Mozilla's call for cryptocurrency donations angers founder(theregister.com)
theregister.com
Mozilla's call for cryptocurrency donations angers founder
https://www.theregister.com/2022/01/05/mozilla_accepts_cryptocurrency/
206 comments
In short: after Mozilla cheerily announced it's accepting cryptocurrency donations with BitPay, jwz tweeted about it with his unique style of entertaining vitriol: https://mobile.twitter.com/jwz/status/1478022085737803776
Bitpay is probably the worst they could have gone from a PR perspective as they’re also facing a lot of hate from crypto people: they have always been incorporating dark patterns and questionable KYC procedures. Nowadays I think you’ll have to submit passport and a webcam recording to use them for payments or donations at all. They’re like a worse PayPal, except it happens to be with cryptocurrencies instead of credit cards.
It’s kind of the worst of both worlds. But hey, at least they have a process for USD-denominated refunds on those donations. /s
Mozilla should just have thrown up a self-custodied wallet address or two on their website and be done with it instead of awkward emoji-shill-tweeting about Dogecoin through Bitpay.
It’s kind of the worst of both worlds. But hey, at least they have a process for USD-denominated refunds on those donations. /s
Mozilla should just have thrown up a self-custodied wallet address or two on their website and be done with it instead of awkward emoji-shill-tweeting about Dogecoin through Bitpay.
Doesn't sound questionable. In fact it sounds exactly what my bank does.
Unless of course cryptocurrency really is about anonymity, tax evasion and laundering money.
Unless of course cryptocurrency really is about anonymity, tax evasion and laundering money.
You're presenting a false dichotomy. The options are not:
1. Give up your data
2. Be a criminal
The options truly are just those two in my country if I want to open a bank account, buy stocks and etc, so I expected less sketchy crypto exchanges, payment/crypto acc and etc to implement the same mechanisms because otherwise it is very likely that they are simply not following my local laws and are enabling money laundering, tax evasion and other criminal activities to gain market share. The only thing that is a bit different is that if you physically go to branch they will only record your id and address (they don't need a recorded video of you saying the bank name or similar to verify that those documents belong to you).
> it is very likely that they are simply not following my local laws
Places outside of your local jurisdiction are not beholden to your laws.
Also, even you have a third option, which is to just not open a bank account. So again, it's a false dichotomy. Not to mention you could move somewhere that allows non-KYC banking. There are definitely more options than you let on.
Places outside of your local jurisdiction are not beholden to your laws.
Also, even you have a third option, which is to just not open a bank account. So again, it's a false dichotomy. Not to mention you could move somewhere that allows non-KYC banking. There are definitely more options than you let on.
What you said is false, if they are operating in my country (and that is true if they are opening accounts/etc to people in my country) they must comply, it doesn't matter that the server is located in another country or anything like that. About the second point sure if they are not operating from a country that requires id identification and are only dealing with clients from places like that it is true, otherwise they will get in trouble, it is just a matter of time (if I'm not mistaken there are even examples of less dumb crypto exchanges creating multiple entities in multiple countries with slightly different urls so that they can have it both ways).
Totally. BTCPay is an amazing platform for building open source cryptocurrency gateways. I wish they would spin that up and get more folks to run their own open source monetary infrastructure.
0x0nyandesu(1)
I don't like cryptocurrency.
But charities are there to do a job, if someone wants to give them money, it seems silly to refuse.
Accepting a bitcoin and immediately turning it into USD does not mean you politically support cryptocurrency.
But charities are there to do a job, if someone wants to give them money, it seems silly to refuse.
Accepting a bitcoin and immediately turning it into USD does not mean you politically support cryptocurrency.
I disagree. I think accepting payments in cryptocurrency does send a message that you think the ideology behind cryptocurrencies is okay.
As long as the Visa/Mastercard duopoly exists and continues to police what I can and can't spend money on, I will continue to support the ideology behind cryptocurrencies. I lament what they have become, but the initial logic behind their existence remains sound to me.
Honestly curious, what about the ideology behind crypto is not okay? Apart from the high power usage of PoW, which is an unfortunate side-effect, not really part of the ideology.
The Ponzi aspect obviously. Letting gullible millions pay for the crypto barons at the top.
What way of holding wealth is any better in this aspect?
All other forms of holding wealth.
If I buy Apple stock, I have a piece of a company that rakes in billions in actual profit by turning raw materials into useful machinery.
If I buy a US bond, I get interest, and it is guaranteed by the full faith and credit of the United States.
If I buy gold, I own a physically rare and hard to counterfeit asset that humans have valued for thousands of years.
If I have a savings account, I get interest, and the money is guaranteed by the FDIC.
Even dollar bills under the mattress don't decrease in value by 10% in a single day.
If I buy Apple stock, I have a piece of a company that rakes in billions in actual profit by turning raw materials into useful machinery.
If I buy a US bond, I get interest, and it is guaranteed by the full faith and credit of the United States.
If I buy gold, I own a physically rare and hard to counterfeit asset that humans have valued for thousands of years.
If I have a savings account, I get interest, and the money is guaranteed by the FDIC.
Even dollar bills under the mattress don't decrease in value by 10% in a single day.
Sure but your dollar bills under the mattress do not increase 70% in value in one year either. Volatility is not necessarily a bad thing, it means cryptocurrencies are growing. There is a good chance they will stabilize eventually.
Except that gold could be used for industrial purposes, so hoarding it is not only useless, but harmful.
If you own, say, ADA and stake it then those staking pools run smart contracts.
Stocks because (you own part of a company which has assets and/or produces income), real estate obviously.
> Stocks
At current valuations (Shiller PEs ~40), stocks are disconnected from their income. Therefore, if the Fed tapers harder or even reduces the money supply, it will crash. This leads to a "Ponzi" musical chairs aspect where investors getting in last will have bailed out the ones before them.
> Real estate obviously
Valuations are still heavily influenced by monetary policy, but also by intrinsic scarcity. As space runs out around desirable areas, the ways to acquire are increasingly limited to buying from an existing owner.
At current valuations (Shiller PEs ~40), stocks are disconnected from their income. Therefore, if the Fed tapers harder or even reduces the money supply, it will crash. This leads to a "Ponzi" musical chairs aspect where investors getting in last will have bailed out the ones before them.
> Real estate obviously
Valuations are still heavily influenced by monetary policy, but also by intrinsic scarcity. As space runs out around desirable areas, the ways to acquire are increasingly limited to buying from an existing owner.
Right but what effect do stocks changing hands in the stock market have to the company? Perhaps if you had enough of them you could influence the company's direction, but it's the same with some cryptocurrencies.
But for the average retail investor owning stocks is the same Ponzi, no?
But for the average retail investor owning stocks is the same Ponzi, no?
That ain't ideological. The first waves of crypto were driven by ideology now it's driven by market. Getting rich quick is a cult but I wouldn't put it in the same lot as the cypherpunk/libertarian early adopters.
The idea that governments, regardless of their legitimacy or level of competence, can't be trusted to manage the money supply is anti-democratic. Because, after all, governments are also responsible for maintiaing law and order, which is even a more delicate issue since it involves the use of violence. So the government can be trusted to use violence responsibly, but it can't be trusted to manage the money supply? No, this is stupid. The implication is that governments can't be trusted and are essentially oppressive and evil. And democracy isn't a lesser evil, it's just evil. This is the basic tenet of anarcho-capitalism.
Have you seen what is happening in Venezuela? Turkey?
Freedom and democracy is taken, not given. If you ever stop fighting, the government will become complacent and leech away a large part of an economy.
Freedom and democracy is taken, not given. If you ever stop fighting, the government will become complacent and leech away a large part of an economy.
Are you able to find a single government, democratic or not, in human history that did not debase their currency? It’s the story of every failure of every empire.
Humans, and by extension governments cannot be trusted with the money supply. It is just human nature. I don’t think control of issuance of currency is even a matter of democracy — for it is not the people that elect the chair of the central banks, the imf, the bis. People have no say in the monetary policy, it is thrust upon them by the unelected. If the individual could have a choice, would any democratic candidate be bound to follow their wishes? So, instead, we bypass this. Step outside the system where it cannot be corrupted.
You trust humans and governments too much. I trust math. Math won’t let you down like humans will.
Humans, and by extension governments cannot be trusted with the money supply. It is just human nature. I don’t think control of issuance of currency is even a matter of democracy — for it is not the people that elect the chair of the central banks, the imf, the bis. People have no say in the monetary policy, it is thrust upon them by the unelected. If the individual could have a choice, would any democratic candidate be bound to follow their wishes? So, instead, we bypass this. Step outside the system where it cannot be corrupted.
You trust humans and governments too much. I trust math. Math won’t let you down like humans will.
I don’t even know where to start with this comment; it’s so full of non sequiter I find it challenging to assume good faith.
Yes, empires have historically debased their currencies during a decline. Blaming the decline on debasing the currency rather than the other way around is an argument one could mount, but the evidence either way is scant.
As far as elected governments hiring civil servants being anti-democratic goes, must every candidate for every role be voted on? At what point can the people vote for someone and delegate authority to them?
The IMF was created by elected officials and exists with their support.
You have the same say in that as all other voters; you just don’t like being outvoted and have elected to claim the rules are unfair instead.
Yes, empires have historically debased their currencies during a decline. Blaming the decline on debasing the currency rather than the other way around is an argument one could mount, but the evidence either way is scant.
As far as elected governments hiring civil servants being anti-democratic goes, must every candidate for every role be voted on? At what point can the people vote for someone and delegate authority to them?
