this post was submitted on 14 Aug 2025
29 points (100.0% liked)
Technology
74024 readers
1851 users here now
This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.
Our Rules
- Follow the lemmy.world rules.
- Only tech related news or articles.
- Be excellent to each other!
- Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
- Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
- Politics threads may be removed.
- No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
- 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.
- Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed
- 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
view the rest of the comments
Name a more iconic duo
Maybe?
There are only two good use cases for crypto:
What about paying for censored games?
If it's censored by the government, it'd fall under use-case #2.
What about it?
It's a 3rd use case.
No, it's not a viable use case.
Developers of such games what the broadest market possible and consumers want easy accessibility and stable updates/support.
The groups outlined above are interested in the product and not promotion of some cryptocurrency.
Both these goals are best served using real currencies, not monero. Such payment systems (using real currency, aimed at content with erotica/porn) are widely available and haven in use for 30+ years.
If you don't want to deal with such payment systems directly (e.g. setup an LLC and other such matters), there are multiple easy to implement distribution approaches that one can launch in ~15 minutes.
This is why I don't trust crypto promoters.
You would use real currencies for everything except the transfer. The consumer only sees USD. The provider swaps back to Fiat as soon as necessary.
The use case is enabling payment over the Internet while avoiding traditional, censoring providers.
Couldn't those transactions be cut off at those swapping points to fiat? I assume if a bank doesn't support a business directly transferring funds for a particular purpose then they'd take issue with indirectly transferring funds for the same purpose and would work to close those accounts.
It can happen. That would involved cutting off access to all crypto for that individual. It's not common.
Even on the token side there are often blacklist addresses (e.g. USDC) that perform a similar function. Usually for hacks rather than terrorism.
This does not make sense.
What you're saying is that it's impossible to buy porn/erotica online without monero. This is clearly wrong.
You most definitely could do that before blockchains were a thing.
I haven't said anything like that.
I'm saying crypto is an additional, uncensored payment channel.
And why exactly is it a use case if you can already buy erotica/porn via specialized payment services without monero?
What's the benefit here? Be clear and specific. Don't randomly bring terms like "privacy", "uncensored" and "freedums".
It's called a use case because you can use it.
An additional vector to avoid censorship.
I've always maintained that the dude who spent like 10,000 Bitcoin to buy a pizza was the first and last legitimate use of crypto.
And:
For example, think of:
Bitcoin ain't it, bit privacy coins like Monero exist and tend to not have as much fraud spam since they don't have as many crazy spikes. I want Monero to be a thing because:
I wouldn't use it for everything since it has no purchase protections, but I'd absolutely use it for a lot of small stuff if it was possible.
Have to disagree on this one.
How would this even work? You transfer monero to a person in an authoritarian state and then what? What do they do with Monero? You think an authoritarian state is going to allow you to pay for utilities with Monero? Buy food?
Monero doesn't allow for private transactions as this issue is a social and political problem, not a technology issue.
I wouldn't be surprised if your transactions would be less private with monero than a bank payment (because of Monero's unlicensed nature).
sad thing is that it could be great as an alternative to mastercard/visa but crypto fash have just ruined any attempt to make it appealing to anyone other than crypto fascists.
You don't need crypto as an alternative to MasterCard/Visa. There are multiple national payment systems that de facto work on a public benefit basis or offer no fees or very low fees.
One major example is India's UPI:
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unified_Payments_Interface
Even in a medium sized developing country like Ukraine, I can send anyone money (P2P, business payment, business transaction) with minimal or no fees on a near instantaneous basis off my phone.
I am not on top of recent payment infrastructure developments, but from memory this is relatively common.
No need for scam services like PayPal, Venmo.
And this has been avaible for half a decade minimum (was living in another country before then).
Sure sure, is it a sound, decentralized bottom up monetary network built by the people for the people on cryptography rails on an uncensorable network?
Love your style!
👀
As I understand it, cryptocurrency funnily enough works awfully as a means of transaction, because the amount of processing power required to make transactions is ridiculously high.
Only for PoW crypto.
If a cryptocurrency concentrates into the hands of a few, as assets tend to do in capitalism, then wouldn't proof of stake mean those few control the cryptocurrency anyway?
If the protocol is badly designed, yes.
In theory, the stakers should only be rewarded for correctly confirming transaction and that capital (staked tokens) should carry no votes in any protocol changes.