hotels on, and they're right at the start of the board. If you overshoot go, you're PAYING $250 instead of recieving $200 if you land on baltic. And you, as the owner of the brown properties would either get $250 or $450 everytime.
All for just $610 to buy both, and upgrade them both to hotels.
I'm old enough to remember when they were purple. And the orange ones are great but I think statistically the two reds after free parking are the most landed on square.
Statistically, the best properties to have are the ones just after jail. Everyone who passes go still has to pass them, while those who get sent to jail also have I pass them. The organge properties are the best, because the average dice roll is 7 and from jail that lands you right on them.
Healthy relationships have ridiculous hall-passes that share at least one person in common.
It's not cheating if it's consensual.
He’ll live long enough to end up on the wrong side of the polygamy rights fight. But I’d like to be surprised.
I imagine he will be an old and gray man and someone will ask him his opinion and it will probably be like
Polyamory isn't cheating though.
Cheating is, by definition, sex with another person against your partner's will.
Polygamy: Mormons, etc. generally opposes womens rights.
Polyamory: Ideally places noone above another, elevates everyone to have the healthy connections such that noone is a "3rd wheel" or more disposable. Less about "polycules" recruiting new members, and more about individuals pairing with new partners, and existing partners (initially at least) gaining a metaphor. Mileage may vary and the point is everyone's needs are a bit different and shouldnt feel pressured to fit neatly into a nuclear box.
Just fyi.
The fuck is that even supposed to mean
Five guys and five gals will be arguing they have a right to share DNA amongst each other and make a single kid, giving them all parental rights. Religious right will have their scheduled stroke. Most of the population won’t care. Internet trolls will be screaming how it’s a United Nations plan to depopulate the planet.
Or basically any legal recognition for polygamy.
…Is that even possible? I thought humans could only have exactly two parents biologically? If I didn’t misunderstand, I’m legit curious about this.
We’ve already reached two lesbians with their combined dna being carried by a surrogate (which has extra dna effects as the carrier). With further dna advancements it should be possible to mix up multiple parents dna.
He just seems frustrated. And I respect that. I’m a nerd who’s often frustrated as well.
Or we could just... not glorify people we barely know and invariably be disappointed when it comes out they're flawed some way or another.
I remember this. That was a great day to be on the internet.
I wonder what direction the Linux kernel will go once he's gone. Obviously it will continue to go on and Torvalds should get a statue somewhere if he doesn't already have one.
I don't follow thinigs closely at all, but I'm under the impression he's already starting to kinda take his hands off of the wheel? If so, maybe that picture is emerging now, at least behind the scenes.
Linus hasn't written kernel code in years at this point, however he still is the final gate keeper of what gets merged and an active code reviewer, he manages the entire direction of the project.
As of what will happen when Linus passes, that's already been decided. The position of projects leader will go to his most trusted project co-maintainer, which we have a good idea of who that is.
For the uninformed, who is that?
There are a few candidates, the most prominent are probably :
Greg Kroah-Hartman is speculated to be the most likely candidate, but it also depends on a few factors. Like, if Linus dies suddenly vs dying slowly or just stepping down, there'd be a big difference in selection process.
Ofc, things may change in the future and there's many other talented developers who can be considered. Nothing is set in stone.
Thanks for the details. With things heading more and more towards arm architecture I’m surprised Sarah Sharp isn’t the leading candidate. But this is all new to me so what do I know lol
It's not like they couldn't be chosen, they have some serious stake in it. Consider their achievements and read the following :
I'd say they meet most if not all of them. All of the potential candidate's are amazingly talented and determined individuals.
He did rule that Rust can be included in the kernel code a bit ago, but IIRC that's the last big thing he did with Linux as of late.
They should do something like GNU from discworld in the code.
That guy seems pretty rad.
Yeah, I would say he has stayed in line with Finnish politics based on how I know of them
For a rant, that made complete sense. It missed all of the unhinged outcries, alternative facts and illogical reasoning we've come to expect of modern day rants.
Are you replying to the right comment?
Clearly misread the tone of the comment 😃 nvm
Its good to see some antileftism once in a while. We need some other perspectives. I didn't think we'd get it from Linus but here we are.
You might want to re-read that.
Maybe it's just really lazy spin? I could see it as a creative tactic poorly executed by AI.
You don't know what you're on about and you cannot read.
WHOOOOSH
Holy shit, the crypto bros are really triggered by this, out in full force in the comments. If the only argument you can bring for crypto is that you make/made money on it, that sounds a lot like a Ponzi scheme
I fucking hate that the crypto currency ghouls have captured the word “crypto”. When I first read this I was wondering why in the fuck would Linus not like cryptography. My brain is old and crypto will always mean cryptography.
We just got to wait it out. Gods willing, it'll come back to meaning cryptography again.
Still waiting for the Swastika/Manji to be de-nazified. Probably not gonna see it in my lifetime, unfortunately.
Behind the Bastards had a great few episodes about how a group of indigenous Americans chose to give up their sacred symbol that looked like a swastika because of the Nazis. Pretty sad but i guess fascists ruin everything.
Absolutely. That's why I always write "crypto-tokens" instead. It's a bit longer and more annoying to write but I feel we owe it to the respectable field of cryptography.
I'm still a student, same for me.
I still haven't warmed up to using it for currency either, for me it's a command on Cisco's IOS. Which, BTW, I have to make clear is made by Cisco and make my phone write with a capital i.
I understand that the world evolves, and that languages do as well ... but I do have a problem with the speed which it evolves with, as well as it seems like the ignorant use of existing terminologies, is the main evolutionary factor these days.
It uses cryptography. It's kinda like how electro is a genre of electronic music.
Smart man!
The modern tech industry needs the old Linus to pay it a visit. Too many grifts
I for one would love for Linus, probably Woz, and a third party yet to be decided(this would be Aaron Schwartz in a better world) to be given free reign to gut the whole industry and rebuild it into something isn’t wholly based on ad revenue and grift
Edit: a bunch of good suggestions of people I need to read about for position three. If anyone can think of a digital equivalent to Marshall McLuhan I think we desperately needs input of that sort
Maybe Cory Doctorow?
