ruskerdax

Legislation about rights and digital privacy are also not answers, because they will be promptly ignored or subverted to the point of uselessness.

Governments allow you to be violated, at the request of the wealthy and currently-powerful. Appealing to governments to solve this issue will not work.

You mean like where you're threatening people over a fundamentally peaceful activity like copying code? Yeah, definitely.

I don't think this is a misapplication of the term "fundamentalism," as it does fit the textbook definition of the term. The parallel of the term to radical terrorism is unfortunate, however. While I don't think it's really accurate to compare this to Godwin's law, you have a point about things quickly escalating to a state of hyperbole.

> This is true of all laws. This is how society works. If you don't like it, in a democracy you can campaign for change.

I am well aware this is how laws enforced by governments work. It does not necessarily follow that is how society works, or that it must be so. I'd rather stay on topic than turn this into a criticism of democracy, however.

>You seem to believe you have a fundamental right to copy someone else's works. If the author of those works grants you permission (open source) - then fine.

On the contrary, you seem to believe you have a fundamental right to use violent threats to intimidate me into not copying or modifying code.

>You seem to suggest that people shouldn't profit from their work.

I absolutely do not suggest that. There are ways one can profit from software development (or other creative and technical endeavors) that don't involve threatening people with violent force.

>I just don't think FOSS software alone is tenable.

I understand that. At least acknowledge that you are the fundamentalist here, taking the approach that because you don't believe it is "tenable" for software to be free, you think it is pragmatic and therefor acceptable to use violent force to prevent others from copying or modifying code.

Proprietary software which restricts its distribution and "unauthorized" modification (virtually all of it) is the very essence of fundamentalism. It relies on a rigid and literal interpretation of what constitutes property (e.g. that the concept of "intellectual property" is coherent and non-contradictory) and even goes so far as to use threats, ultimately backed by violent force, to ensure compliance with this belief. To conclude this blog post decrying the skepticism of proprietary software with "extreme opinions are rarely correct" strikes me as particularly ironic and absurd.

FOSS is the antithesis of this fundamentalism, as it expressly rejects the use of threats to intimidate others into not copying or modifying code. I'm sure there are some people who make sweeping generalizations that may not apply to all proprietary software, but being suspicious of an opposing viewpoint doesn't make one a fundamentalist.

Copyright is not a form of cooperation. It is a threat. If you copy something without permission, you risk retaliation that is, ultimately, backed by violent force. It is hardly honest to call something "cooperation" under these circumstances.

Employers who aren't ruled over like slaves should be able to fire or hire employees for any reason, including race, gender, or political belief. Of course, it may benefit the public to know if an employer is hiring or firing based on bigotry, which is a much better "solution" than the resulting unintended consequences of government regulating this kind of discrimination.

I strongly suspect the amount of money Facebook makes utilizing that data greatly outweighs the cost incurred by the "customers" they've lost as a result of poor data handling.

To my knowledge there are very few negative consequences, outside of the immediate and obvious ones like reputation, that actually occur when companies leak customer data. I suspect they won't regard keeping vast troves of customer data as a liability until that changes.

While I don't have an in-depth technical understanding of exactly why this happens in every instance, I have definitely observed this while playing Cities: Skylines, a SimCity-like game which emulates traffic flow.

I actually did not intend to specifically insult the audience in this case, but I can understand why it was interpreted that way. I'll make an effort to be more civil in my future replies.

You're right, I have clearly forgotten the spirit of the discussion here. I apologize for that.

Cool, you ignored half my comment to engage in dishonest bickering filled with more assumptions as to my motivations. Are you having fun?

> We seem to have a difference in base assumptions. I'd like to preserve and further the technological civilization. You seem to want to shut it down.

Not sure where you're getting that from. I do not want to "shut it down," quite the opposite.

> Do you believe that nation states exist solely, or primarily, to control currency?

No, but control of currency is a major factor in their sustained existence.

> Currency is the blood of the nation, yes, but nation states form organically, to further interests of groups of people. Whenever you have more than a dozen people in one place, you get hierarchical governance, and the more people you add, the more that hierarchy grows vertically to cope with the load.

Nation states are a symptom of obsolete social organization technology. They result in massive human suffering and hampering of technological growth. Their formation, whether "organically" or not, is irrelevant.

> With millions of people, you arrive at some form of states;

States neither require millions of people, nor are they a necessary result of millions of people existing.

> add couple wars into the mix, and you arrive at modern sovereign nation states.

Is this intended as an indictment?

> Point being, if cryptocurrencies were to break states' control over money - and what I guess you hope for

Yes.

> after lots of blood unnecessarily shed

"Unnecessarily" is a large assumption. And ideally it would happen with as little violence as possible, preferably none. When contrasted with the scale of the crimes of nation states, however, it seems difficult to make a case for their continued existence, even with massive short term casualty.

> the states would be back in some form.

What are you basing this assumption on? I think there is a strong case that social organizing technology is likely to result in nation states being made obsolete over time. The contradicting viewpoint is not substantiated by much, I suspect.

> It's doubtful though, that cryptocurrencies would survive the process. They need computing and Internet to work, and computers&Internet need stable global economy to exist. Break the economy, break the supply chains, and modern technology evaporates.

Computing and networking are not dependent on the existence of nation states. A stable global economy is especially not dependent on them -- in fact, nation states are quite probably the largest cause of global instability, economically and otherwise. Preferably, a transition away from nation states happens using technology itself. Cryptocurrency is likely to play a major role in this.

> Along with 90% of urban population starving to death.

A sudden overnight collapse of nation states might very well lead to large deaths, although probably not at this scale. This is not likely to happen, and certainly not likely to happen as a result of mass cryptocurrency adoption.

> Yes, I'm fearful, because this technology is tuned in with the markets just well enough that it may propagate

I'm glad you've admitted your remarks about cryptocurrency being wasteful and harmful to the environment are motivated by trying to suppress its existence.

> whether governments want it or not

As opposed to free people...

> and grow to the point of burning out most of our non-renewable energy sources

Ridiculous.

> with little to show for it, before someone finally puts a stop to it

Good luck.

> I've painted a bleak worst-case scenario above

You've spread fear-based propaganda based on an issue you clearly have made a lot of seemingly fear-based (as opposed to reasoned) assumptions about.

> I sincerely hope cryptocurrenicies as we know today will fizzle out and be remembered just as another scam

You fear the change that this technology brings, so you hope it is suppressed and remembered for being something you (possibly) understand it is not?

> I'm not against distributed ledgers, distributed consensus, or even new designs for money.

These are the potential benefits of cryptocurrency.

> I'm just against stupidly inefficient solutions exacerbating the biggest problems humanity faces.

Even a grossly less efficient method for mining cryptocurrency would be preferable to the problems caused by the continued existence of nation states, and probably by their control of currency alone, not even factoring in all of their other crimes.

The biggest problem humanity faces is the existence of nation states, and the resulting democide and destruction, as well as potential existential threats of nuclear annihilation or other destruction. In the pursuit of perpetuating themselves, nation states are also likely major limiting factors in technological advance, which is the single greatest factor in preventing human suffering.