The IMF was created by elected officials and exists with their support.
You have the same say in that as all other voters; you just don’t like being outvoted and have elected to claim the rules are unfair instead.
Debasing a currency is not necessarily a bad thing so long as inflation rates are kept under control. Sometimes it is necessary to print more money. I'm moderately pro-crypto myself, but I generally trust the Federal Reserve to do a good job.
Keynesian lies. Luckily, with Bitcoin, we can opt out of such delusions.
So you have personally reviewed the code in each cryptocurrency you hold, and you understand all the math behind it?
I certainly do. I’ve found bugs, submitted patches. I not only understand the math, but have written libraries and tools, audited cryptographic implementations and frequently communicate with other developers and engineers in the field.
I have developed educational materials for folks and played with this technology a long time. I will admit I don’t grok every line of the science experiment geth (ethereum client), but I do understand the math, it is the same as Bitcoin. I haven’t been keeping up with Eth client nearly as much as BTC. Running an eth full node needs some real hardware. BTC runs on a potato.
I have developed educational materials for folks and played with this technology a long time. I will admit I don’t grok every line of the science experiment geth (ethereum client), but I do understand the math, it is the same as Bitcoin. I haven’t been keeping up with Eth client nearly as much as BTC. Running an eth full node needs some real hardware. BTC runs on a potato.
There are plenty of governments that can't be trusted to maintain law and order, or to refrain from arbitrary violence. When that happens, we do our best to let people vote with their feet and obtain asylum protection elsewhere, to the greatest feasible extent. Do you view that as an "undemocratic" practice, too?
There are plenty of undemocratic governments out there that can't be trusted to manage the money supply.
Not inclined to you but in general: Someone does X and then judge Y because they have some axe to grind about Y. I despise attitude like this. It's the kind of woke activism that has made the world so toxic.
What if I only accept stable coin?
Accepting money means whatever people perceive it to mean. Charities are unavoidably ideological, and their every action will be interpreted politically. If a charity accepts money from a source some people consider tainted, those people may now consider the charity tainted as well, and they may stop donating.
Mozilla can't satisfy people who seriously see payment systems as an actionable political problem. Those people are too flighty to be courted.
If your organization cares about its carbon footprint it won't use a cryptocurrency. Just like most companies stopped to accept fax as a means of communications.
People stopped using fax because it's inconvenient, slow and shitty quality.
You'll be shocked to know that as a dev, I had to fax Apple several documents a decade ago just to publish in the App Store. They had zero facility to accept it via the internet. Not a joke. Fax from the UK to USA.
same with my bank in the UK when I had to apply for a mortgage, what a pain was to find a service or working fax machine it was
Sounds like bitcoin and its countless variants.
boom boom
boom boom
If your organization cares about its carbon footprint it won't use airplanes. If your organization cares about its carbon footprint it won't use cars.
Why not take this argument all the way?
Why not take this argument all the way?
You appear to be attempting hyperbole, but this is actually a serious concern for lots of charities.
Mozilla already promised to do that.
https://blog.mozilla.org/en/mozilla/mozillas-climate-commitm...
The mentioned examples don't have reasonable alternatives in many scenarios.
Fax usage is growing every year though: https://finance.yahoo.com/news/fax-services-market-revenue-e.... I'm not sure about the carbon footprint of fax, but I think it can't be worse than sending paper through slow mail.
More than 95% of cryptocurrencies are not energy sensitive. This is very misinformed. When people think cryptocurrencies they think Bitcoin which is rapidly falling in market share.
95% is kind of misleading as there are so many shitcoins. I would be more concerned about the energy profile of the TOP X coins by market cap.
From top 10 blockchains by market cap eight are not energy sensitive. Ethereum will stop proof of work this year. So it will only leave Bitcoin to be the carbon monster.
Also, by the usage and transaction volume Bitcoin is already behind Ethereum and others, so it is no longer even top 1 and has been falling against others for the last 4 years.
https://twitter.com/evan_van_ness/status/1471643651608649728...
Also, by the usage and transaction volume Bitcoin is already behind Ethereum and others, so it is no longer even top 1 and has been falling against others for the last 4 years.
https://twitter.com/evan_van_ness/status/1471643651608649728...
They aren't wasteful because they are hardly used.
95% of 10 k. Coins. 66% still buys mainly Bitcoin
95% of 10 k. Coins. 66% still buys mainly Bitcoin
Ethereum alone transfers 35B daily vs. Bitcoin 20B daily, so this statement is absolutely false and Bitcoin is not even number one in the usage.
https://twitter.com/evan_van_ness/status/1471643651608649728...
https://twitter.com/evan_van_ness/status/1471643651608649728...
Ethereum is PoW too at least until some undetermined moment in future.
Is that true? I don't doubt you, just haven't seen any numbers pointing towards that being true is all. If you have some resources I can check out, I'd be very grateful.
In terms of "Total Market Capitalization", Bitcoin currently sits around ~39%[1], which feels unlikely if "66% still buys mainly Bitcoin". But again, you could be right.
- [1] - https://coinmarketcap.com/charts/
In terms of "Total Market Capitalization", Bitcoin currently sits around ~39%[1], which feels unlikely if "66% still buys mainly Bitcoin". But again, you could be right.
- [1] - https://coinmarketcap.com/charts/
I got it from a research per US holder: https://finance.yahoo.com/news/half-us-bitcoin-holders-got-1...
Which assumes both that everyone owning Bitcoin are from the US and that everyone using Bitcoin self-report their ownership.
I can ensure you the number looks very different in reality.
I can ensure you the number looks very different in reality.
Your assurance, as a cryptocurrency advocate, has less than zero value.
> More than 95% of cryptocurrencies are not energy sensitive.
Way more than 95% of the 8900 cryptocurrencies are jokes, like CumRocket.
Way more than 95% of the 8900 cryptocurrencies are jokes, like CumRocket.
I think his objections is what the transactions to do this with the cryptocurrency consume a massive amount of energy and there by contribute to global warming.
This assumes that higher efficiency leads to lower total consumption of energy, the data says otherwise. [1]
It is interesting that "saving energy" has been established as a dogma that does not even get questioned. I guess the propaganda by big energy monopolists about "carbon footprint" was very successful.
Currently nearly the whole world is running a economic system that is based on economic growth and leads to maximizing resource consumption. Sure using resources efficiently does increase the value society can gain from them but not total consumption. If you stop Bitcoin, people will find other means to use the excess energy.
The reasonable way to solve this is to make energy PRODUCTION stop using fossil fuels anymore. Simple as that. That is why we need to keep talking about our carbon footprints so we don't take any action that might go against the interest of certain corporations.
[1] > The data and analyses presented here show that historically, over long time periods, improvements in efficiency have not succeeded in outpacing increases in the quantity of goods and services provided.
https://web.mit.edu/2.813/www/readings/DahmusGutowskiEfficie...
It is interesting that "saving energy" has been established as a dogma that does not even get questioned. I guess the propaganda by big energy monopolists about "carbon footprint" was very successful.
Currently nearly the whole world is running a economic system that is based on economic growth and leads to maximizing resource consumption. Sure using resources efficiently does increase the value society can gain from them but not total consumption. If you stop Bitcoin, people will find other means to use the excess energy.
The reasonable way to solve this is to make energy PRODUCTION stop using fossil fuels anymore. Simple as that. That is why we need to keep talking about our carbon footprints so we don't take any action that might go against the interest of certain corporations.
[1] > The data and analyses presented here show that historically, over long time periods, improvements in efficiency have not succeeded in outpacing increases in the quantity of goods and services provided.
https://web.mit.edu/2.813/www/readings/DahmusGutowskiEfficie...
Although reducing fossil fuel consumption is good, reducing energy consumption offsets the negative ecological effects from any kind of power production.
Like when they say "Reduce, Reuse, Recycle; in that order" for recycling.
Like when they say "Reduce, Reuse, Recycle; in that order" for recycling.
The transactions? I thought it’s the mining that consumes all the energy.
"Mining" means adding transactions to the blockchain. Ad absurdum, if no one transacted bitcoin, there would be nothing to mine. And contrary to what some claim, given Bitcoin's fixed block size and a few other constrained parameters, there is a very clear (and enormous) electrical power cost per transaction (with some range given that transactions are not fixed size - the more participants in a single transaction, and the more metadata, the higher the power cost per transaction).
Mining means finding the hash for the next block. Mining empty blocks if there are no transactions is perfectly fine. The expected size of a block makes no difference to power consumption. The only relevant parameter is the point at which it becomes unprofitable. You could argue that if less fees were spent, some barely profitable mining rigs would be turned off in anticipation. However, Bitcoin is not at the point were fees are decisive yet.
The transactions add value to the network which incentivises mining.
The purpose of mining is to confirm transactions.
That might carry more water if Mozilla wasn't already earning $826.6 million a year.
https://assets.mozilla.net/annualreport/2019/mozilla-fdn-201...
https://assets.mozilla.net/annualreport/2019/mozilla-fdn-201...
Mozilla Foundation isn't a charity, it's a non-profit corporation. Mozilla Corporation however is a corp.
If you accept PoW cryptocurrency you are complicit in the environmental impact of it. End of story.
Vast simplification that isn’t even correct. It’s far more complex than that. Your ignoring many examples of clean energy incentivizing from proof of work mining. But you could just ignore reality cos this story sounds easier to understand.
Using energy for the sake of using energy is pretty dumb. You can try to sugarcoat it all you want, but that’s just how it is.