I definitely considered just saying him outright but I don’t know quite enough about him outside of a few articles I’ve read to be certain I wanted to be so bold
I feel like he’s definitely the person to sit in Schwartz’s seat.
Be so bold.
Old Linus with Woz and Schwartz is a dream.
I understand why Linus wanted to clean up his act with people he works with. That is a good and admirable thing to do. I wish he would have kept his smoke for companies though.
Richard stallman is the only answer.
I really hate everything he says, but so far on a lot enough timescale he has been fucking right about everything
Ballmer, for comedy relief
And coke.
Can you have one without the other?
I wonder if those three would get along. Collaborative chemistry can be an elusive thing, even if the individuals' principles are mostly aligned.
Either way, I'll bet it would be interesting.
It’s certainly possible they wouldn’t get along, I feel like their shared enthusiasm for tech, plus the fact that Woz can get along with even the largest and stinkiest of assholes would help
I've never met Woz, but yes, I've long had the impression that his humility and sincerity reach depths seldom seen in humans, let alone in tech. Sadly, I also suspect these traits have made him easy to take advantage of in the past.
You are very correct, and even sadder the state of tech today is very much a result of the success of his primary exploiter
Stallman.
I'd just like to interject for a moment. What you're refering to as Stallman, is in fact, GNU/Stallman, or as I've recently taken to calling it, GNU plus Stallman. Stallman is not a man unto himself, but rather another free component of a fully functioning GNU system made useful by the GNU corelibs, shell utilities and vital system components comprising a full OS as defined by POSIX.
I lack the creativity, but someone please come up with a recursive acronym for Stallman.
All you need to do is make the
Sstand for "Stallman", and you'll get a stack overflow before ever reaching the other letters (so you don't need to think of a value for them).Asked ChatGPT
Stallman Tenaciously Advocates Liberation, Leading Movements Against Non-freedom
STALLMAN: Stallman The Almighty, Living Legend... Man... Anon... Null...
The only possible correct answer
No matter what crazy shit he says, give it a few years and he will be right . And I really hate that
John Gilmore is around
Bill Joy.
To be fair, that's because Crypto is a vehicle for scams, and a Ponzi scheme.
Crypto means cryptography, stop using it to talk about cryptocurrency.
If after 16 years you still have to be asked if you believe in crypto, then chances are that it is a scam.
The focus of what Torvalds said is the concept of tech singularity. TL;DR "nice fiction, it doesn't make sense in a reality of finite resources". I'll move past that since most of the discussion is around cryptocurrencies.
Now, copypasting what he says about cryptocurrencies:
For those who understood this excerpt as "Tarvalds thinks that cryptocurrencies dant ezizt lol lmao": do everyone a favour and go back to Reddit with your blatant lack of reading comprehension. When he says that he doesn't believe in them, he's saying that he does not see them as a viable alternative to traditional currency. (He does not say why, at least not in that message.)
And for those eager to babble "ackshyually ponzi schemes work different lol lmao": you're bloody missing the point. He's highlighting that a large part of the value associated with cryptocurrencies is speculation, not its actual usage. Even cryptocurrency enthusiasts acknowledge this.
I apologise to the others - who don't fit either category of trashy people I mentioned above - for the tone. Read the comments in this very thread and you'll likely notice why of the tone.
The vast majority of the crypto world failed to understand one key concept, money is not the value for which goods/services are exchanged, it is the value by which they are exchanged. People do not have a use or value for money beyond what it can be exchanged for, if no one is willing to exchange for it, it has no value.
Crypto only had value as a currency if people would accept it for goods or services, and the only thing people ever accepted it as payment for, in any meaningful capacity, were illegal goods and services. The value beyond that was purely based on a speculative ideological assumption that people would abandon the traditional banking system for a new system that they couldn’t buy anything with.
Its just a big money laundering scheme
Oh yeah? Then explain this!! /s
👏.
👏.
👏.
I actually considered a non-governmental, community regulated currency as a pretty good idea.
Problem is, crypto is too ecologically expensive and wasteful to fit the bill.
While there were some interesting ones, that actually used the processing power for something useful, most are not. So for now, I'll just go with governmental currencies.
I think there was a potential future where cryptocurrency could've actually been useful, but it was ruined by scammers, rug pullers, and of course, speculators.
I'll still hold a little bit of Monero, since it holds the most potential for being a real currency in my opinion. But otherwise, I fully agree with the sentiment.
Cryptocurrency is a useful technology that has some real-world use cases - for example, living in Russia, I use it to circumvent sanctions to donate to some of the crypto-friendly creators, pay for a VPS abroad, and I keep calm knowing I can transfer money to my relatives abroad.
However, it is obviously not the answer to how we should build the financial system. The problem is not environment, actually - many Proof-of-Stake blockchains allow to transfer crypto with minimal environmental impact - but the poor on-chain regulation (including taxation, too) and potentially excessive infrastructure, as well as little protections against malicious and fraudulent actors.
Besides, inability to control emission, while helping maintain the value of the currency over the long run, also means that many interventions that can save economy in a crisis are simply not available. And a deflationary nature is known to cause bubbles.
He is just like me. I don't mess with the chucky cheese token money.
My hot take is this:
Crypto currency, when in its infancy, had a halfway decent concept.... now? It's a shitshow.
Crypto bros tend to argue about the main currencies, Bitcoin, etherium, etc. Meanwhile, there's about 1000 currencies that aren't talked about for every currency with any weight behind it.
The main problem with CC's is that it's all hype and confidence based. There's nothing tangible attached to it. I often equate it, for non-cryptocurrency people, to stocks trading. Often, stock is trading above what the actual value of the stock is. Most of the time in IPOs the price of the stock immediately jumps after the stock is released, then trends along some impression of how the company is doing. If there's a loss in confidence in the company the value of the stock drops, etc. It's pretty simple supply and demand beyond that. If investors have high confidence in the company to profit, demand for their stock will increase, and since supply is pretty much fixed (aside from shenanigans like stock splits and whatnot), price goes up. Same goes for the inverse, low confidence leads to low demand, price goes down.
