this post was submitted on 11 Mar 2026
450 points (97.5% liked)

Technology

82524 readers
4533 users here now

This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.


Our Rules


  1. Follow the lemmy.world rules.
  2. Only tech related news or articles.
  3. Be excellent to each other!
  4. Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
  5. Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
  6. Politics threads may be removed.
  7. No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
  8. Only approved bots from the list below, this includes using AI responses and summaries. To ask if your bot can be added please contact a mod.
  9. Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed
  10. Accounts 7 days and younger will have their posts automatically removed.

Approved Bots


founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] traxex@lemmy.dbzer0.com 13 points 14 hours ago (4 children)

I’d wager even the 1% is the stereotypical “solution in search of a problem”. Seems to be a reoccurring theme as of late in the tech industry.

[–] Abyssian@lemmy.world 4 points 9 hours ago (1 children)

Having a currency not backed by a government or different currency is actually something the world could benefit from. Iranian currency was backed by USD, the US caused a shortage of USD there, and their currency value dropped to under 3% of it's former value. 90 Million people.

That said, I think most of us have only ever used crypto to buy drugs off the internet.

[–] HK65@sopuli.xyz 3 points 4 hours ago (1 children)

Yeah, but a currency practically needs a military and an economy to back it.

Who is going to stop me from fucking with the bitcoin supply if I own the US economy?

[–] mattyroses@lemmy.today 2 points 2 hours ago

That's the point of crypto - unless you can alter 51% of the blockchain, you can't.

[–] A_Random_Idiot@lemmy.world 5 points 12 hours ago* (last edited 2 hours ago) (1 children)

the 1% is the people who say "well, sure, 99% is a scam, but theres a legit 1% thats totally real!"

[–] phutatorius@lemmy.zip 1 points 2 hours ago

Thre might be a recognizable item of food in a turd, but I'm still not going to eat it.

[–] explodicle@sh.itjust.works 2 points 13 hours ago (1 children)

The Times 03/Jan/2009 Chancellor on brink of second bailout for banks.

[–] shortwavesurfer@lemmy.zip -1 points 11 hours ago (1 children)

In case anybody sees this and doesn't know the context, this is the note that was published in the Genesis block of the Bitcoin blockchain, Satoshi wanted to engrave forever the fact that at this time the chancellor was on the brink of second bailout for banks. It was a call-out against the fiat system, and it's one of the best call-outs in history. and will be there forever more.

If you happen to have an original copy of this newspaper, it is a genuine artifact, and you can make absolute tons of money on it. No bullshit.

Based on this headline and the fact that Satoshi mentioned digital cash in the white paper as much as he did, you can clearly tell that he was frustrated with the fiat system and all the excesses that came with it and wanted to create a whole different system that was out of the hands of governments and corporations. He came close to succeeding but didn't quite finish the job because he couldn't figure out a way to add privacy into his ledger, which makes the entire thing completely transparent to law enforcement and government crooks.

However, on April 13th, 2014, the final puzzle piece was added with the launch of Monero, which has a fully private blockchain that does not have sender, receiver, or amounts being shown.

If you ever happen to read this comment, Satoshi, thank you for your great work. We will be forever in debt to you.

[–] phutatorius@lemmy.zip 2 points 2 hours ago

The fact that there is corruption in the financial system doesn't automatically mean that every other system is honest.

[–] Sunflier@lemmy.world -4 points 13 hours ago (2 children)

Ethereum has the potential to carry real world assets on its chain. Why does an share of stock have to go through a clearing house when it could be an L2 on ethereum? A company having a total of 1 million shares is no different from a L2 coin having a total number of 1 million coins. They can even be fractional too.

[–] phutatorius@lemmy.zip 1 points 2 hours ago* (last edited 2 hours ago)

There is no provable way to show that any claim of ownership on Ethereum is legitimate, unless that person has some real-world proof of ownership, in which case the Ethereum link adds no value. It's just another step with another middleman.

[–] explodicle@sh.itjust.works 7 points 13 hours ago (4 children)

Literally every cryptocurrency supports this. But if the real world assets can be seized with a court order, then what's the point of a blockchain and not just a legally compliant database?

[–] phutatorius@lemmy.zip 1 points 2 hours ago

Blcokchains aren't even worth a shit as implementations of a distributed ledger.

[–] A_Random_Idiot@lemmy.world 6 points 12 hours ago

but like, man, like.. its totally new, like, and like, totally amazing man. you just, like, cant comprehend, man!

[–] Sunflier@lemmy.world 0 points 9 hours ago* (last edited 9 hours ago) (1 children)

Bitcoin doesn't support this. It's what is being mirrored, yes. But, Ethereum is kinda like the distributed operating system/network that could/would allow 24 hour trading without having a clearing-house middleman.

[–] explodicle@sh.itjust.works 1 points 9 hours ago

You're talking about real-world assets carried on-chain, right? Bitcoin has supported this for a very very long time.

[–] shortwavesurfer@lemmy.zip -3 points 10 hours ago* (last edited 10 hours ago) (1 children)

The true libertarians and anarchists in the room would call out the fact that they are attempting to build a world where governments don't run courts because governments don't exist and that all courts would be arbitration courts and decentralized and run by the community. If I have a problem with you, I tell my arbitrator about it, and my arbitrator tells you that I have a problem with you. If you don't like my arbitrator, then you choose your own arbitrator, and if I don't like the arbitrator you choose, then the arbitrators choose a third party arbitrator that they both agree on, and we agree to be bound by what that arbitrator says.

Edit: If you are willing to watch a 22 minute video, this might be of interest to you.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fZ0Qkhnt6bQ

[–] phutatorius@lemmy.zip 2 points 2 hours ago

What's the point of an arbirator when there's no means to enforce compliance with their decision? And what could that system actually be? Functionally, it'd be identical to a government.