Just the other some tourist came by in a helicopter, landing in a next-door field to take some visiting friends for a flip. They'd rented the chopper for the day as some sort of perverse idea of an adventure. Complete waste of energy, dumping C into the atmosphere in the cause of their inflated ego and distorted sense of entitlement, but hey...
How is this any different?
(Point being, there are many, many activities people engage in that are a complete waste of energy. Should PoW cryptocurrency mining be singled out for particular excoriation? Personally I'm against it for the exact reasons mentioned along with the reality that Bitcoin has failed in its mission. But let's not pretend it's the only thing we should stop doing.)
How is this any different?
(Point being, there are many, many activities people engage in that are a complete waste of energy. Should PoW cryptocurrency mining be singled out for particular excoriation? Personally I'm against it for the exact reasons mentioned along with the reality that Bitcoin has failed in its mission. But let's not pretend it's the only thing we should stop doing.)
I've written a comment in a similar previous thread on why bitcoin / PoW's energy usage is different from other seemingly wasteful uses of energy. That was over here: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=29367100
Not to repeat it in full, but the short of it is that bitcoin's usage of energy is not for the amount of energy, but because it must expend a certain economic value of energy in order to keep the network secure. If energy becomes cheaper or more efficient, bitcoin must burn more. Bitcoin's energy usage has an adversarial relationship with efficiency. Practically every other use of energy does not have an adversarial relationship, and will accept the same total amount of cheaper energy to do the exact same work with no complaints.
A helicopter will not require twice as much gas to fly the same distance if we happen to make gas twice as cheap.
As a result, yes I think we should single out PoW.
Not to repeat it in full, but the short of it is that bitcoin's usage of energy is not for the amount of energy, but because it must expend a certain economic value of energy in order to keep the network secure. If energy becomes cheaper or more efficient, bitcoin must burn more. Bitcoin's energy usage has an adversarial relationship with efficiency. Practically every other use of energy does not have an adversarial relationship, and will accept the same total amount of cheaper energy to do the exact same work with no complaints.
A helicopter will not require twice as much gas to fly the same distance if we happen to make gas twice as cheap.
As a result, yes I think we should single out PoW.
It's not! Everything you do wastes energy to some extent, the question is how much, and what you're getting out of it. The reason people are mad at crypto is that the benefits are marginal (I mean, it's some fraction of how our money changes hands. Some people have fun with it. I'm fine with being generous, but its benefits are super concentrated and I agree that it's not really very good at its mission of decentralizing currency or whatever) and the energy usage is massive. I mean, there are other things that use a lot of energy too: cars, planes, manufacturing, etc. but we do call them out for it, and when a company says they're committed to the environment and does some token "green" work we hold them to the same standard. The reason you just hear about cryptocurrency more here is that, well, this is a technical forum where it's a frequently encountered topic.
PoW isn't using energy just to use energy. It's using energy to validate a block of transactions in a distributed, untrusted network.
I understand how proof of work works. That’s not what was being discussed here, the point was that justifying proof of work as being a catalyst for clean energy is just stupid, because proof of work has nothing to do with clean energy, it just uses a monumental amount of it and wants to greenwash itself with promises of potentially being clean to justify its continued existence. Like, it’s like people living next to a lake and drinking from it and feeling uneasy that the water might not last if they keep using it, and then you come by and start slurping up half of it, and when people complain you point at some small fraction of the water you’re using coming from desalination or something. Except you don’t care about desalination at all, or even the lake, you just want water cheaply to use massive amounts of it and when people come to you and say you are using massive amounts of water you don’t even stop using the massive amounts of water but instead point at your dinky little desalination plant, which doesn’t do anything in the grand scheme of things and people were working in doing anyways, plus news just came out pumping water on the other side of the lake is even cheaper and the enforcement on how much water you can take from it laxer and you were photographed over there taking all their water too, so yeah. Kind of sick of this argument being pushed at all, and it has nothing do with how blockchain works.
It is using energy just to prove that you’ve used more energy than an attacker is presumed to be able to use. If our energy suddenly became 1000× cheaper and greener, then the mining difficulty would increase by 1000×, and the system would remain equally destructive. And there would be no benefit from this 1000× increase in energy usage—this would not enable more, faster, or cheaper transactions. Just hash values with more zero bits to certify that more energy was used. If that doesn’t qualify as “using energy just to use energy”, then nothing does.
You may be missing the point on security and energy. Think adversarially. If the energy was 1000x for me, it’s 1000x for my adversary too. It’s important that we outspend the adversary if we want secure money.
Yes I know why PoW has to work that way. I explained that in my first sentence. The fact that a PoW system requires honest participants to waste more energy than attackers could in order to function doesn’t make it any less wasteful.
> It’s important that we outspend the adversary if we want secure money.
Money has been secure for literally thousands of years before PoW was invented. Sure, PoW works, but it's the most wasteful solution to the problem of securing transactions that has ever been invented in the history of the world.
Money has been secure for literally thousands of years before PoW was invented. Sure, PoW works, but it's the most wasteful solution to the problem of securing transactions that has ever been invented in the history of the world.
Well, money isn't secure in the sense that it doesn't protect you against inflation like bitcoin does; also, the money in the bank can be taken from you while you can really own cryptocurrencies.
Nothing stops a democratic country from deiciding they don't want to accept inflation in their fiat currency, just like in Bitcoin. The reasons this isn't done are complex, having some amount of corruption but also knowing that printing money is the only known way of getting out of a deep economic crisis, like the great depression.
And Bitcoin will not protect anyone from non-financial inflation, such as rising energy prices causing a rise in prices for most other goods. If anything, Bitcoin would make kt harder to actually transact in this type of market potentially leading to problems of simply there not being enough money for the economy to function.
Finally, while Bitcoin may give some protection from a hostile government, it also leaves you with no protection for much more common cases of fraud, forgotten/destroyed passwords etc. Not to mention, most people transact Bitcoin through an exchange, the equivalent of a bank, which could probably be forced to cede control of "your" wallet to a government just as much as any other financial institution.
And Bitcoin will not protect anyone from non-financial inflation, such as rising energy prices causing a rise in prices for most other goods. If anything, Bitcoin would make kt harder to actually transact in this type of market potentially leading to problems of simply there not being enough money for the economy to function.
Finally, while Bitcoin may give some protection from a hostile government, it also leaves you with no protection for much more common cases of fraud, forgotten/destroyed passwords etc. Not to mention, most people transact Bitcoin through an exchange, the equivalent of a bank, which could probably be forced to cede control of "your" wallet to a government just as much as any other financial institution.
No, it isn't. "Validating" a transaction takes very little energy -- in most cases, it's a simple ECDSA signature check.
What's being "validated" by PoW mining is that someone has done a bunch of expensive, energy-intensive work on a block of transactions to satisfy an arbitrary condition (that a hash of the block be less than a target value). Explaining how this actually "secures the transactions" involves a great deal more hand-waving.
What's being "validated" by PoW mining is that someone has done a bunch of expensive, energy-intensive work on a block of transactions to satisfy an arbitrary condition (that a hash of the block be less than a target value). Explaining how this actually "secures the transactions" involves a great deal more hand-waving.
No hand waving. One needs to outspend the energy (hash rate of the network) to undo transactions, censor or reorder transactions. The (probabilistic) finality of the transactions is contingent on the energy spent. It’s not a complex idea.
Bitcoin's hashrate has dropped by 50% a number of times and no transactions have been undone, censored or reordered. This is pretty solid evidence that at least a large percentage (if not all) of the energy spent by bitcoin is wasted.
Sure, but that goal in itself is dubious at best. And, PoW is using the maximum possible amount of energy to achieve such a goal.
It's basically like heating your home by adding CPUs in your walls and having them compute the digits of Pi instead of running current through a resistor, because you don't want to have to trust Big Resistor.
The bitcoin network is far more centralized than traditional payment systems, many orders of magnitude slower, and it uses as much electrical energy as entire countries to achieve this.
It's basically like heating your home by adding CPUs in your walls and having them compute the digits of Pi instead of running current through a resistor, because you don't want to have to trust Big Resistor.
The bitcoin network is far more centralized than traditional payment systems, many orders of magnitude slower, and it uses as much electrical energy as entire countries to achieve this.
The amount of power that is used in PoW is not correlated to the transaction volume. Sending more transactions does not use more energy. The amount of power used is linked to the ratio of power needed to mine a block vs the mining reward.
But you are supporting and endorsing a network that causes a massive waste of energy in the midst of a climate crisis.
If I take gold bars, emeralds, or diamonds, I’m supporting mining. If I take USD, I’m supporting the US military complex.
If someone wants to give me money and happens to have it in BTC, either they’re going to convert it or I am. I might as well make it easy for them. (I’m generally anti-BTC, but if I were taking donations, I’ll find a way to take what you want to give me.)
If someone wants to give me money and happens to have it in BTC, either they’re going to convert it or I am. I might as well make it easy for them. (I’m generally anti-BTC, but if I were taking donations, I’ll find a way to take what you want to give me.)
One of those you're legally obligated to use. All the others are 100% optional and frankly a lot of people do intentional avoid them for ideological reasons such a the whole "blood diamond" issue. Ethically sourcing mined resources has been a very big deal for Apple and Intel recently too.
Who is forcing you to be in the USA?
The USA government taxes you globally leaving the country doesn't stop this. Unless you can get citizenship in another country and revoke you're USA citizenship leaving the USA doesn't do anything.