It's similar with so-called crypto. Confidence goes up but supply is fairly stagnant, so the price goes up. Same with the inverse.
The primary difference between the two as investments, is that stocks get repaid (depending on a few factors) if the company goes under. The stock represents a monetary value for assets owned by the company, both liquid and physical assets. Crypto, however, has no such backing. If Bitcoin goes away for some reason, all you're left with is essentially digital trash.
This is mainly true for all of the talked about cryptocurrencies. The majority of currencies are not really following the same trends. After the initial golden era of CC's, it became a breeding ground for pump and dump schemes. Since it's entirely unregulated, borderline impossible to regulate, and AFAIK, no such regulation exists to govern it, there's no law against pump and dump schemes in the CC world. So it became a huge problem. We see this a lot with NFTs. Touching on NFTs for a second: if you own an NFT, all you actually own is a receipt that is an attestation or receipt that you paid for whatever the NFT is. That's it. The content behind the NFT, whether it's artwork or whatever, isn't locked. It's actually the opposite of locked, it's publically available on the blockchain, by design. The only thing you "own" is a tag in the blockchain that says you paid for it.
Pump and dump, for those unaware, is where you artificially inflate the value of something making it seem like a really good deal so everyone buys it, raising demand and prices, then the people who generated the hype dump their investment, cashing out when the value is high, and making off with the money while the value of the investment tanks.
This is very very frequently the case with NFTs. Since it's unregulated and entirely confidence based, the creators of NFTs will say whatever they have to (aka lie), to increase the confidence in the NFT, then sell it, and let the value freefall afterwards. They've even gone to the point of buying their own NFTs with dummy accounts for top dollar to have records on the blockchain that people can look up, which say it was sold for x amount in whatever cryptocurrency, to inspire others to think they're getting a bargain when they get it for some fraction of that initial transaction. The perpetrators then sell and disappear.
Several other crypto scams like this have also happened, mostly with NFTs but also with lesser known currencies. One that I heard of, required some token to exist to perform any transactions on the blockchain. When the perpetrators were done, they deleted the token, effectively locking the currency to never be traded again. Therefore those with the now digital trash of that crypto/NFC, couldn't sell to anyone else and they were stuck with the digital garbage data that used to represent their investment.
"Big" currencies, especially older currencies, are fairly stable in terms of confidence, but they're still volatile, and backed by nothing more than confidence. Any "new" CCs are a gamble to see whether they're legit at all, or just a pump and dump. The number of currencies that start high, then drop to nil and never recover, is significant.
Here's a controversial one, Elon Musk, for all of his flaws, isn't an idiot. He pump and dumped Dogecoin, by tweeting about it to bolster it, then divesting when it surged from his influence. I think this was pretty obvious, but I think a lot of people missed it. IIRC, he did it twice. I'm speculating, since I don't know which blockchain wallet is his, so I can't verify, but, he likely picked up a crapton of Doge then did his tweet, dumped when it went high, waited for it to drop again, picked up a crapload more, tweeted again, and finally dumped at another high to earn even more. Since then, doge has not been doing superb. He inspired volatility in the currency and profited from the crypto bros getting excited about it.
The evidence is there and when you look past the confidence game, and look at the numbers, it tells a story that most people don't want to see.
Then why does the kernel have a crypto API?
Checkmate, Satoshi Torvalds!
Crypto is just a waste of resources, similar to AI
Linus is already a multimillionaire, he doesn't need a pump and dump.
I mean, at this point it's like saying you don't believe in Homeopathy
It's as if this headline were written to stir discussion on lemmy.
Who the fuck tell their kids bedtime stories about the idea of technological singularity??
Thank goodness. Such a useless technology.
Scratch that... it's not useless, because it's great for scams and fraud. It's actively harmful.
Lets see, cryptocurrencies involve tech bros, fin bros and lots of money. I am not surprised it is on its way to become the most disgusting money making scheme in the world.
How are you asking Linus about crypto and not about the blockchain.
Cryptos can be a useful technology in certain targeted fields but they are not the solution to capitalism, it is much more important to focus on social issues and mutual aid.
Inventor sounds funny but i guess its correct
I only like two cryptocurrencies.
Nano: free transactions, each wallet runs it’s own blockchain, so it’s got no negative impact on the environment.
Monero: allows for anonymous transfers
Is this going to be the most replied to post on the Fediverse? 635 in 2 days and still going strong.
Edit: since it's now at 666 replies, please nobody make any more comments
Based
Crypto is a textbook example of why we as a society can't have nice things. To many people are selfish and self serving, and not enough people are willing to ostracize those types of people from society for such actions.
What if... crypto currency has been a psyop all along. Ultimately eliminating physical currency and government having full blown control of digital currency.
If Torvalds was Satoshi he would have done a lot more with those untouched bitcoin than let them sit around for more than a decade
The value of a crypto token is ostensibly related to the value of the apps which the blockchain supports. It's meant to be both a form of compensation for participating in the network, and as currency for purchasing services from blockchain apps. That's how it derives intrinsic value. So if there is social media which runs on a blockchain, then the hosts within that blockchain get tokens for participating, and eg, advertisements or subscriptions are purchased in tokens. This means those who manage those participant nodes can sell their tokens to those who want to buy blockchain services. As the cumulative value of these services grows, an entire crypto economy is established, and it becomes effectively another form of fiat which has a real exchange rate backed by some real economic activity.
This is how it's supposed to work. The problem is that we just don't have any compelling apps, and the initial speculation has all but ensured that this cannot happen organically because the market cap is already just so much bigger than any realistic medium term outlook for intrinsic value. Bitcoin's blockchain would have to support some form application value which is bigger than the biggest companies in the world, and right now it basically has zero useful applications.
I don't believe in crypto either because it's current value is solely derived on how much you can exchange it for real money. Outside of a few edge cases, nobody buys anything with crypto outside of the black market.
