Normal cash is just printed out from thin air by those who have the power. In that sense (some) cryptocurrencies are better because at least the process is open.
I'm OpenClaw user and I never would do that. You can do with OpenClaw that, but it is definitely not the only use case, and I would argue that not even the one that makes sense overall. Most people want to be careful which decisions you want to outsource and which not, and you can direct the AI to work however you prefer. Personally I have developed some projects with OpenClaw, and it does have very limited permissions.
I use it for a side project. I just put it on VPS, and then it edits the code and tests it. The nice thing is that I can use it on the go whenever I have spare moment. It is addictive, but way better addiction than social media IMO.
The thing where you give it access to all your personal data and whatever I haven't done and wouldn't do.
Does it really? Digging up the data from example the 135k instances in the open reeks like bullshit, I would suspect several other claims are exaggerated as well.
This would be awesome with the QR code pointing to a torrent for example from Anna's archive with the albums filepath. The problem with streaming services is that you need an account, and additionally they might remove the music at some point.
I've never understood crypto, however I'm long term Bitcoin fan and user, and don't consider it "crypto". I think Bitcoin is pretty much opposite what the typical crypto project is.
> The block chain is, and always was, an extremely inconvenient database.
Care to elaborate? I have been using Bitcoin now 10+ to store my wealth and make payments, and it has been very convenient - not much time needed to use it, and I think I've gotten plenty of value for my time-investment.
What kind of database would you recommend to make it more convenient? Maybe you can write a guide how to implement decentralized value transfer and storage system on top of PostgreSQL, so that the amount of tokens is limited to 21 Million, with similar security guarantees?
I'm pretty sure these peeps who hang out at /r/buttcoin are going to work like regular people to get some fiat currency to their beloved government blessed bank accounts. So I guess they don't feel like they have enough.
Governments do care, they have developed heavy regulatory frameworks for cryptocurrencies, such as MiCa in EU. I think central banks have been giving (negative) comments about Bitcoin since 2011 or so when it first gained modest publicity.
Governments are huge and consists of many different institutions. I guess many would like to see Bitcoin stopped, but how to do that without fondling with the basic human rights, such as the right to free communication? So far the governments have been regulating it, trying to reduce the illicit use, which doesn't really stop it but actually makes it more legitimate.
Many people who have risked their money by placing it on Bitcoin likely had enough, and they risked the extra money that they had lying around. Why not place bets on something you think might be probable? Is there something morally wrong in making some extra buck? Is it morally superior just to keep your money lying on bank account or what?
Also it is very likely that the advent of Quantum computing would be gradual. There exists bounty addresses, with ascending difficulty to crack. We would see the progress in steps, not suddenly. These quantum tinfoil scenarios just don't make sense.