Only after $110,000 earned in a year, before that you just pay taxes in the country you earned them but yes please continue… I want to hear more things you don’t fully understand.
This is so funny to me. People always forget that immigration elsewhere also isn't trivial. Otherwise we wouldn't have the problem of statelessness.
Every time someone says "if you don't like it here, go somewhere else / home" with an anti-immigration stance (even if they're talking to people born / naturalized in that country) they're asking them to be an immigrant elsewhere.
Every time someone says "if you don't like it here, go somewhere else / home" with an anti-immigration stance (even if they're talking to people born / naturalized in that country) they're asking them to be an immigrant elsewhere.
I never said that it was easy, I'm simply rejecting the idea that you're legally obliged to use the USD.
If you have a strong conviction, you can be expected to be strongly inconvenienced by it. Otherwise, it is just moral posturing.
> The amount of power that is used in PoW is not correlated to the transaction volume.
Of course it is, since a block holds a max number of transactions. Say a block can hold between 1 and 1000 transactions. Then, mining a block takes 1 kWh. This means that a transaction takes between 1 kWh and 1Wh, depending on transaction size (number of wallets involved, other metadata etc).
Of course it is, since a block holds a max number of transactions. Say a block can hold between 1 and 1000 transactions. Then, mining a block takes 1 kWh. This means that a transaction takes between 1 kWh and 1Wh, depending on transaction size (number of wallets involved, other metadata etc).
rasengan(2)
If people pay me to (say) kill puppies, is Mozilla obliged to accept my money?
They should. What good does it do to make puppy killers richer? People (incorrectly) think that a donation means that you are owed something in return.
This is an absurd view. Having your charity financially dependent on puppy killers or (say) weapons manufacturers undermines your ability to act ethically in various situations, which you may or may not see as important. Here you might picture Assange taking Russian money (indirectly) and the ethical swamp he finds himself in when he criticising behaviour that is an assault on journalism in the west while deciding whether or not to cover the astounding number of journalists in Russia that tend to fall out of windows.
A bigger problem is that it swiftly undermines an important trait of a charity which is: that it ought to represent ethical action in at least some (palatable) framework that appeals to people who would consider donating toward that work. For example, I donated to Wikileaks years before Assange's choices made that work highly questionable, and like many other observers would now never consider donating to wikileaks again. The damage to Wikileaks' credibility has hit the organisation in both financial and cultural spheres. Their ability to advocate depends significantly on their reputation.
Not every charities end up with a conundrum quite this dramatic, but it's not uncommon they face some. One example is LGBTQ charities, who are offered money by large organisations which those organisation in return use to portray themselves as more progressive. Those same orgs may still have discriminatory hiring practices or a troubled history with LGBTQ community, and where that occurs, the act of taking that money significantly undermines the charities' reputation among the LGBTQ community itself. This isn't hypothetical, I've seen this happen, both with large companies and with police, which for many decades persecuted LGBTQ people—and in some places still do.
A bigger problem is that it swiftly undermines an important trait of a charity which is: that it ought to represent ethical action in at least some (palatable) framework that appeals to people who would consider donating toward that work. For example, I donated to Wikileaks years before Assange's choices made that work highly questionable, and like many other observers would now never consider donating to wikileaks again. The damage to Wikileaks' credibility has hit the organisation in both financial and cultural spheres. Their ability to advocate depends significantly on their reputation.
Not every charities end up with a conundrum quite this dramatic, but it's not uncommon they face some. One example is LGBTQ charities, who are offered money by large organisations which those organisation in return use to portray themselves as more progressive. Those same orgs may still have discriminatory hiring practices or a troubled history with LGBTQ community, and where that occurs, the act of taking that money significantly undermines the charities' reputation among the LGBTQ community itself. This isn't hypothetical, I've seen this happen, both with large companies and with police, which for many decades persecuted LGBTQ people—and in some places still do.
> This is an absurd view. Having your charity financially dependent on puppy killers or (say) weapons manufacturers undermines your ability to act ethically in various situations, which you may or may not see as important
Now if we remember that Mozilla, the company, is financially dependent on Google money for the deal of making it the default search engine, we see the much bigger ethical issue here.
Now if we remember that Mozilla, the company, is financially dependent on Google money for the deal of making it the default search engine, we see the much bigger ethical issue here.
I disagree. Refusing money without strings attached from someone doesn't mean you morally agree with that person. I would say it's even unethical to refuse the money if you are a charity. You essentially say that your charity is less important then the morality of someone who is external to you. And in that case why are you even running your charity. You should be fighting the person whose morals you disagree with since you have placed that higher then the charity.
I've just given some pretty concrete examples above; do you suppose I'm incorrect or perhaps portraying them inaccurately, or that the problem is so rare as to be dismisable?
Notably, I didn't actually argue above that "taking someones money means you must morally agree with that person", but instead provided concrete examples of how taking money from morally dubious sources compromises peoples ability to act ethically, and further, compromises that charities appeal to people who would otherwise consider donating.
Notably, I didn't actually argue above that "taking someones money means you must morally agree with that person", but instead provided concrete examples of how taking money from morally dubious sources compromises peoples ability to act ethically, and further, compromises that charities appeal to people who would otherwise consider donating.
You changed "accepted money from" to "financially dependent on". If you're not dependent on those donations to exist, you're free to ignore what the giver wants you to do.
You're also free to ignore what they want if you are dependent, and either seek other funding, reduce your efforts, or dissolve the charity.
You're also free to ignore what they want if you are dependent, and either seek other funding, reduce your efforts, or dissolve the charity.
Yes I think you are incorrect. So let me elaborate a little bit more concretely.
> Having your charity financially dependent on puppy killers or (say) weapons manufacturers undermines your ability to act ethically in various situations, which you may or may not see as important. Here you might picture Assange taking Russian money (indirectly) and the ethical swamp he finds himself in when he criticising behaviour that is an assault on journalism in the west while deciding whether or not to cover the astounding number of journalists in Russia that tend to fall out of windows.
You are arguing from a point if view that where it's a given that a charity compromises it's ability to act ethically if it accepts money from an unethical source. That is the entire question. Assange for example could accept the money and simply not let it affect the content he releases.
> A bigger problem is that it swiftly undermines an important trait of a charity which is: that it ought to represent ethical action in at least some (palatable) framework that appeals to people who would consider donating toward that work. For example, I donated to Wikileaks years before Assange's choices made that work highly questionable, and like many other observers would now never consider donating to wikileaks again. The damage to Wikileaks' credibility has hit the organisation in both financial and cultural spheres. Their ability to advocate depends significantly on their reputation.
A charity by definition represents an ethical action. You are internalizing the ethics of donors into the ethics of the charity. If you do this no large charity is safe since most likely hundreds of thousands of people have donated to them. Most likely many of them having ethics you do not agree with. I'm not sure what your point with Assange is. It's an entirely different discussion separate from whether charities should accept money from unethical donors.
> Not every charities end up with a conundrum quite this dramatic, but it's not uncommon they face some. One example is LGBTQ charities, who are offered money by large organisations which those organisation in return use to portray themselves as more progressive. Those same orgs may still have discriminatory hiring practices or a troubled history with LGBTQ community, and where that occurs, the act of taking that money significantly undermines the charities' reputation among the LGBTQ community itself. This isn't hypothetical, I've seen this happen, both with large companies and with police, which for many decades persecuted LGBTQ people—and in some places still do.
Then the LGBTQ is undermining their own cause. They refuse an improvement in their situation for a theoritical best outcome. Perfect is the enemy of good. I think it's great that a company donates to a good cause. I don't particularly care what their hidden motivations are. In fact I would not ascribe any positive feelings to the company because of them donating. The only reason a company donates is because it thinks it will somehow make them money. If in the process a charity receives money because of this then I think this a great construct.
What I think is bad is that if a donor influences the charity or the charity let's the donor influence them. But a charity accepting money from an unethical donor doesn't imply that. It only makes it a possibility.
> Having your charity financially dependent on puppy killers or (say) weapons manufacturers undermines your ability to act ethically in various situations, which you may or may not see as important. Here you might picture Assange taking Russian money (indirectly) and the ethical swamp he finds himself in when he criticising behaviour that is an assault on journalism in the west while deciding whether or not to cover the astounding number of journalists in Russia that tend to fall out of windows.
You are arguing from a point if view that where it's a given that a charity compromises it's ability to act ethically if it accepts money from an unethical source. That is the entire question. Assange for example could accept the money and simply not let it affect the content he releases.
> A bigger problem is that it swiftly undermines an important trait of a charity which is: that it ought to represent ethical action in at least some (palatable) framework that appeals to people who would consider donating toward that work. For example, I donated to Wikileaks years before Assange's choices made that work highly questionable, and like many other observers would now never consider donating to wikileaks again. The damage to Wikileaks' credibility has hit the organisation in both financial and cultural spheres. Their ability to advocate depends significantly on their reputation.
A charity by definition represents an ethical action. You are internalizing the ethics of donors into the ethics of the charity. If you do this no large charity is safe since most likely hundreds of thousands of people have donated to them. Most likely many of them having ethics you do not agree with. I'm not sure what your point with Assange is. It's an entirely different discussion separate from whether charities should accept money from unethical donors.
> Not every charities end up with a conundrum quite this dramatic, but it's not uncommon they face some. One example is LGBTQ charities, who are offered money by large organisations which those organisation in return use to portray themselves as more progressive. Those same orgs may still have discriminatory hiring practices or a troubled history with LGBTQ community, and where that occurs, the act of taking that money significantly undermines the charities' reputation among the LGBTQ community itself. This isn't hypothetical, I've seen this happen, both with large companies and with police, which for many decades persecuted LGBTQ people—and in some places still do.