I'm sure crypto is a great solution to some finance problems related to centralized banking that I'm too lazy or dumb to care about, but I look at the energy consumption to calculate these massive chains for little tangible benefit, and the scammers and hypemen who are profiting off of other people's hopes and desires to get rich quick on the next big boom, and I can't help but feel like it's an actively harmful element of society. At the very least, whatever regulations are currently in place that are attempting to reign in crypto are insufficient at reducing harm.
Read the actual forum directly if you want to extend your daily fix of other tech people's interesting opinions: https://www.realworldtech.com/forum/?threadid=217627&curpostid=217694
Much more difficult to fake.
Crypto - wall street on steroids Bitcoin - an actual alternative to the collapsing monetary economy
That doesn't take into account privacy coins like monero, which have different purposes, but most crypto is bullshit.
Good
I think crypto does have its place in anonymous transfers and stuff like that but the current form of crypto isnt that. First of all it would need to be something stable and crypto is everything but stable.
True.
me too
They got to him
I've literally only made millions off of crypto. Of course this is the Internet and I don't need to verify me making shit up, but I will continue to say so because otherwise my feelings will get hurt. If you uplemmy this comment I will send you one trillion Bitcoin, real!
There are two types of people: those who had their money stolen by the government and those that did not.
UPD: Screw gamblers and shills, though, with that I can at least agree.
It'll be a bad day when crypto really crashes. A lot of guys in my generation have most of their savings in crypto. When they lose that money they are going to create a very big political problem for the rest of us.
Linus creates kernels. Nothing to do with cryptocurrency. Tech is tech, but I wouldn't necessarily listen to him about other things than kernels and computers. For example, he doesn't even believe in FOSS, and he openly supports Google because of Android, Chromebooks and ChromeOS using Linux.
comrade Torvalds?
Why didn't you tell me this eight years ago, John Linux?!
of course linus torvalds doesn't believe in cryptographic security, have you seen the man talk about other peoples ability to write C?
You think this man considers writing insecure code? That's blasphemy!
remember kids, crypto just refers to cryptography, more broadly in the act of practice.
I hate the word "inventor"
Love how privileged people who never ever had to hide money from their governments debate the usefulness fo crypto. Ask him about woman hygiene products as well.
I fucking guarantee that Linus Torvalds DOES believe in cryptography. Stop calling cryptocurrency "crypto", because "crypto" is short for cryptography, not cryptocurrency.
Linux Inventor Does Not Believe In Currency
shut the fuck up, nerd.
Why does the headline say "Crypto" but then snippet says "cryptocurrencies"? Do people not realize these are not the same thing? The inventor of Linux does believe in crypto, that's why it's in Linux!
They don't. Just like "AI" has been co-opoted to mean "algorithm".
Large groups of humans turn everything they touch into shit.
I'm old enough to remember when algorithm was co-opted to be a fancy word replacement for "computer programming" or "software".
Algorithm??? I can understand not coming up with "Artificial Intelligence", but if "Al" is "algorithm", then that means they think its A L, with the L lowercase. So, that means they aren't pronouncing it "aye eye" or "aye el" they're pronouncing it "Al". Like the first name Al.
Which just makes me think of a reboot of Married with Children. Except it's just Peggy surrounded by cyborgs made to look and sound like the original characters.
So now Peggy wants sex, and she says "OOOOHHHHH AAAAAALLLLLLL!!!!"
Followed by a robot drinking a beer, and sticking his hands down his pants. Somehow even artificial Al looks defeated.
It's the most annoying thing of these enthusiasts: they glorify cryptocurrencies and blockchain while glossing over the massively important and actually useful cryptography discipline in the background.
"Crypto" has become a widely used abbreviation for "cryptocurrency," even though "crypto" itself refers to the general field of cryptography and its encryption techniques. This informal usage reflects how cryptocurrencies have become the most recognizable application of cryptography for most people.
Seems like it should be SSL.
Https is more recognized.
True, I wouldn’t expect people to know the terms ssl or tls. My point is, it’s a far, far more common application of cryptography than cryptocurrency.
Yes, a more common application, but not the most recognizable for most people.
I’m amazed people are acting like they think nobody has ever heard of this. I suppose it was more a 2010-2015 thing.
To the general public?
Yes, because people were trained to look for the lock icon, though pretty much every site has it now, whether it’s something that necessitates security vs just privacy benefits. Maybe looking for the lock is outdated, idk, but it was emphasized a lot a few years ago.
You are drastically overestimating the technical competence of the general population.
In what way? And they supposedly have any clue what crypto currency actually means?
There's a lot more publicity surrounding cryptocurrency than SSL.
Yep, this is news worthly
Unlike you, he has contributed greatly to society and people care what he thinks.
Equivocating cryptocurrency, block chain tech, and bitcoin is disingenuous to say none of that exists like fairies or Santa Claus. It exists just as much as PGP or AES or the deficit does. It's dumb to think any of that is going to launch you to extreme wealth or solve everyone's problems, but it is a good way to try to prevent governments from using that currency issuance power in ways their citizens would prefer they did not.
Even if you don't agree with the politics it is a pretty interesting technology for consensus building between potentially adverse participants. Someone with experience maintaining open source repos could at least appreciate that aspect.
And instead it should be hedgefunds that have that power?
There is a need for currency and someone is going to have control over the value of that currency. At least with the government you can vote the bastards out.
In the United States you cannot vote for the people who issue currencies. The Federal Reserve are a bunch of privately owned banks.
Nobody has to have control of the production of money, it is especially bad when corrupt people have the power to generate it into their pockets. I know it is hard to understand how generating money for one's self is theft from everyone with money, but it is the case, you just have to try a bit harder to wrap your head around it.
Money needs to be backed by someone for it to hold value.
If there is no control of the production of money, then everyone can produce money, making it completely useless.
