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?
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)
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.
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.
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.
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.
You’re willingly replying to me and I’m willingly replying back within a thread. That’s called a conversation.
If you really wanted a conversation, you wouldn’t be talking like a condescending douche as you did in the above quoted part. It wouldn’t fly offline, or very far outside of . At all.
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.
Sure, but you keep dae le devil’s advocating for it anyway, under pretenses of what it could be if only so many things were different to the point that there’s nothing left but pretenses of DAE LE SCIENCE™ in such a fantastical different world. In short, I’m accusing you of bad faith argumentation and I haven’t seen anything to convince me otherwise.
If you’re a leftist in any form, stop making bullshit assumptions
We have a world to take, comrade, and this kind of false-premise ranting isn’t how we do it.
No wonder you don’t want bullshit, because you brought a heavy heaping steaming pile of your own, and it involves either credulously buying into the lie, or spreading the lie, that your transactional number magic is totally key, essential, or somehow just very useful, pinkie promise, for taking that world for… who exactly? Roughly the same group of rich assholes that have staggering majority stakes in the blockchain magic you keep hyping up, even while supposedly accepting how damaging and problematic it actually is in the living world that actually exists and not the fantastical alternate scenario you keep hinting at where the pedantically-pure number magic is allowed to work its miracles and somehow does it without further burning the planet down and wasting even more energy?
I don’t believe what you claim your intentions really are, you’ve already gone full in sheer condescending arrogance in your last comment, and even if I took what you said at face value, what you’re talking about doesn’t even really seem productive, meaningful, or even interesting if you totally don’t believe cryptocurrency grifts but just want to argue for the sake of arguing about what they could be if so many variables were changed that cryptocurrency (and the sheer energy and pollution disaster that is currently applied blockchain technology) is best not being a factor at all.
TL;DR You’re just congratulating yourself at this point with sheer arrogance and announcements about how you’re refining the sharp katana of your wit so you may cut down the ignorant and show them the light of The True Uncorrupted Blockchain or… whatever. I don’t want to give you a hand with that.
In short, I’m accusing you of bad faith argumentation and I haven’t seen anything to convince me otherwise.
Alright, here it is without any of the bloat. My argument, and then more importantly, why calling out incorrect terminology even matters:
[click to expand]
A scam is a fraudulent scheme. (That’s not some obscure technicality, that’s what OP meant, and what business articles and English dictionaries generally define it as.)
Cryptocurrency, such as Bitcoin, isn’t fraudulent (it acts as consumers expect it to: a valuable item capable of digital anonymous exchange).
Whether it is harmful to our planet (true) is irrelevant to whether it is a scam.
Whether people should stop using it (true) is irrelevant to whether it is a scam.
Whether people abuse it for scams (true) is irrelevant to whether it is a scam. They were already doing the same with cash prior, and they do that with anything of value.
None of this is defending cryptocurrency. I am not defending it, and I keep saying that I agree it’s bad. I am saying it is not a scam, people use it and they aren’t being swindled.
.
The reason why making this kind of distinction matters is that critique of anything should be relevant. That’s a bit abstract, so I’ll illustrate with a much more extreme example that I’ve seen from other people.
If someone ignorantly supports Joe Biden, labeling them a literal neo-Nazi has zero rhetorical value there, but also zero analytical value. Anyone with a basic knowledge of what Nazis are will understand this is inaccurate and either an ignorant accusation or bad faith name-calling, and will probably dismiss their further points. But also, someone who actually believes Biden is a neo-Nazi will not be as effective in combating Biden’s regime (this will be explained later).
Pointing out that Biden is a racist, nationalist, fascism-enabler and the head of a genocidal regime, and therefore supporting them is harmful, on the other hand, is much more realistic. It still conveys that Biden is disgusting and deserves a bullet. It still conveys most of the same ideas. But this time, the critique makes a more accurate and therefore convincing and sturdy claim.
Having a more accurate understanding of Biden will allow us to better predict how they will act, and how to prepare. Biden isn’t going to say “Death to the Jews, let’s put the trans in camps”. Biden is going to slip out shit like “you ain’t Black”, make laws that hurt the disadvantaged in more subtle ways, and will fail to act to defend trans people. Biden is going to be more subtle than any neo-Nazi. A neoliberal and a neo-Nazi will do different acts and require different approaches to get mainstream people to realize how horrific they are.
Maybe Biden is a strange example for prediction, but another case would be DeSantis and Trump. Yes they’re both horrible, horrible fuckers who deserve the same ending. But, how will they both act differently? Will one be more concerned with corruption, self-image and self-gain than enacting ideological goals? Will one be more effective in implementing their goals than the other? That can be the difference between life and death for many, many people.
It’s not just a trivial technicality, using appropriate crits is the difference between being credible and being ridiculous, and applying the right classifications can be the difference between understanding something and misinterpreting it. And that will have serious consequences.
None of this is defending cryptocurrency. I am not defending it
Is there even a purpose to your “the bad thing is actually good if almost everything about how it’s being used and what it’s doing to society and the planet was different somehow with very different societal conditions” devil’s advocacy, besides sharpening the katana of you wit or whatever you’re going on about then?