Then the LGBTQ is undermining their own cause. They refuse an improvement in their situation for a theoritical best outcome. Perfect is the enemy of good. I think it's great that a company donates to a good cause. I don't particularly care what their hidden motivations are. In fact I would not ascribe any positive feelings to the company because of them donating. The only reason a company donates is because it thinks it will somehow make them money. If in the process a charity receives money because of this then I think this a great construct.
What I think is bad is that if a donor influences the charity or the charity let's the donor influence them. But a charity accepting money from an unethical donor doesn't imply that. It only makes it a possibility.
What good does it do to launder puppy killers' money? See: Sacklers.
And taking Sackler money for some charitable cause will do a lot more good than them piling it up. Take some Sackler millions and you can feed a million hungry people, cure cancer, or expand our knowledge of the past.
The person turning it down gets to brag on Twitter about turning it down.
The person turning it down gets to brag on Twitter about turning it down.
> Take some Sackler millions and you can feed a million hungry people, cure cancer, or expand our knowledge of the past.
At best you can feed a million people for a day (you certainly won't be curing cancer) but you will launder their reputation in the process. These kinds of charitable causes allow for people like the Sacklers to get the attention they crave from their fellow high society despite the awful things they have done, just because they flash their wallets around at a few galas. As long as nothing requires them to change their behavior, they won't.
At best you can feed a million people for a day (you certainly won't be curing cancer) but you will launder their reputation in the process. These kinds of charitable causes allow for people like the Sacklers to get the attention they crave from their fellow high society despite the awful things they have done, just because they flash their wallets around at a few galas. As long as nothing requires them to change their behavior, they won't.
How do we know puppy killers aren't donating money already using traditional means?
There's also a difference between checking for each donor's puppy-killcount, and asking for donations to be made in puppy blood. Kinda stretching the analogy here.
Would accepting blood money still be alright then? Where do we put the line?
> Hi, I'm sure that whoever runs this account has no idea who I am, but I founded @mozilla and I'm here to say fuck you and fuck this. Everyone involved in the project should be witheringly ashamed of this decision to partner with planet-incinerating Ponzi grifters.
This is an appropriate reaction to the promotion of a scam industry. The antiwork subreddit had to add a warning about crypto because a crypto shill managed to get his post on the front page. The more crypto is normalized, the more regular people will be tricked into worthless "digital property", with their money siphoned into the pockets of people like Gary Vaynerchuk.
This is an appropriate reaction to the promotion of a scam industry. The antiwork subreddit had to add a warning about crypto because a crypto shill managed to get his post on the front page. The more crypto is normalized, the more regular people will be tricked into worthless "digital property", with their money siphoned into the pockets of people like Gary Vaynerchuk.
With Matt Damon doing that cringy add, crypto is mainstream and we're getting close to the "shoeshiners giving stock tips" stage of the market.
Your money is melting away.
Your options are buying houses, which are fixed and hard to sell; stocks, which can be inflated and are not internationally portable (only between brokerages) or Bitcoin which is globally portable, takes no space, cannot be inflated or controlled by any State and self custodial.
Where is the scam, except working for inflating fiat?
Jwz already made his money, and owns a nightclub in SF. Your average worker in Turkey or Nigeria just wants the fruit of his labor not to be eroded away by politicians.
Your options are buying houses, which are fixed and hard to sell; stocks, which can be inflated and are not internationally portable (only between brokerages) or Bitcoin which is globally portable, takes no space, cannot be inflated or controlled by any State and self custodial.
Where is the scam, except working for inflating fiat?
Jwz already made his money, and owns a nightclub in SF. Your average worker in Turkey or Nigeria just wants the fruit of his labor not to be eroded away by politicians.
I think the big difference here is that a house is an actual, usable thing. Stock is, roughly speaking, part ownership in a real thing.
Cryptocurrency is... nothing. It could disappear tomorrow and only those affected by the ponzi scheme would even notice.
If a house disappears tomorrow, well, we have more interesting things to discuss.
Cryptocurrency is... nothing. It could disappear tomorrow and only those affected by the ponzi scheme would even notice.
If a house disappears tomorrow, well, we have more interesting things to discuss.
What if you need to flee your land, take nothing with you except 12-24 words that you commit to memory… and that could store your savings. Also, nobody could take it from you, or stop you spending it on whatever you wish. Would that be a useful thing?
Sure, if it were agreed upon, backed by some real value and not solely speculation, and rather stable.
You can get pretty close to that today by just having an online bank account that can issue checks(to yourself).
I think the problem isn't necessarily the idea, but the implementation (all 25k of them).
You can get pretty close to that today by just having an online bank account that can issue checks(to yourself).
I think the problem isn't necessarily the idea, but the implementation (all 25k of them).
If you are talking banks and checks, you are missing the point entirely.. In 2013 the Cyprus government confiscated 47.5% of all bank deposits above €100,000. Let that sink in. Banks are the last place you want to trust your life savings.
Perspective. That figure is for a single bank, on uninsured deposits. Let's not forget it was all quasi legal tax games anyways.
If I as a US citizen have to run away from my house, the banks have stolen all the money, what good is Bitcoin going to do? At that point it's all out anarchy, and good luck finding a computer much less electricity. And assuming you find both, what in the world are you even hoping to buy?
And if you're thinking of those in other countries with less protections and stability, fair enough, but those aren't the ones speculating and getting rich off this scheme.
If I as a US citizen have to run away from my house, the banks have stolen all the money, what good is Bitcoin going to do? At that point it's all out anarchy, and good luck finding a computer much less electricity. And assuming you find both, what in the world are you even hoping to buy?
And if you're thinking of those in other countries with less protections and stability, fair enough, but those aren't the ones speculating and getting rich off this scheme.
Maybe take a look at some of the distribution of coins. It’s not all US people that are using this. Nigeria has per capita more Bitcoin users than the US.
I get it. Your money is safe in FDIC insured banks. There are billions of people that don’t have this luxury. This is for them. And you, if you don’t trust those banks.
I get it. Your money is safe in FDIC insured banks. There are billions of people that don’t have this luxury. This is for them. And you, if you don’t trust those banks.
> Sure, if it were agreed upon, backed by some real value and not solely speculation, and rather stable.
So like Tether, TrueUSD, or Diem? Backed by fiat currency and commercial paper.
Or do you mean like Digix where each coin is backed by 1 gram of gold?
So like Tether, TrueUSD, or Diem? Backed by fiat currency and commercial paper.
Or do you mean like Digix where each coin is backed by 1 gram of gold?
Honestly, it's a start. There's some inherent value, and Visa even announced settling via USDC which I found interesting, given how conservative the big guys are.
> and nobody could take it from you
It seems like every day I read about hundreds of millions of dollars in crypto being stolen. A simple phishing attack could wipe out your savings. Since there’s no authority to do anything about it, that money is gone. To me, this affects more people than the “flee your land, take nothing with you” crowd.
It seems like every day I read about hundreds of millions of dollars in crypto being stolen. A simple phishing attack could wipe out your savings. Since there’s no authority to do anything about it, that money is gone. To me, this affects more people than the “flee your land, take nothing with you” crowd.
Do understand what these hacks are. It gets stolen from:
Exchanges
Smart Contracts
People that give away their keys.
I’d you don’t risk giving your Bitcoin to an exchange, don’t wrap it and give it to smart contracts, and don’t give away your keys, you should be ok. If your keys are stored safely you wont be phished. I feel bad for people that are, but it is their mistake, not the technology.
Exchanges
Smart Contracts
People that give away their keys.
I’d you don’t risk giving your Bitcoin to an exchange, don’t wrap it and give it to smart contracts, and don’t give away your keys, you should be ok. If your keys are stored safely you wont be phished. I feel bad for people that are, but it is their mistake, not the technology.
You forgot people who get malware with a keylogger. Or are those included in the category of people that give away their keys?
If this is a credible threat to the individual, I would recommend a hardware wallet.
But yeah, it’s generally the same case as giving away your keys. Don’t use your keys in the main memory of a compromised system.
But yeah, it’s generally the same case as giving away your keys. Don’t use your keys in the main memory of a compromised system.
Many cryptocurrencies do have utility by running small programs or storing data. The coin economy on top incentivizes people to participate.
For stock, what effect do stocks changing hands in the stock market have to the company really? (repeated from here https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=29823307)
For stock, what effect do stocks changing hands in the stock market have to the company really? (repeated from here https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=29823307)
"Are the maintenance costs of money
and inflation comparable?
Often, to the proposal for a fundamental monetary reform of our currencies, the objection is raised that a maintenance tax or a user fee of, say, five per cent for money, is in effect nothing but inflation in small doses to the same extent; both of them would put money into motion. The latter is right, of course. But there are still essential differences in both these circulation ensuring measures, not only in their impacts but also in the following points.
https://www.themoneysyndrome.org/contents/chapter-34/
How about we get rid of inflation in fiat currencies then?
Often, to the proposal for a fundamental monetary reform of our currencies, the objection is raised that a maintenance tax or a user fee of, say, five per cent for money, is in effect nothing but inflation in small doses to the same extent; both of them would put money into motion. The latter is right, of course. But there are still essential differences in both these circulation ensuring measures, not only in their impacts but also in the following points.
Maintenance costs of money are applicable only to demand money, cash.
Inflation affects the many times larger monetary assets.