Yes, if everyone can produce as much of it as they want, then it would lose value. However, someone doesn't need to back something for it to have value. The most common currency in all of history was seashells. Nobody backed the seashells. Gold has had value for a long time and still does. Nobody backs gold. The reason these things had/have value is for a number of reasons, but possibly the most important reason is what you said, that nobody can just produce as much of if as they want. This is also a fundamental reason why Bitcoin has been steadily increasing in value, nobody can produce as much of it as they want. This is a major flaw that is inherent in fiat currencies(usd, euro, lira..), they can be produced as much as somebody(governments, counterfeiters) wants.
This is very simplistic, there are other reasons that various things are good ways to hold value. Divisibility and transportability are two big ones, both which Bitcoin excels at.
In theory. In reality all parties serve the same lobbyists.
I don't think anything we've seen yet solves wealth inequality, but whether that becomes a property of a currency or not may change.
I agree voting is important for governance but what if citizens held that specific power by default instead of the government, and if the government wanted to use that power they would require asking for it? It's the same people doing the voting but for a specific measure instead of a representative. I didn't think we're there yet but that being a possibility seems hopeful.
It already exists without crypto tokens and it's called a referendum.
Different countries use it to different extents. The Swiss Country does a lot of it, for example.
But referendums are not always a good idea and are extremely prone to manipulation by the media and populism (see Brexit). Minorities are also underrepresented in referendums, which poses a real problem with these things.
Having an elected government with separation of power is definitely always better, than whatever DAOs are doing.
You know good and god damned well that's not what he was saying.
I definitely made some assumptions, I'd probably do well to read a bit more and comment a bit less. No harm just down votes let me know there's plenty more to learn
https://theblockchainsocialist.com/
Most of bad rep is generated by insufferable hype train enthusiasts we started to call cryptobros and big tech CEOs trying to capitalize on putting this edgy technology everywhere, just like with LLMs right now. Many people who escape shit states in recent years legitly use cryptocurrencies to bring their unconvertable money abroad and that's more reliable than a suitcase of precious metal bars, lol. This tech is no Jesus or Devil, it just needs to mature and overcome the initial fascination, with most bad realizations and schemes dying off. In ten years this discourse would be very different.
Let's not forget that crypto also enable wide deployment of ransomwares (which was not possible due to the lack of untraceable online payment at scale), while less and less ecommerce platform allow crypto payment. If this trend continues, eventually no one would use crypto except for speculation and paying off ransom.
There isn’t a coin out there that can process 1/10 of the number of transactions that Visa does in an hour.
Anonymous vpns would still exist, as block chain existed prior to crypto.
Visa having the power they do is definitely a problem, however buttcoin is not a viable answer.
You’re right, it’s not a ponzi scheme, it’s the “bigger idiot” scam.
Only because the social pressure after the metoo charade. Visa itself was more than happy to allow these transaction before it. And once all this stigma on adult content will pass, Visa will be more than happy to allow these transactions again. They are money to them.
I'm a crypto-using singulatarian and I claim that. Growth is measured in subjective utility, not finite resource consumption.
It has many more scams though
https://www.web3isgoinggreat.com
I totally agree with you. Cryptocurrencies have their place, and I'm going to make a serious effort to normalize use of Monero because I think it's important to have a digital equivalent to cash for a whole host of reasons, from activists and whistleblowers being able to get support, to an average teenager trying to buy something online discretely without their parents knowing.
Privacy is important, and there should be an option for that.
That said, most cryptocurrencies don't have privacy as a goal, and are instead pure speculation of the higher order. There are a ton of scams in the cryptocurrency space, so you need to be very carefulb when venturing too far outside the norm. Most of the value in most coins is pure hype, not utility.
I don't buy cryptocurrencies as an investment, but I do buy Monero for actual spending.
I don't follow. Mullvad would exist regardless of cryptocurrencies existing, and you could still buy it anonymously with their cash option. Paying with cryptocurrencies is pretty cool, but it's hardly a requirement for it to exist.
Actually agree, generally.
Bitcoin is a pyramid scheme basically, but it's not the only block chain in town.
Anonymous peer-to-peer financial exchanges can actually be good.
Cooperative ledgers can be good.
Public ledgers can be good.
https://theblockchainsocialist.com/
Like.......he doesn't think it exists?
He believes in nothing!
Meh, I'm still making a shit load off of cryptocurrency I've held for a while, idgaf
See, you are the reason that most everybody here hates cryptocurrency. Number go up is not the reason to be in the technology. The reason to be in the technology is for human freedom and privacy and liberty. I may be mischaracterizing you, and if I am, I'm sorry. But that's how this comment comes off.
Who gives a fuck? I’m rich.
I give a fuck
And these my friends, are the only people who use crypto currencies: people who want to get rich from it
It isn't being used to buy anything useful, it isn't designed to make the world a better place.
It is only designed and used to increase profits.
And the only way these make profit is by converting everyone they can using any method they can. Lies, manipulation, scams. All just so they can increase the number and cash out on other peoples money.
All in a days work for a crypto bro.
Don’t want to, already did. Stay poor bro
Well, I guess big name figures have a right to be wrong. Surprising since he is the creator of such a foundational piece of open source software that he would not like another piece of open source software just seems a bit hypocritical in my opinion
inventor of sushi hates my "crumbly strawberry queso" idea? just seems a bit hypocritical imo
Maybe I'm thinking more Richard Stalman than Linus Torvalds. But if he made Linux to promote freedom from corporates, then it seems like he should like cryptocurrency because it's open source as well and permits freedom from government inflation. Humanity has never had a money not controlled by governments, except for gold and silver, and those are not easily sent over the internet.
In that case, though, why should it matter if Linus Torvalds promotes it? Something is a money if it is generally accepted as payment; gold and silver have self-evident value to people, and governments can use violence to ensure the value of money, but celebrity endorsement is hardly a reason to accept something as money.
Exactly. In Linux, he is God. In the rest of the world, he's just your average dude. It doesn't matter what he thinks.
He (Linus Torvalds) made Linux as a hobby during his time in college/university to teach him about operating system design. Because it was the part of the operating system called the kernel that the GNU project didn't have yet (more on this in a moment), it became very popular. Richard Stallman created the GNU project because he believed that every person should have the right to study and share the software that runs on their computer.
