You said the Bitcoin ledger is mutable. It’s not. You said Bitcoin isn’t anonymous and that’s mostly true because it’s pseduo-anonymous which can be fully anonymous if you want it to be.

but it needs to be secure and allow for anonymous transactions, and not allow for tampering with the ledger. Bitcoin has failed on all three accounts.

Lol what? No legitimate bitcoin critics make these claims against Bitcoin. The ledger is immutable and the transactions are pseudo anonymous. In fact your typical bitcoin critic lists these as downsides (“no way to reverse mistakes” and “cannot prevent money laundering”) right after the criticisms about energy consumption.

You legitimately have no idea what you’re talking about.

It’s crazy how quickly people Boomers, managers, executives and capitalists flip flop between “Salary is performance based you don’t have set hours” to “You didn’t work every hour from 9-5”. This hypocritical nonsense only drives more people to take on anti-work perspectives.

If you want me to make executive decisions then pay me like an executive.

It is I! USB-C-MAN! Begone with you foul villain!

if it’s human-viewable it’ll also be computer-viewable

Sort of. If you raise a person to look at thousands pictures of random pixels and say “that’s a fox” or “that’s not a fox” eventually they’ll make up a pattern to say if the random pixels are a fox or not. Meanwhile someone raised normally will take one look and go “that’s just random pixels it’s not a picture of anything”. AI is still in that impressionable stage. So you feed it garbage and it doesn’t know it’s garbage.

Obviously you don’t have a business degree.

The problem compounds as they post more and more content creating a feedback loop of terrible information.

Why do people assume individuals are planning on defending themselves from the full force of the government? There’s a whole chasm of situations between “The power structures in place leave me in peace” and “The power structures in place have decided to move with their full weight against me specifically.”

No we’re not ok.

On the one hand moderate and liberal voters, the DNC, establishment Democrats, centerist corporate news stations, past presidents and Biden himself are talking about how dangerous Trump is. He cannot be allowed to win.

Okay, sounds serious. Serious enough to make some big moves in order to get the votes necessary to win by a comfortable margin? If you check out Biden’s insistence on continuing to ship weapons to Israel the answer is “no”.

And really this encapsulates the problem with so called moderates and liberals. When faced with a choice between left or right when the center cannot hold they just fuck around, stall or outright sabotage leftist efforts. Effectively cementing a rightward victory and then blaming it on leftists.

It’s pretty pathetic how often they play this game and considering they actually do seem sincerely worried about Trump it’s bewildering why they aren’t seeking more cooperative efforts with leftists and progressives. They remain steadfastly confident stern lectures, as if leftists and progressives owe their votes, are all that is necessary.

I need more context. What are elderly Belgian women known for?

This. I built a new machine and assumed the PSU was the least likely to be the issue. After testing the video card, ram, cpu and motherboard… I tried my spare PSU and it worked great. smh

He’d have a very difficult time proving any of it is authentic.

Companies like to straddle the technical challenges appeal where they’re innovative risk takers but don’t you dare try to improve on any existing system. If they just want firefighters then say so and accept that people aren’t going to be passionate about it.

That’s fine?

Signatures aren’t meant to prove authenticity. They’re proving the source which you can use to weigh the authenticity.

I think the confusion comes from the fact that cryptographic signatures are mostly used in situations where proving the source is equivalent to proving authenticity. Proving a text message is from me proves the authenticity as there’s no such thing as doctoring my own text message. There’s more nuance when you’re using signatures to prove a source which may or may not be providing trustworthy data. But there is value in at least knowing who provided the data.

“Herd immunity” comes into play here. If those people keep getting dismissed by most other people because the video isn’t signed they’ll give up and follow the crowd. Culture is incredibly powerful.

We’ve had this discussion a lot in the Bitcoin space. People keep arguing it has to change so that “grandma can understand it” but I think that’s unrealistic. Every technology has some inherent complexities that cannot be removed and people have to learn if they want to use it. And people will use it if the motivation is there. Wifi has some inherent complexities people have become comfortable with. People know how to look through lists of networks, find the right one, enter the passkey or go through the sign on page. Some non-technical people know enough about how Wifi should behave to know the internet connection might be out or the route might need a reboot. None of this knowledge was commonplace 20 years ago. It is now.

The knowledge required to leverage the benefits of cryptographic signatures isn’t beyond the reach of most people. The general rules are pretty simple. The industry just has to decide to make the necessary investments to motivate people.

I remember when they had the same conversations about packet sniffers.

Turned out the answer was to use encryption and switches.

Not much of a future to believe in these days.

Fucking delusional pricks.