Maintenance costs of money drive surplus money into banks and increase the credit potential.
Inflation drives surplus money into consumption or false investments and heats up economic growth.
Maintenance costs of money stabilize the purchasing power of money and thus price levels.
Inflation causes, in contrast, constant price-alterations and irritations in the structure of all money related matters, especially of all calculations and settlements.
Maintenance costs of money not only enable stability of the purchasing power, but they also push the interest rates little by little towards zero.
Inflation, on the other hand, drives the interest rates upwards, with all their negative consequences.
Maintenance costs of money flow from the cash boxes of the money holder into that of the state and thus to the general public.
The many times higher inflation and interest charges have to be borne by the general public and benefit a minority.
Maintenance costs of money can be scheduled at a fixed rate and levied.
In contrast, inflation can neither be calculated nor set at a fixed rate.https://www.themoneysyndrome.org/contents/chapter-34/
How about we get rid of inflation in fiat currencies then?
There clearly are a lot of scammers and grifters in this market, as with all upcoming markets usually, but how is crypto a scam industry? In 13 years the fundamentals of Bitcoin have not been exploited. Algorithmically I mean. Human element wise perhaps.
> 13 years
I am not sure where you've lived the last 13 years, but in this reality lots of projects that were aspiring use cases of that technology were founded, somebody got wind of it with their disciples...and the coin got dumped afterwards.
So yeah, I would say crypto coins overall are a ponzi scheme. Doesn't matter how good your tech is, people will exploit it to get rich. And they successfully did, otherwise everybody (meaning the whole society) invested in BTC would be a millionaire by now and the current oligarchic structure with almost neverending wealth through manipulation of other people would not exist.
Count the coins, count the IPOs that successfully were dumped. They have a different view on it. Also ask them about whether or not two years after the IPO they've build any actual code or any actual program. Most of them, even the successful ones, abandoned their ideas because they got money out of it and that was the thing they cared about the most.
People in the crypto bubble always forget to ask these questions, because they themselves think that they are already invested into crypto and have no alternative way of using their resources anymore. But that's not true either.
Coming back to BTC: a stable coin does not have more than 20k$ difference in worth per day. Sorry, BTC failed. And now it's the competition of high frequency traders that you as a citizen have no chance against anymore. That is why I'd say BTC also has failed.
I am not sure where you've lived the last 13 years, but in this reality lots of projects that were aspiring use cases of that technology were founded, somebody got wind of it with their disciples...and the coin got dumped afterwards.
So yeah, I would say crypto coins overall are a ponzi scheme. Doesn't matter how good your tech is, people will exploit it to get rich. And they successfully did, otherwise everybody (meaning the whole society) invested in BTC would be a millionaire by now and the current oligarchic structure with almost neverending wealth through manipulation of other people would not exist.
Count the coins, count the IPOs that successfully were dumped. They have a different view on it. Also ask them about whether or not two years after the IPO they've build any actual code or any actual program. Most of them, even the successful ones, abandoned their ideas because they got money out of it and that was the thing they cared about the most.
People in the crypto bubble always forget to ask these questions, because they themselves think that they are already invested into crypto and have no alternative way of using their resources anymore. But that's not true either.
Coming back to BTC: a stable coin does not have more than 20k$ difference in worth per day. Sorry, BTC failed. And now it's the competition of high frequency traders that you as a citizen have no chance against anymore. That is why I'd say BTC also has failed.
Is your thesis that BTC failed because it’s price is not stable? I don’t think that is a good metric. Most asset prices are not stable. By all the metrics I consider, it’s pretty damn successful actually.
Just because you want it to fail, doesn’t really matter. It is not failing, in fact, we had a country adopt it as legal tender last year, with another few to follow in 2022. I like that kind of failure!
Just because you want it to fail, doesn’t really matter. It is not failing, in fact, we had a country adopt it as legal tender last year, with another few to follow in 2022. I like that kind of failure!
A stable economy should be the goal of every economy. Otherwise it cannot not be defined as an economy.
My thesis is that BTC failed at exactly that. It's the opposite of stable.
BTC only works advantegous for the HODLers because they actually buy things in another currency, and not in BTC. If they would have to buy electricity, food and shelter and actual physical assets via BTC, they would have to pay millions for it; because BTC is in the state of maximum inflation eversince the HFTs went on it.
I would recommend you read up on the financial crisises that happened all over the world after the second world war, and what the obligations of a central bank (e.g. European central bank) are and why they exist, and what they prevent.
Otherwise this "but it's awesome cause I think I'm rich" discussion is gonna be pretty pointless, because we have really opposing views on what "stability" means in regards to e.g. inflation vs. amount of goods that back up the economy's currency.
My thesis is that BTC failed at exactly that. It's the opposite of stable.
BTC only works advantegous for the HODLers because they actually buy things in another currency, and not in BTC. If they would have to buy electricity, food and shelter and actual physical assets via BTC, they would have to pay millions for it; because BTC is in the state of maximum inflation eversince the HFTs went on it.
I would recommend you read up on the financial crisises that happened all over the world after the second world war, and what the obligations of a central bank (e.g. European central bank) are and why they exist, and what they prevent.
Otherwise this "but it's awesome cause I think I'm rich" discussion is gonna be pretty pointless, because we have really opposing views on what "stability" means in regards to e.g. inflation vs. amount of goods that back up the economy's currency.
This was never about personal enrichment, it was about freedom and sound money. At least to me. I am a cypherpunk. I am well aware of the monetary systems post WW2. What happened was the great US did what no other nation could do in history — monetize their debt and get the world to treat it as their money. It was genius, really. The problem emerged where Governments got really slack with the backing. Now we just print it any time it is politically expedient. I want a system where that isn’t possible. Bitcoin was invented to solve this problem.
Sorry, I was referring to the European countries that were on the other end of that deal. We couldn't afford creating a credit-based system at the time, and the issue was that the inflation was so high that you literally had bills with "1.000.000" printed on it because the paper was running out on a daily basis.
The issue that I see behind BTC and other crypto currencies is that they kind of want to introduce a new good that balances the value of the currency: computation power (and maybe bandwidth/storage).
But these goods are heavily dependent on the physical world, the progress of other economies (e.g. chip shortage is gonna hit BTC real hard soon, I "would predict") and the advancements of tech (e.g. ASICs or FPGA-based hash generation methods that are more efficient than what's available to everyone). Those dependencies is what I think are messed up, because they favor the ones that already have money in the physical space.
As long as the goods required by the crypto currency are in the physical space, this inflation and behaviours of created sub-economies iteratively failing at some point won't change. I don't have an idea how to solve it, it's just what I've come to realize after years investing in the crypto currency space; and observing the shitshow that's NFTs right now.
The current state is certainly not what BTC or any crypto currency was intended for as an idea, and getting a database entry somewhere because you were the first is not a reasonable approach to how an economy should work, algorithmically speaking. We need a better approach for throttling and redistribution of wealth, because the gas price in ETH obviously isn't enough.
If an economy favors the ones that were in it first, it's also not an economy that can scale. Because it will result in an oligarchic bank-like structure, where money is hoarded that cannot flow and push the rest of the economy where it would be needed to get out of unfavorable situations like poverty (that is in regards to goods aka only having an old computer).
The issue that I see behind BTC and other crypto currencies is that they kind of want to introduce a new good that balances the value of the currency: computation power (and maybe bandwidth/storage).
But these goods are heavily dependent on the physical world, the progress of other economies (e.g. chip shortage is gonna hit BTC real hard soon, I "would predict") and the advancements of tech (e.g. ASICs or FPGA-based hash generation methods that are more efficient than what's available to everyone). Those dependencies is what I think are messed up, because they favor the ones that already have money in the physical space.
As long as the goods required by the crypto currency are in the physical space, this inflation and behaviours of created sub-economies iteratively failing at some point won't change. I don't have an idea how to solve it, it's just what I've come to realize after years investing in the crypto currency space; and observing the shitshow that's NFTs right now.
The current state is certainly not what BTC or any crypto currency was intended for as an idea, and getting a database entry somewhere because you were the first is not a reasonable approach to how an economy should work, algorithmically speaking. We need a better approach for throttling and redistribution of wealth, because the gas price in ETH obviously isn't enough.
If an economy favors the ones that were in it first, it's also not an economy that can scale. Because it will result in an oligarchic bank-like structure, where money is hoarded that cannot flow and push the rest of the economy where it would be needed to get out of unfavorable situations like poverty (that is in regards to goods aka only having an old computer).
A fiat (aka unbacked) currency that is issued privately is indistinguishable from a scam, because a fiat currency has a nominal value that is higher than what it costs to produce. This is true of bitcoins, because bitcoins are fiat money too (just not very convenient to use). The average production cost of all bitcoins in circulation is likely less than $1. These bitcoins are now being sold for tens of thousands of dollars. People profiting from this, largely early producers of bitcoins, are being rewarded with millions of dollars for basically doing nothing. They took no risk, they did absolutely nothing that would justify the profits that they have made. I call this a scam.
You are just bitter. Folks that bought Amazon or Apple stock at IPO did nothing either. In fact, a great deal of wealth floating about wasn’t wasn’t earned by the holders at all. Are you angry with every house owner who’s property appreciated, every investor to took to risk with assets?
No, I don't have an issue with people making money from their entrepreneurial activities, in fact I applaud who people do that. I have an issue with people being handed millions of dollars when all they've done is downloading a computer program and running it on a god-damn laptop. I don't agree with that. I think it's a scam, and this is why I'll never buy a cryptocurrency or accept it as payment for anything, because I don't I agree to these people getting rich at my expense.