There is nothing specifically anti-corporate in either of their motivations.
https://archive.org/details/RevolutionOS_201610
Just because it's open?
Being open source is a big deal.
What's the point there? No one has to like something just because it is open.
Fair enough, that should be a point in its favor though, at the very least. Our entire banking system runs on closed source proprietary software that people cannot inspect for vulnerabilities on generally closed source operating systems that people cannot inspect for vulnerabilities.
Being open source does not make it good by default.
The ledger being visible to every node makes it pretty bad. You can figure out the identity of users just by circumstantial evidence.
And just because it's not controlled by the government doesn't mean, there aren't powerful corporate people inside that can and will enact control over the chain. Otherwise Ethereum classic wouldn't exist and Jordan Belford or Peter Thiel wouldn't be fans of crypto.
Nice mind gymnastics you got going there.
I guess we should all get rid of our bitcoin that's worth hundreds of times more than when we bought it, because an operating system kernel developer doesn't like it.
Linus is awesome but he's not a god, his opinion of things outside the Linux kernel is just the opinion of a guy. Stop worshipping him, he doesn't even like it.
Have fun playing hot potato with your savings I guess.
We don't dislike crypto because Linus doesn't like it. We like Linus more because he doesn't like crypto.
If I can make value out of shit, it still stays shit.
Just because you were able to scam others out of their money doesn't mean crypto holds any value to society.
Right, his talk about how he's not very good at computers is pretty funny. I don't understand the crypto hate on Lemmy. Although I guess I don't understand a lot of why things are hated here. I guess crypto is too close to capitalism maybe? Freedom is frowned upon here.
Crypto is hated because it’s an MLM for terminally online people.
It gains value because people want it and people want it because it gains value is both a perfect description of cryptocurrency and scams.
How does this working into Foreign Exchange? This also sounds a lot like trading USD to PESO like my aunt does...
This describes pretty much all moneys.
Cryptocurrencies have a lot of problems, but being a medium of exchange without intrinsic value is not one of them.
People generally don’t trade currencies as commodities or treat them as investments. When the same people promising crypto is totally a currency actually start treating it like a stable currency to exchange for goods and services and not an investment or commodity to be traded, I might revisit it. For now, the evangelists refuse to walk the walk.
A metric shit ton of people use currencies as investments. Forex trading is pretty big and been around a long time.
I said generally. Your parents who get paid in local currency for their job are not trading in foreign currencies. The fact that rich people can find ways to squeeze more money out of just about anything isn’t a win for cryptocurrencies.
The main test is to give cryptocurrency to my grandparents and they should be able to figure that out and do their grocery shopping. I pity the people having to explain how to use cryptocurrency to my grandparents at the cash register.
Kind of the same idea as explaining how tap your card/phone or credit cards work though.
My parents do this regularly. There are many Latino American families who regularly exchange USD to PESO and vise versa.
You have obviously have not heard of forex and the vast quantity of money that flows through it on a daily basis if you think currencies are not traded as commodities, nor have you heard of places like Argentina or Turkey apparently if you don't know currencies are treated as investments.
There are many many scams in cryptoworld but there is no need to throw out the baby with the bath water as it were. Crypto can and is being used as valid alternative to fractional reserve issued currency; the thriving and resilient darknet proves it so.
I don't think that's how the typical guy/gal you'd bump into on the street uses their bank balance.
I appreciate and applaud anything that can even attempt to separate state and money. That will imho be the best thing for humanity since the separation of state and religion.
I look forward to the day VISA and MASTERCARD become obsolete! Please save my aunt's small business from predatory transaction fees. ♥
I have no like of transaction fees but... you know they exist in the cryptocurrency world right? And that they're generally higher? Those transactions take work and aren't done out of charity.
Buttcoin is pretty slow. To my understanding many other coins have already evolved past Bitcoin's slow ass speed.
Or gold, or any other precious metal, or any other currency really for that matter….
Tangible items can have utility in the real world, where cryptocurrencies can never be anything more than numbers on a display.
Gold can be used in electronics, and I get that people are mad that currencies are just something we all mutually agree have value, but generally speaking powerful governments back those up. Cryptocurrency is backed up by people promising it’s totally gonna be a real currency any second now. Please ignore that crypto can wildly fluctuate in value which generally a horrible thing for a currency to do.
You could very well make the argument that ultimately crypto is backed by energy, which is something we all agree has value. Without energy, you can't go to work, heat or cool your house or anything like that. If you believe that electricity is fundamental for society, then by extension, crypto is backed by the most fundamental force that there is even bigger than a government.
Crypto is just evidence energy was used. It’s not stored energy.
Oh, but it is, because you could exchange it for something else. As an example, I can take mine and go exchange it for groceries.
You can also use it to... pay for that energy you just used... Hooray!! /s
But it’s not backed by energy.
The energy was consumed in the process of creating the crypto, that energy no longer exists and since it doesn’t exist it can’t back anything.
Isn't there a person that famously said something to the effect of energy is neither created nor destroyed, only modified? I want to say it was like Isaac Newton or something. Some big name anyway. So you're not destroying the energy. You're changing the energy into heat, which during the winter can heat your home as a subsidy to your furnace, and you are turning it into a digital representation that you can take and spend anywhere in the world.
Still not describing anything that indicates it backs it.
Good news though, I did reply again so feel free to condescendingly demonstrate your intelligence again.
I get you're desperately trying to sound smart, but in this context, "energy" meant electricity. Because that's what it takes to produce cryptocurrency. Not the general definition in the realm of physics study. And electricity can most certainly be created and destroyed.
When you buy gold, you have the gold. It's backed by the thing you have.
When you buy cryptocurrency, you don't have the electricity that was spent in fabricating those numbers. You don't get sent a battery in the post. You have nothing.
In this case the heat is something data centers spend even more energy and water on to dispose of
Hard disagree here, I literally cannot access a cryptocurrency without power but I can absolutely pay cash to buy some water during a power outage.