It’s not just a trivial technicality, using appropriate crits is the difference between being credible and being ridiculous
Your motives here at this point seem trivial and ridiculous to me, especially if I take your claims at face value about how you’re not actually supporting cryptogrifting, then throw dictionaries at me about what fraud actually is and how SCIENCE!™ can totally be furthered by way of the planet burning carbon dumping cumulatively worse waste of electricity that is technically not fraud at a coding level so that makes it innocent of all the fraud done with it.
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.
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.
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?
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.
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.
Alright, what about Bitcoin is fraudulent? We agree it’s bad, but that doesn’t make it fraudulent (i.e. a scam)
“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.
At present the alternative is not doing it because it’s still a net negative when it comes to wasted energy and environmental damage.
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
Agreeing with the parts re: net negative. No, I don’t invest in cryptocurrency; like I said, investing in them is a scam.
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!
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.
Oh, also:
https://www.merriam-webster.com/wordplay/sealioning-internet-trolling
You just failed at sea lioning me about sea lioning.
https://www.merriam-webster.com/wordplay/sealioning-internet-trolling
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 ]
No.
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 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.
If you really wanted a conversation, you wouldn’t be talking like a condescending douche as you did in the above quoted part. It wouldn’t fly offline, or very far outside of
. At all.
Sure, but you keep dae le devil’s advocating for it anyway, under pretenses of what it could be if only so many things were different to the point that there’s nothing left but pretenses of DAE LE SCIENCE™ in such a fantastical different world. In short, I’m accusing you of bad faith argumentation and I haven’t seen anything to convince me otherwise.
No wonder you don’t want bullshit, because you brought a heavy heaping steaming pile of your own, and it involves either credulously buying into the lie, or spreading the lie, that your transactional number magic is totally key, essential, or somehow just very useful, pinkie promise, for taking that world for… who exactly? Roughly the same group of rich assholes that have staggering majority stakes in the blockchain magic you keep hyping up, even while supposedly accepting how damaging and problematic it actually is in the living world that actually exists and not the fantastical alternate scenario you keep hinting at where the pedantically-pure number magic is allowed to work its miracles and somehow does it without further burning the planet down and wasting even more energy?
I don’t believe what you claim your intentions really are, you’ve already gone full
in sheer condescending arrogance in your last comment, and even if I took what you said at face value, what you’re talking about doesn’t even really seem productive, meaningful, or even interesting if you totally don’t believe cryptocurrency grifts but just want to argue for the sake of arguing about what they could be if so many variables were changed that cryptocurrency (and the sheer energy and pollution disaster that is currently applied blockchain technology) is best not being a factor at all.
TL;DR You’re just congratulating yourself at this point with sheer
arrogance and announcements about how you’re refining the sharp katana of your wit so you may cut down the ignorant and show them the light of The True Uncorrupted Blockchain or… whatever. I don’t want to give you a hand with that. 
Alright, here it is without any of the bloat. My argument, and then more importantly, why calling out incorrect terminology even matters:
[click to expand]
.
The reason why making this kind of distinction matters is that critique of anything should be relevant. That’s a bit abstract, so I’ll illustrate with a much more extreme example that I’ve seen from other people.
If someone ignorantly supports Joe Biden, labeling them a literal neo-Nazi has zero rhetorical value there, but also zero analytical value. Anyone with a basic knowledge of what Nazis are will understand this is inaccurate and either an ignorant accusation or bad faith name-calling, and will probably dismiss their further points. But also, someone who actually believes Biden is a neo-Nazi will not be as effective in combating Biden’s regime (this will be explained later).
Pointing out that Biden is a racist, nationalist, fascism-enabler and the head of a genocidal regime, and therefore supporting them is harmful, on the other hand, is much more realistic. It still conveys that Biden is disgusting and deserves a bullet. It still conveys most of the same ideas. But this time, the critique makes a more accurate and therefore convincing and sturdy claim.
Having a more accurate understanding of Biden will allow us to better predict how they will act, and how to prepare. Biden isn’t going to say “Death to the Jews, let’s put the trans in camps”. Biden is going to slip out shit like “you ain’t Black”, make laws that hurt the disadvantaged in more subtle ways, and will fail to act to defend trans people. Biden is going to be more subtle than any neo-Nazi. A neoliberal and a neo-Nazi will do different acts and require different approaches to get mainstream people to realize how horrific they are.
Maybe Biden is a strange example for prediction, but another case would be DeSantis and Trump. Yes they’re both horrible, horrible fuckers who deserve the same ending. But, how will they both act differently? Will one be more concerned with corruption, self-image and self-gain than enacting ideological goals? Will one be more effective in implementing their goals than the other? That can be the difference between life and death for many, many people.
It’s not just a trivial technicality, using appropriate crits is the difference between being credible and being ridiculous, and applying the right classifications can be the difference between understanding something and misinterpreting it. And that will have serious consequences.
Is there even a purpose to your “the bad thing is actually good if almost everything about how it’s being used and what it’s doing to society and the planet was different somehow with very different societal conditions” devil’s advocacy, besides sharpening the katana of you wit or whatever you’re going on about then?
Your motives here at this point seem trivial and ridiculous to me, especially if I take your claims at face value about how you’re not actually supporting cryptogrifting,
then throw dictionaries at me about what fraud actually 
is and how SCIENCE!™ can totally be furthered by way of the planet burning carbon dumping cumulatively worse waste of electricity that is technically not fraud at a coding level so that makes it innocent of all the fraud done with it. 
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.
Bring me one that isn’t pedantic sea lioning and sure, maybe.
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.
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.
And the forks!