_zllx

We do need a base layer of human verification for several reasons that will make themselves clear in the coming years. Can we maybe try that with a system of IRL humans and inherently pro-privacy tech like ZK proofs, instead of a system of proprietary soul-sucking nightmare orbs? Be creative, think outside the orb.

Also, such a system doesn't need any kind of currency attached to it.

It looks like this is about protecting your "web3" web application, not your individual self. In that context it's probably fine advice.

Please, stop doing that. You won't get anywhere by saying all other major projects that occupy the same space as Bitcoin are scams. You're not helping bitcoin by doing that. You're not convincing anyone that bitcoin isn't crypto; it's the first crypto, and frankly it's been superseded by other FOSS projects like Monero and Ethereum in various places. Either all of crypto is a scam, or we have to take things on a case-by-case basis. By using this Bitcoin-only logic, you're just turning more people over to the former position. Many of the best innovators in the scene have been working on anything but Bitcoin for a long time.

Wait, so crypto is a useless ponzi scheme UNLESS it is using a proof-of-work scheme based on churning text/image models? None of the existing uses made sense until you integrated AI into the backend consensus system? How does that backend change suddenly make crypto useful and not a global ponzi scheme according to you?

Not even saying this is a bad idea if it is possible, though. Just pointing out this contradiction in your criticism of crypto. We should definitely be looking for ways to use proof-of-work without proof-of-waste, as it is still technically the most secure consensus method afaik.

People who oppose fascism; then again, they plan to dismantle the Internet too, and I hope we start talking about meshnets as a counter to that.

Realistically I think you're right; I probably have my conspiracy cap on too tight, but it's too perfect to me that the group of people who will soon need crypto the most are being socially incentivized to reject it now. I might have struck a nerve with the anti-crypto vibe enjoyers.

I felt like I was in crazy town, trying to tell people that crypto is actually something that helps many people, always getting shot down with absurd dogma like "crypto has no use cases" or "gordon goner racist NFTs". People believed everything they heard from a blog (you know the one) set up specifically to discredit this entire class of technology by associating every dumb thing with its image as a whole. I've been Bitcoin-literate since I was a pre-teen (I'm early 20s now) and felt trapped. Bitcoin maximalists made me hopeful that at least Bitcoin specifically would be socially acceptable, but honestly they've got it wrong too. I was very delighted today to see Scott stick up for the concrete use cases that are out there. Vitalik Buterin seems fairly respected in the same space as ACX.

I expected a bit better of someone who faced a lot of anti-Wayland dogma, which I noted as being very similar to anti-cryptocurrency dogma, most of which I am seeing repeated for the umpteenth time in this post and thread.

I hate SMS too, but I think this decision will hurt Signal infinitely more than it will hurt SMS. By that I mean it will not affect SMS at all and only Signal.

4chan has nowhere near the influence over children that TikTok does. Maybe a /pol/ thread gets 500 replies or something, while Cobra Tate (a sex trafficker who went viral by openly hating women) gets 100M+ views by literal children on TikTok who go on to repeat everything he says.

I'm using typebox to validate my JWT payloads in an app I'm working on. Someone showed me this thread while I was working, so I gave it a shot:

  export const CLAIM_PAYLOAD_SCHEMA = Type.Object({
    "iss": Type.Literal("my-app"),
    "exp": Type.Integer(),
    "sub": Type.String(),
    "name": Type.String(),
    "priv": Type.Integer({minimum:0, maximum: Privileges.All}),
    "gender": Type. // No completion is available.

Additionally, I get "No completion is available." from copilot.el on every line after that one, but completing on lines before it does work. When removing "gender", it works again, e.g. suggesting `"iat": Type.Integer()` for that line. I don't actually plan on using "gender" in my tokens, but it is a bit frustrating that an arbitrary word can opaquely disable Copilot for the rest of the file.

I see it as a kind of gold, or perhaps in a less cliche way of putting it, a sovereign unit of account. I call it easier because it can be handled entirely digitally with no great expenses to transfer it around the world unlike gold, therefore easily being used on the smartphones of people who need it. It is true that the tech currently has many shortcomings in accessibility now, but I see none that can't be overcome with further development. For an example, see Celo's development of a decentralized phone-number-to-EVM-address linking system. Actually, a lot of the projects surrounding Celo are what inspire me to publicly defend cryptocurrency, but I don't bring it up much because I'd be accused of shilling them.

Anyway, I think that cryptocurrency enables lots more non-criminal and should-be-non-criminal activity that can far outnumber the harmful-criminal activity. Perhaps it's already that way, or perhaps it will be so in the future. "In the future" is admittedly another pro-crypto cliche, but we're seeing results headed in that trajectory like the ones mentioned in the financialinclusion letter.

Good catch, but assuming evading capital controls is crime, then this becomes a debate of victimless crime. Under normal circumstances, it's not victimless, because it can hurt the economy and everyone in it. Who is the victim of a Russian civilian evading their establishment? I don't see the criminals running the establishment as a victim; they already did the most damage to their economy, and they're still the perpetrators of other crimes with many victims. Cryptocurrency makes everything pertaining to money easier, unfortunately crime too depending on what is considered crime, and I think it's still a net benefit. No matter what happens, we can't rely on implicit control of money as an easy way to punish crime anymore, no amount of debating or essays or letters will close that box.