Sure you can. There's absolutely nothing stopping somebody from putting a private key on a piece of paper and loading money onto it and spending it physically as long as the private key has not been exposed. Kind of like those Amazon scratch-off gift cards. And just to prove my point, take a look at this.
https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/Casascius_physical_bitcoins
Yes I’m sure the 7-11 cashier would love for me to try this.
Except that's not what "backed by" means. It consumes energy. You can never exchange cryptocurrency to get the energy that it consumed back.
Have you tried running a cryptocurrency miner during the dead of winter? It makes your electricity bills quite a bit lower. That's for certain.
I haven't seen an exchange where I can trade in Crypto for kilowatt-hours.
Coinsbee.com allows you to purchase debit cards, which you can then use to purchase kilowatt hours.
Translation: actual currencies can be used to purchase energy, but cryptocurrency cannot.
What you're saying is precisely like saying "I know a guy that trades turnips for money. Therefore turnips are a great currency that you can buy anything with."
Haven’t multiple governments accepted it as real currency at this point? The arguments are valid, but fall flat when you actually look into each.
Hell diamonds are valuable because of artificial scarcity, so that’s a wrench in every precious metal argument….
Yeah, El Salvador, people from there told me quite recently that it's not at all what the government propaganda is trying to sell. Nobody uses Bitcoin and it is only accepted by a few state institutions. As for Venezuela, we had Petros for a while, now the shitcoin has been completely phased out and discontinued since nobody but a few oligarch used it to launder money.
The only two countries that accept bitcoin as a legal tender are noted powerhouses El Salvador and the Central African Republic… not exactly world leaders.
No, no major government has completely adopted cryptocurrency as legal tender. El Salvador became the first country in the world to do so in September 2021, but there have been significant challenges :
Cryptocurrencies are still considered too volatile and risky by most governments for everyday transactions.
And crypto is more stable than some governments' real currency. It's been a life saver for some people.
It's also a lot faster for transactions than normal banking when sending money to people in other countries.
It's still in the early days... like email in the late 80s / early 90s. It should get better, but there's so much crap and scams out there right now. It's still very much the wild west. It's like Wall Street on acid.
EDIT: people downvote but don't say what was wrong. Awesome.
They downvote the truth and/or facts when they are contrary to the hive mind.
The circlejerking and hive mind on Lemmy is shockingly worse than Reddit somehow. Not what I ever expected.
Okay, go buy some of Rudy Giuliani's gold then. Enjoy.
Gold is actually used as a critical component in the creation of computers and other vitally important industries.
If crypto had pivoted to freedom and prioritized mass-adoption, it would have been great. Instead, almost everyone who invested got more people to buy in, dumped it, and got their payday. So yes, very much like capitalism.
Really, the only crypto that comes anywhere near :
Is Monero. Unfortunately, it falls short when it comes to mass-adoption. Still, it's just as volatile as any other crapto-currency, so using it as an investment vehicle is a bad idea. It seems almost like crapto-currency is fundamentally incompatible with stock market style investments.
I agree with you. I think people are using it wrong. It's a currency for a reason. It's meant to buy and sell goods and services. I should be able to buy a house with it. I should be able to buy a car with it. I should be able to go to the doctor and pay the doctor with it or buy some eggs from the farmer's market with it. But instead, people want to treat it like a stock market thing. And that's not what it was designed to be. It was designed to be an ultimate check on the government's authority to steal from their citizens through inflation. And anybody who tells you different is either a damn liar or has an agenda.
Unfortunately that's just not how most crypto currency is designed. Really, most crypto currency are essentially an extremely volatile private bank with a user-federated money printer.
Most are just an obfuscation of global inflation and yet still highly influenced by governments.
Allowing governments to track the transactions makes crypto basically just a crappy version of credit cards.
I completely agree. Most cryptocurrency is a stupid mess and I would never ever get involved in it. That word most is the keyword, though. That implies that there are some that are actually valuable for their own sake. And I believe that to be Monero, which is why I personally use it. Monero does not allow the government to see your finances at any time and so they absolutely hate it and try to demonize it at every chance they get.
Completely agree. By obfuscating the blockchain transactions, monero is essentially digital cash (at least when it comes to monero-to-monero transactions); what craptocurrency is supposed to be. That's why governments hate it so much, it's hard to tax transactions they can't see and it's hard to regulate something you can't control or track. That's why governments opted to ban it outright.
Still, the whole "being used as a stock market" is a problem for monero too. To a lesser degree than other cryptos, monero still was heavily impacted by the crypto bubble-pop. Monero has a lot of technical merit, unfortunately it's being soiled by the failure of competing cryptos.
You don't get into Monero for mad gains, which is what people don't seem to get. They are in cryptocurrency for number go up, and I absolutely despise them for it. Monero is growing in adoption, even with the government adversity towards it. It is still growing. In fact, a decentralized exchange called Haveno just launched last Tuesday which will make it completely impossible to ever actually kill Monero's Fiat 2 Monero Exchange
I would like to introduce you to my friend Monero. It actually gets used as a currency and has people who believe in human freedom using it, which is why the government's hate it so much and purposely try to get it delisted from as many exchanges as they possibly can because they do not want normals like us to have it.
I have a long day of paying rent, then buying groceries, coffee, and fast food tomorrow. If you can detail how I will accomplish that with Monero, I am on your side. And keep in mind, "expensive, inconvenient currency-switching" may work for me, but it won't work for most people. Be realistic.
https://coinsbee.com, https://monerica.com.
I have personally been purchasing my groceries every month with Monero for a year and a half now since January of 2023. I also actively search out companies that take Monero and purposely buy from them whenever possible.
Shitcoins yes, bitcoin no. If you fell for Craig Wright's scams you'd fall for any other kind of scam also.
the idea of crypto on its not bad on its own, its just there are a lot of bad actors agressively trying to prop up the value of some arbitrary crypto without actually selling a good or service in order to make a quick buck.
at least teams like the one behind Axie Infinity offered a product/service. Most don't, which is the problem.
if your marketing essentially has to relate to other people buying into buying it, then theres a big problem.