Nobody is getting paid millions to run software. It doesn’t work that way. Some folks took a risk early by buying it and were very compromised for it. (All the mt gox trade and KYC data leaked, passports etc). Nobody is making millions mining without spending a compatible sum on hardware to do it. That sounds entrepreneurial to me. Solo CPU mining was such a small thing to a small niche, maybe those super super early folks deserve something for their efforts.
Some folks are getting paid to stake, which may be more of a scam, and we can agree on that, they sacrifice nothing to produce more wealth.
You haven’t said why it is a scam, except that people were entrepreneurs or investors in risky assets who were rewarded for their risk?
Lottin you have been passionate against this for a long time, are you sure you are rationally evaluating this?
Some folks are getting paid to stake, which may be more of a scam, and we can agree on that, they sacrifice nothing to produce more wealth.
You haven’t said why it is a scam, except that people were entrepreneurs or investors in risky assets who were rewarded for their risk?
Lottin you have been passionate against this for a long time, are you sure you are rationally evaluating this?
The early producers of bitcoin were not entrepreneurs. Early production of bitcoins didn't require special equipment and would not incur any significant costs at all. Note that over 60% of the bitcoins in circulation right now were produced before 2013. This means the adoption of bitcoin disproportionally benefits these early producers who didn't take any risks at all. A change in the monetary system should not produce a redistribution of wealth, why should it? It should be neutral in terms of wealth allocation. This is why I see Bitcoin as a scam. It's a plot to transfer wealth from late investors to early investors, wrapped around some ridiculous libertarian rhetoric.
By 2013 mining was already occurring in a entrepreneurial industrial mining fashion. Large pools. ASICS were introduced in 2012, and created a billion dollar hardware industry.
Before that, 2011, GPUs. It was not a risk free operation. All had ongoing energy cost to produce. You said “$1” to make most coins. It is much much higher than this.
If you are talking 2010, sure, the sub 100 or so folks that were actually mining and are actually on this board might think they did extremely well for themselves. Some have died with their coins since. Some have had tragic lottery winning misadventure. Of the ones I know, they absolutely deserve it and make the world better because of it.
Either way, it’s not like most of the early coins have not changed hands many many times. There are early coins, but the vast majority are not in circulation. It’s not nearly as bad as it seems. Significantly better. And most early holders sold years and years and years ago. Most of the circulating coin today is young. The exchanges have about 1.3M trading today.
Bitcoin has redistributed wealth. Especially the early coins, where it was the real hardcore math and crypto nerds that were rewarded. Don’t imagine that the early folks are those NFT and shitcoins shilling charlatans. This is a true cypherpunk revolution.
Before that, 2011, GPUs. It was not a risk free operation. All had ongoing energy cost to produce. You said “$1” to make most coins. It is much much higher than this.
If you are talking 2010, sure, the sub 100 or so folks that were actually mining and are actually on this board might think they did extremely well for themselves. Some have died with their coins since. Some have had tragic lottery winning misadventure. Of the ones I know, they absolutely deserve it and make the world better because of it.
Either way, it’s not like most of the early coins have not changed hands many many times. There are early coins, but the vast majority are not in circulation. It’s not nearly as bad as it seems. Significantly better. And most early holders sold years and years and years ago. Most of the circulating coin today is young. The exchanges have about 1.3M trading today.
Bitcoin has redistributed wealth. Especially the early coins, where it was the real hardcore math and crypto nerds that were rewarded. Don’t imagine that the early folks are those NFT and shitcoins shilling charlatans. This is a true cypherpunk revolution.
> Bitcoin has redistributed wealth.
Amongst whom? Do you have some studies showing the distribution relative to normal fiat?
Amongst whom? Do you have some studies showing the distribution relative to normal fiat?
> randomhodler84
> You are just bitter
Username checks out.
> You are just bitter
Username checks out.
Damn straight. You stacking sats too? I buy BTC at least once a week. Yeah, 2021 BTC was all over the place and didn’t 5x like Eth. But I am very confident in its future.
Ehh depends on what you call "exploited" the original 0.8 upgrade resulting fork effectively allowed a double spend https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=152348
Not a real double spend, just some central exchange accounting mismatch with the active chain. That’s why we wait for confirms. Still, glad you brought this up. 0.7/0.8 db issue was a scary time. Seems like a lifetime ago.
Like it or not, cryptocurrency is real money and will remain so for the foreseeable future. Rather than throwing a tantrum, it might be a better idea to work on a solution to its downsides (PoW or whatever irks you about crypto).
Until then, people like this will continue to get outraged while the pro-crypto crowd carries on unaffected.
Until then, people like this will continue to get outraged while the pro-crypto crowd carries on unaffected.
jwz is exactly trying to solve the problem, in the only way that can work: politically.
The only technological solution to the downsides of PoW is to not use PoW.
Nice logical fallacy by the way, "opponents just have to solve the problems we've created..." no thanks.
The only technological solution to the downsides of PoW is to not use PoW.
Nice logical fallacy by the way, "opponents just have to solve the problems we've created..." no thanks.
> opponents just have to solve the problems we've created...
Cryptocurrency being in use means people perceive the cost of using them being less than the benefit from using them.
If the problem is the carbon emitted for power generation, then tax the carbon emissions (which already happens in lots of jurisdictions).
About Bitcoin being a Ponzi scheme, if this is true, then so are the current stock and bond market at absurd valuations (1.75% interest while inflation is 6.8%), where investors play musical chairs until the Fed and commercial banks stop printing money.
Cryptocurrency being in use means people perceive the cost of using them being less than the benefit from using them.
If the problem is the carbon emitted for power generation, then tax the carbon emissions (which already happens in lots of jurisdictions).
About Bitcoin being a Ponzi scheme, if this is true, then so are the current stock and bond market at absurd valuations (1.75% interest while inflation is 6.8%), where investors play musical chairs until the Fed and commercial banks stop printing money.
> Cryptocurrency being in use means people perceive the cost of using them being less than the benefit from using them.
Most of the cost isn't born by those who benefit from it, it's an externality to them.
> If the problem is the carbon emitted for power generation, then tax the carbon emissions (which already happens in lots of jurisdictions).
There's still the opportunity cost of available low-carbon energy being frittered away on cryptocurrencies instead of something more useful.
Most of the cost isn't born by those who benefit from it, it's an externality to them.
> If the problem is the carbon emitted for power generation, then tax the carbon emissions (which already happens in lots of jurisdictions).
There's still the opportunity cost of available low-carbon energy being frittered away on cryptocurrencies instead of something more useful.
Why shouldn't it be a valid opinion to not like cryptocurrencies?
And to not want to contribute?
Why is not ok to prefer money regulated by the rule of law?
Moreover, I have no idea how I could help with the problem of recovering stolen cryptocurrency/NFTs or lost private keys.
And to not want to contribute?
Why is not ok to prefer money regulated by the rule of law?
Moreover, I have no idea how I could help with the problem of recovering stolen cryptocurrency/NFTs or lost private keys.
Telling people to be witheringly ashamed isn't "throwing a tantrum". It's giving them their chance to repent before getting cut off. It's THEIR job to clean their house, not that of critics.
https://twitter.com/DigiEconomist/status/1477420461122375683
> Some statistics to start the year:
> During 2021 Bitcoin consumed 134 TWh in total, which is comparable to the electrical energy consumed by a country like Argentina.
> Related CO2 emissions were ~64 Mt; enough to negate the entire global net savings from deploying EVs.
https://twitter.com/DigiEconomist/status/1477420461122375683
> Some statistics to start the year:
> During 2021 Bitcoin consumed 134 TWh in total, which is comparable to the electrical energy consumed by a country like Argentina.
> Related CO2 emissions were ~64 Mt; enough to negate the entire global net savings from deploying EVs.
> is real money
is it?
is it?
From https://wiki.mozilla.org/Donate_Bitcoin:
> Does giving cryptocurrency result in more of my charitable donation going to transaction fees?
> No. Bitpay’s service fees, at a flat 1%, are actually lower than credit card or Paypal transaction fees.
How does that answer the question? The question was about cryptocurrency fees, which is not answered. Or is BitPay eating the transaction costs, if so, how is their business model viable? (Bypassing the issue that using BitPay is nowhere near decentralization and defeats the entire purpose of cryptocurrencies)
> What personal information does Mozilla require cryptocurrency donors to provide?
> In most cases, Mozilla requires only an email address [...]
That seems false, the form is asking me for Name, Address, Phone number and more AFK details if I try to donate. Again, antithetical to the original purpose of cryptocurrencies.
> Does giving cryptocurrency result in more of my charitable donation going to transaction fees?
> No. Bitpay’s service fees, at a flat 1%, are actually lower than credit card or Paypal transaction fees.
How does that answer the question? The question was about cryptocurrency fees, which is not answered. Or is BitPay eating the transaction costs, if so, how is their business model viable? (Bypassing the issue that using BitPay is nowhere near decentralization and defeats the entire purpose of cryptocurrencies)
> What personal information does Mozilla require cryptocurrency donors to provide?
> In most cases, Mozilla requires only an email address [...]
That seems false, the form is asking me for Name, Address, Phone number and more AFK details if I try to donate. Again, antithetical to the original purpose of cryptocurrencies.
>That seems false, the form is asking me for Name, Address, Phone number and more AFK details if I try to donate
Only the name and e-mail fields are marked as required, dunno if the name would accept anonymous for small donations.
