The exchange is a component of crypto, as an industry. Imagine defending social media but shitting on Facebook. To use your words to try and make your argument:
This isn't social media. This is Facebook with a centralized website, with centralized databases, that is run and controlled by humans. In fact, if you use a Facebook there is no use of social media for the most part.
There's a literal saying, "not paying for it, you're the proruct". Only if people would listen.
Why don't you stop accusing me of things I never said and never remotely intended to imply?
I'm not accusing you of anything either. I wasn't thinking for a moment that you were trying to sell me something or that you were shilling.
It's a simple disagreement. I'm unconvinced by the case you're making for specific alternatives. That doesn't mean I'm happy with the status quo.
You have said absolutely nothing to show that Brave would not be in a position to impose content restrictions if their system turned out to be successful.
My concerns about cryptocurrencies are anything but hypothetical. The authorities are extremely jumpy about cryptocurrencies. Regulation is already well under way. There have been crackdowns on crypto exchanges all over the world. Banks are suspending accounts left and right. I was personally invited by the local tax authorities to take part in a consultation on the subject.
And have you not noticed what happened when Facebook threatened to introduce a payment system that only so much as mentioned the word cryptocurrency? It was absolutely crushed before it even got off the ground. Granted, a lot of the concerns were related to Facebook's oligopolist status. But there were also huge concerns about the possibility of widespread money laundering, tax evasion and funding of terrorism.
What we need is a system that inherently limits the size of any financial transactions that a single party can initiate. That is very difficult to do while guaranteeing anonymity.
Let's not accuse each other of bad faith when what we're talking about is simply a difficult problem that many have tried to solve with very limited success.
Why would you make a personal attack based on a discussion about an industry? I didn't think this was a flame war, more a discussion about the crypto industry - I'm not upset, I'm just bored because I'm stuck in hospital with little to do. This is a tech forum, so is it not the right place to discuss tech industries and opinions thereof? I'm not even in the minority in thinking the crypto industry is unproductive and largely centered around scams and greater fool schemes.
I'm not sure what your personal attack has to do with this discussion - I guess you could have that opinion if you wanted.
I'm not advocating for the "industry" side as if it's a dichotomic industry against crypto, or banking against bitcoin. I'm specifically criticizing crypto and especially Bitcoin because the entire ideological mission of the project is to disrupt and disintermediate all of these well-known predatory Industries, when it has done none of this whatsoever. In fact has actually contributed both to incumbent disproportionate inequality of wealth, as well as creating new classes of disproportionate and malignant, aggressively unaccontable wealth. It has backfired in the worst possible way and all the fallout is on the people that was supposed to benefit.
And the and the relative handful of people at the center of the so-called decentralized crypto world are well aware of this and don't give a flying f**.
Congratulations. You just managed to pontificate without making any actual contribution to the argument.
No one is arguing about the general case, but specifically about Brave as a browser. It's bad enough that people are trying to use their general bias about crypto as an argument against using the browser, you are going even further and saying that people should be guilty by association.
To follow your analogy, we are talking specifically about the girl scouts and you are saying you feel justified in branding them as scum because they happen to share a trait with door-to-door salesmen.
My criticism on the original comment is not about his take on crypto, it is about taking that stance about quite literally anything.
If one refuses to argue because they believe the other side is irrational, then abstain for conversation instead of just name-calling/shitting on the thing on a public forum. This is somewhat equivalent to posting some egregious opinion and then saying "don't @ me".
I don't understand what you're arguing. I don't find meaning, value, and substance in memes and digital communities structured around DAOs. I'd much rather be involved in some real world community that is working towards solving some tangible problem instead of wasting my time speculating on pixelated NFTs or buying something that already belongs to every citizen of the United States.
I'm sorry. Sometimes goldbugs, and the crypto hardcore, get pretty far out there on the edge. It can be confusing whether something is an interesting point, worthy of discussion... or just outright "alternative reality", like climate change denial, that you should walk away from.
Are you actually saying that:
1. The payment processors joined this consortium to AVOID helping crytocurrencies catch on in the mainstream?
2. The payment processors are lying about pulling out. Facebook secretly pushed them out, because Facebook wants to start over with a more "pure" cryptocurrency?
I agree with you. I don't think Cryptocat or how the implementation is handled is perfect by any means, but people have been complaining about that for a long time, and we still don't have good alternatives. What I'm saying is that if somebody makes something that is technically sound and is as attractive for regular users, in Syria and elsewhere, then this whole debate becomes relatively moot.
If Nadim is as unwilling to cooperate as you're implying (which I don't think is totally true, but I will grant you that the underlying constructions for the group chat component were switched out recklessly and ignorantly), then surely complaining about it in blog posts will be very ineffective.
These anti-crypto articles by people who have made it their whole career to give anti-crypto talks are just as BS as the crypto scams. I've read many of the articles from her site, but I cannot take anyone seriously who can't give nuanced takes on an industry, be it social media, crypto, AI or whatever. Not everything is black and white, unless you are journalist that's hired to say it is.
I don't want to defend crypto because I also believe it's mostly scams, but saying that all of a ~$1T industry is a scam and absolutely useless just means that you're either ignorant or have political incentives.
This isn't social media. This is Facebook with a centralized website, with centralized databases, that is run and controlled by humans. In fact, if you use a Facebook there is no use of social media for the most part.
There's a literal saying, "not paying for it, you're the proruct". Only if people would listen.
reply