Which is primarily the reason that I will only use Monero. It actually offers something that other cryptocurrencies do not. And that's privacy. If you need to see which crypto to buy or use, look at the government's efforts. The government has Wall Street accepting Bitcoin and put in people's retirement accounts. Why? Because they can control it. Where with Monero, they're trying to purposely get it delisted from every single exchange they can possibly get away with. Why would they be so willing for you to have Bitcoin? But not willing at all for you to have Monero? Simple. Because with Bitcoin, they can see everything you spend at all times and see your balance at all times. Where with Monero, they can't control it and they know it. Monero is what Bitcoin people thought they bought.
Because it went from being a novel decentralized payment method, into a speculative asset, and finally a Wall Street commodity.
Yes, I know there are projects where that core ethos is still relatively intact, but those aren't what come to mind whenever people publicly discusses "crypto".
I hate it in part because its adherents seem intent to relearn all the mistakes of the free banking era and constantly evangelize long-debunked economic theories. It’s like the goldbuggism of libertarian cranks of yore.
Also, for Bitcoin specifically, the extra demand for electricity raises rates for nearby residents. It’s essentially a transfer of wealth from ratepayers. A lot of them are in Texas and if you think Texas has “excess capacity,” then explain why they literally pay bitcoin miners an absurd amount not to mine when there’s a cold snap or heat wave.
I could go on about fraud and money laundering but I think being dumb as shit and raising electricity bills is plenty reason to hate it.
I dislike crypto for the grift but also that people had repackaged it as a form of DRM in NFT's, it became commercialisation in the extreme promoting materialism.
Also Cryptos relation to libertarianism makes it very off putting.
If you were not living in a powerful first world country, you would like it a hell of a lot more. It is such a luxury to not have to constantly be worried about your currency collapsing. In places like Turkiye, crypto is massively popular because their currency is constantly devaluing. There are many countries like this that many Americans and Europeans seem to forget even exist.
It probably won't be too long until even the spoiled nations will want to be able to hold value somewhere that isn't free falling as well. The US is now paying more to service their debt than they are to the military. Not everyone can afford to hold their wealth in real estate and successful businesses.
Please get fucked on assuming where i live and inturn my life style.
If capitalism died we wouldn't have first world countries feeding on third world countries. Crypto won't help with this issue, you will still have american companies drilling oil out of third world countries paying workers fuck all, sweat shops will still need to be somewhere too and the capitalist would prefer it away from they're first world country. If anything crypto will only shield the exploiters but at least the libertarian can be happy whilst getting fucked by daddy bazos.
Read my comment again, you entirely missed the point. This has nothing to do with anything you pointed out. I guarantee you don't live In a poor country because there isn't a chance that you would have no idea how much they are benefiting from bitcoin. I'm sorry you're so offended, but you were your ignorance so prominently that it isn't hard to see at all. I'm also in the 1st world, but I desire to understand the whole picture enough to be able to tell. Use your anger over something you know nothing about as a guide of where to educate yourself.
I saw the point you where trying to make, diminishing my knowledge in the matter due to your presumption of my privileges.
Then railroading off with how its good as poor countries are forced to invest in these schemes.
Do you know much of rune scape gold farming? Gold farming in rune scape was very profitable. Westerners would pay slave wages to poor countries to play and farm in run scape working 60 hours, this was eventually broken up which also didn't lead to a good outcome as a large community lost the financial structure they depended, essentially chewing up and spitting out the disadvantaged.
Similar instances have popped up since crypto where again it has created a work force built on shaky ground which doesn't just exploit but creates a dependency on something liable to fail.
So again no crypto will not fix third world problems as it allows for massive exploitation.
Oh my. Hold your horses buddy. Nobody is forcing poor people to buy bitcoin. People are just faced with a choice, they can hold their value in fiat currencies that corrupt governments are printing like crazy, or they hold their value in a decentralized currency that nobody has control over and nobody can print on a whim. Just because you feel like you missed out on a good investment and so you are bitter towards an entire growing industry doesn't matter at all to people who are using it to escape corruption.
It really isn't nearly as complex or evil as you think it is. It really is just a way for people who have repeatedly been screwed over by corrupt politicians to escape corruption. It's just a matter of time until more and more people around you realize the same, and eventually you will join in, albeit a bit late due to your ignorant bitterness. You do yourself no favors by being against something simply because you don't take the time to understand it.
like nobody is forcing the poor to drink dirty water or go without food..
you make a lot of assumptions. next you'll be calling me a basement dweller.
capitalism isn't evil, guns aren't evil, physical currencies aren't evil, they are instead an easily manipulated vehicle that intern can be used for evil. crypto has proven itself with the sheer amount of scams to be easily manipulated. i don't see crypto as complex, i have followed it since 2013 and have a good understanding of encryption and decentralized systems as well as economics.
the main reason i don't like or see use for crypto is that i am a socialist, crypto goes against core socialist economic values. it also pollutes as the oil cost is high, it promotes commercialization, its abusive to human psychology with fomo, it feeds into libertarianism.
Exactly. These people seem to have no idea what they're talking about and or flip flop on issues. As an example, they flocked to open source software. The minute a billionaire bought the company they previously used, because in open source software, they finally see that no billionaire can buy it and control it like they can a closed source system. But yet, oh no, we can't have open source money. That doesn't make any sense.
Open source isn't a buzz word that brings people flocking over, its a definition of key features. Shit products can still exist in that space.
I’m genuinely struggling to understand what this sentence means. Is it badly worded or am I just brainfarting?
Oh, sorry. I was using voice dictation to type that and it put a period in the wrong place. That is not the beginning of a nuisance. I was intending to say that they flock to open source software the minute that a billionaire buys the thing they were using because they realize that a billionaire can't buy open source software.
Oh, that makes sense.
I think “open source money” is a great idea and I’m sure many here do too, but as others pointed out in the replies, cryptocurrency has a lot of issues at the moment for that to be viable.
Also, a lot of the hate probably comes from all the people shilling for it and the whole “get rich with this!!!” narrative around it.
Yeah, I'm not in it for those get rich quick reasons and I despise people who are. I am in it for the tech and the potential to increase human freedom around the world.