• anar@lemmy.dbzer0.comEnglish
    0·
    3 months ago

    What a dumb take. You don’t have to go anti-technology in order to be anti-capitalist. The technology itself is not the problem, it’s the capitalist capture that’s the problem. You don’t have to throw the baby with bathwater.

    • jj4211@lemmy.worldEnglish
      0·
      3 months ago

      Problem is I don’t see a baby whatsoever…

      People have looked at it from all sorts of directions and tried to propose use cases but none have come up with any particular use for this concept that isn’t just as well or better served by a different approach.

      Without the crypto-bros, sure, no one would be especially ‘anti-blockchain’ and it wouldn’t have the negative impacts it does today, it just would be a forgotten concept that didn’t go anywhere.

      • RibbidRabbid@sopuli.xyzEnglish
        0·
        3 months ago

        none have come up with any particular use for this concept that isn’t just as well or better served by a different approach

        This is literally the fault of the banks and billionaires controlling them. This is exactly what they want you to believe.

        They’d go bankrupt if people started keeping their money on a blockchain and they will do anything possible to prevent that and push the propaganda in the oop post.

        While it’s partially true, banks and billionaires are much more toxic to this planet and people.

        • JabbaTheThott@lemmy.worldEnglish
          0·
          3 months ago

          So what are the good uses for this tech then? That was the main point you disagreed with but didn’t provide ant examples

  • magic_smoke@lemmy.blahaj.zoneEnglish
    0·
    3 months ago

    Yeah but without anonymous payments (xmr) there’s no good way to easily pay for diy estrogen or hosting for piracy services, or to anonymously pay my mullvad account.

    Granted if society wherent setup as a giant fucking fascist capitalistic panopticon we wouldn’t really need any of that.

    Any who, I mostly agree with the sentiment though. “Career” investors and venture capitalists belong against a fucking wall IMO.

      • clb92@feddit.dkEnglish
        0·
        3 months ago

        The ledger being public doesn’t necessarily mean anyone knows who “13LPtD4GG1XX7fgrze6xMR5V284rRQg9jv” is. But yeah, you can of course track the movement of funds, and make educated guesses on which addresses belong to who.

        • Bonsoir@lemmy.caEnglish
          0·
          3 months ago

          Which is pseudonymous, and not anonymous. Unless we are talking about monero of course.

      • Fmstrat@lemmy.worldEnglish
        0·
        3 months ago

        Not all crypto is the same. ZCASH uses an encrypted ledger. Monero combines transactions and redistributes to obfuscate.

    • stoy@lemmy.zipEnglish
      0·
      3 months ago

      You do know that you can pay for mullvad in cash?

      You can send cash in an envelope to them with your mullvad ID and they will credit your account.

  • neatchee@piefed.socialEnglish
    0·
    3 months ago

    sigh

    Once again:

    Blockchain is not synonymous with cryptomining

    Blockchain does not require proof of work

    Cryptocurrency and NFT grifting does not devalue blockchain as an immutable distributed ledger

    I swear to god people just copy paste whatever makes them feel good without any effort at understanding

    • Cenotaph@mander.xyzEnglish
      0·
      3 months ago

      Immutable so long as no one party or group owns more than half of the coins on a given blockchain… then the ledger is whatever they say it is and it propagates down because they can manufacture their own “consensus”.

      https://www.investopedia.com/terms/1/51-attack.asp

      and most use cases around things like “smart contracts” end up still requiring a trusted third party at some point

      https://pluralistic.net/2022/01/30/the-inevitability-of-trusted-third-parties/

      • endless_nameless@lemmy.worldEnglish
        0·
        3 months ago

        It’s not 51% of the coins, it’s 51% of the computing power on the network. Both of which are virtually impossible in the case of Bitcoin, though not entirely impossible. I just wouldn’t consider a 51% attack even remotely a threat to the network compared to something like government crackdown

        • Matty Roses@lemmy.todayEnglish
          0·
          3 months ago

          That’s PoW. With PoS, it is coin ownership.

          Which is much more distributed than computing power.

          • kwarg@mander.xyzEnglish
            0·
            3 months ago

            I’m not an expert, but I never understood why people would prefer PoS over PoW. Indeed, the latter requires to “waste” larger amounts of energy, but doesn’t PoS favor rich groups of people colluding against the blockchain timeline?