>Again, antithetical to the original purpose of cryptocurrencies.
Sure, but donations have certain laws an organization needs to follow.
Only the name and e-mail fields are marked as required, dunno if the name would accept anonymous for small donations.
>Again, antithetical to the original purpose of cryptocurrencies.
Sure, but donations have certain laws an organization needs to follow.
You miss the point that the transaction fee is paid by the sender. If I am donating to Mozilla then I send my cryptocurrency, pay the required fee and then Mozilla gets the sum I sent. In this case bitpay take 1% of the donation and probably bundle them all up and pay Mozilla at the end of the week/month in cryptocurrency (1 transaction so only 1 fee) or in fiat.
> You miss the point that the transaction fee is paid by the sender
No, I haven't missed that. So if I send 10 USD via Ethereum to Mozilla, BitPay will take 1% of the amount that reaches Mozilla, but I'll also pay a huge transaction fee on top of that, making it almost guaranteed that I'll pay more in transaction fees than what Mozilla actually gets. That means that the answer to the question "Does giving cryptocurrency result in more of my charitable donation going to transaction fees?" is a sound "Yes" in some cases.
No, I haven't missed that. So if I send 10 USD via Ethereum to Mozilla, BitPay will take 1% of the amount that reaches Mozilla, but I'll also pay a huge transaction fee on top of that, making it almost guaranteed that I'll pay more in transaction fees than what Mozilla actually gets. That means that the answer to the question "Does giving cryptocurrency result in more of my charitable donation going to transaction fees?" is a sound "Yes" in some cases.
The only part of the equation that you don't have available is what BitPay's margin is. Mozilla gave that to you.
Mozilla can't figure out what your transaction cost is, because it is variable. You have much better information on that part of the transaction than they do.
Mozilla can't figure out what your transaction cost is, because it is variable. You have much better information on that part of the transaction than they do.
> Mozilla can't figure out what your transaction cost is, because it is variable.
Yes, I agree with this, but for someone who is using cryptocurrencies the first time, it might not be, and the answer they currently have to that question doesn't say what you said, it says something different.
Yes, I agree with this, but for someone who is using cryptocurrencies the first time, it might not be, and the answer they currently have to that question doesn't say what you said, it says something different.
I guess it's a technicality whether the tx fee is part of the donation or not.
It's not a technicality when the question was "will more of my money be going on transaction fees?".
Bitpay accepts plenty of cryptocurrencies with very low tx fees.
Sure, but since the page is called "Donate Bitcoin" and the announcement is explicitly mentioning Dogecoin, Bitcoin and Ethereum, I think it's safe to assume they are mainly focused on Bitcoin.
That only means it's easier for me to know exactly how much money Mozilla is getting.
But the real question is: if I have the equivalent of 10 USD in some form, how can I make sure Mozilla gets as much of those 10 USD as possible? The answer will almost certainly be traditional payments infra, especially for small sums. Even if I currently have 10USD worth of BTC, it may be more efficient for me to convert it to actual USD and pay whatever is left through PayPal/a credit card then it is to make an on-chain transaction.
But the real question is: if I have the equivalent of 10 USD in some form, how can I make sure Mozilla gets as much of those 10 USD as possible? The answer will almost certainly be traditional payments infra, especially for small sums. Even if I currently have 10USD worth of BTC, it may be more efficient for me to convert it to actual USD and pay whatever is left through PayPal/a credit card then it is to make an on-chain transaction.
The question is whether more is lost to transaction fees. They seem to answer that perfectly, no? There’s no way of donating money electronically without some fee.
The transaction fees for paying with Visa/PayPal etc are MUCH lower than paying with Bitcoin or Ethereum, especially for small donations - for small donations, it's quite possible for BTC/ETH transaction fees to be well over 100% of the transaction value. Quoting the additional BitPay fee only is completely misleading.
BTC costs $0.06/tx to the sender currently (1sat/vbyte) The vendor can set up their own payment gateways, or use a system like bitpay and pay 1%, which is cheaper than a cc.
Then there is lightning that may cost single sats or less.
Eth is an expensive gas coin and will cost multiple dollars or more to trade or sell. Agreed about that.
Eth is an expensive gas coin and will cost multiple dollars or more to trade or sell. Agreed about that.
According to this tracking site [0], it's actually been pretty steady at 2.6USD/tx for the past 6 months.
[0] https://ycharts.com/indicators/bitcoin_average_transaction_f...
[0] https://ycharts.com/indicators/bitcoin_average_transaction_f...
You are looking at the wrong metric. Generally you want median fee or even minimal fee, not the average, which includes very complex transactions irrelevant for the case.
Yeah, what’s funny about that is 80% or more of tx are overpaying by a great great deal. Check out mempool.space, currently a high priority next block cost is about 14 sat, yet most of the txs are using far more.
I think there are some very bad wallets out there. You can do minimum fee txs nearly all the time. Blocks generally are not full for long periods, so a 1sat tx will confirm eventually.
I think there are some very bad wallets out there. You can do minimum fee txs nearly all the time. Blocks generally are not full for long periods, so a 1sat tx will confirm eventually.
[deleted]
Mozilla dabbled in cryptocurrency donations before, when they were far less controversial, and still decided it was a bad idea. I wonder what changed - or have they just lost so much institutional knowledge at this point they can't remember their 2014 mistakes?
https://blog.mozilla.org/foundation-archive/fundraising/bitc...
https://blog.mozilla.org/foundation-archive/fundraising/bitc...
BTC wasn’t using that much energy in 2014, of course nobody gave a shit back then.
Your comment would make sense if I had asked why nobody protested against BTC donations in 2014, but I asked why Mozilla started taking BTC donations again sometime after 2014.
(Also, it was still using an awful lot and the trendline was clear.)
(Also, it was still using an awful lot and the trendline was clear.)
Ha, I totally misread your comment. My apologies.
Do they finally accept normal money donations though?
Mozilla Foundation has accepted donations for a long time. However, if you want to support MDN or Firefox, it’s questionable whether donating accomplishes that[0]. Almost all of the revenue is going to Mozilla Corporation, with ethically questionable CEO[1].
Same goes for donations in croins, I presume.
[0] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=20895624
[1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=28954390
Same goes for donations in croins, I presume.
[0] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=20895624
[1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=28954390
Cryptocurrency as an open source form of money should have been more popular.
I think BTC & ETH (not random shitcoins) have a place and I honestly think they're better unit's of currency than fiat.
However, unfortunately I would now say that it's been co-opted by US-centric grifters/charlatans/hustlers.
The grifters need to go, but the crypto community doesn't really seem to want this to happen, as if the movement has been co-opted by these exact types of people.
Sidenote: I would hazard a guess that the people memeing about "oh my energy use" haven't looked into it with all that much detail. Fiat is MUCH worse in this position.
However, unfortunately I would now say that it's been co-opted by US-centric grifters/charlatans/hustlers.
The grifters need to go, but the crypto community doesn't really seem to want this to happen, as if the movement has been co-opted by these exact types of people.
Sidenote: I would hazard a guess that the people memeing about "oh my energy use" haven't looked into it with all that much detail. Fiat is MUCH worse in this position.
Without the community of grifters, neither BTC or ETH would have any serious market value, and so they would be extremely easy to attack. The only reason vast mining networks can exist is because of the huge amounts of money that grifters have been pumping into the system. The "community" probably understands this very well.
> Sidenote: I would hazard a guess that the people memeing about "oh my energy use" haven't looked into it with all that much detail. Fiat is MUCH worse in this position.
No, fiat is processing literally millions of times the amount of transactions of BTC & ETH combined for a fraction of the energy use. Sure, the whole financial sector is larger in energy use than BTC and ETH, but most of that is all the parts that BTC and ETH don't cover at all - insurance, loans, risk eval, customer support, investments, KYC and AML, and many other functions that are crucial to the economy.
> Sidenote: I would hazard a guess that the people memeing about "oh my energy use" haven't looked into it with all that much detail. Fiat is MUCH worse in this position.
No, fiat is processing literally millions of times the amount of transactions of BTC & ETH combined for a fraction of the energy use. Sure, the whole financial sector is larger in energy use than BTC and ETH, but most of that is all the parts that BTC and ETH don't cover at all - insurance, loans, risk eval, customer support, investments, KYC and AML, and many other functions that are crucial to the economy.
who gives a fuck?
I don't know how anyone could make the "it's bad for environment" argument in good faith. It's green compared to the alternatives and has less hidden externalities.
Visa alone processes more transactions per second than all PoW coins combined, for a fraction of a fraction of the energy consumption of BTC.
Visa isn't a currency, you could compare it to a payment provider on the BTC chain not to BTC itself. The $ is a better equivalent, it requires a military, thousands of banks, people flying private jets to organize etc.
A dollar is just a bit value in someone's DB. The military, thousands of banks, and people flying private jets are all propping up the economy, not the dollar. They are propping up the value of BTC in fact, more or less as much as they are propping up the dollar.
Visa is exactly the right equivalent to the BTC network.
Visa is exactly the right equivalent to the BTC network.
Really? You don't think there might be something more to currencies than a bit in someone's DB? You're confusing representation for the thing.
Yeah, cos if so, I’d rather trust an immutable globally replicated write only db protected by the largest computational network on the planet than some mutable db sitting in a rack in a banks data center :-)
Is that not exactly what parent implied?
To complicate things more, when crypto is stolen from a US citizen/corp, what authority gets pulled in to deal with it? Should that authority then be counted in the equation?
[deleted]