Don’t worry. The right wing orientation won’t stay hidden past the Thanksgiving family dinner.
2 Likes
“I got the meat-sweats.”
2 Likes
[quote=“shaddack, post:185, topic:50111”]
That’s a right wing.[/quote]
3 Likes
Werd…
2 Likes
I have no idea how much Uber is actually worth; that would take doing due diligence and all. But they’ve spent most of the capital development that they’ll have to do up front (except for adapting to occasional new phones, etc.), and I’d be surprised if they’re not running profitably because they do make money on each transaction. The main uncertainties are how many more markets they’ll be able to get into, what they’ll need to spend on advertising for each new market, and how much they’ll have to spend for occasional litigation or regulatory haggling costs.
1 Like
But… But… No! This isn’t how a block chain works! Nothing is “prohibited”, it mathematicaly verified.
So moving currency " out" of a cryptocurrency is as easy as a craigslist ad. Double spending, forged currency, and exploits have nothing to do with the market.
Exchanging crypto-units for fiat currency is trivial, and always will be. The alternative is (wait for it) DRM.
1 Like
I don’t claim to know how it works, my point was that’s what it is used for. And if there isn’t anything prohibited then why do they fix exploits instead of letting people double dip? There are obviously some outlines of intended usage.
If you read what my post was in reference to, what I was explaining that taking it out is an exploit. The topic was “What’s with the rampant speculation and volatility?” My answer to that is to use a cryptocurrency which does not migrate from the system. Then people use it as a currency instead of a mere investment instrument.
Perhaps it’s a given now. But I think it’s survival depends upon at least the ability to make it self contained.
What do you mean “wait for it”? It was the next thing you wrote!
DRM is a nonsense buzzword, since nobody has ever agreed what “digital rights” are supposed to be. A better (although certainly contentious) example of what I am thinking of is GPL. The GPL licenses exist to keep the development from getting swamped by all of the existing commercial use of code. Something roughly analogous which keeps value within the currency rather than people selling it off for other currencies which already have an advantage in adoption and legal favoritism can help make it useful as a medium of exchange.
Perhaps it’s anything but trivial to do, and irrelevant to your interest in “the market”, but I think it’s vital in getting cryptocurrency to actually supplant fiat currency. Which is where I think it’s real value lies.
There is no technological solution that prevents a transfer of one currency to another. The entire premise is flawed. I can walk through the details if you’d like, but it is genuinely as impossible to have a currency that cant convert to a fiat currency as “foolproof DRM” is impossible.
It doesnt mean that societal improvements regarding money can’t happen, it just won’t be via cryptocurrencies.
I am not being difficult or trollish. Cryptocurrencies were designed to solve a different set of problems than I think you are imagining.
1 Like
This is a common comedic trope :). Think of it as a turn of phrase, nothing more was implied.
Cory Doctorow was cited in an article for ending DRM in ten years. On this website. And has posted articles about DRM for about a decade. Again, on this website.
Fist bump.
1 Like
I just included one easy solution in my previous post. Simply include it as a licensing condition in the terms of use of the technology in the first place. Why do people even bother using a software license of it’s not a foolproof way to prevent misuse? It at least exposes those who use it unethically and allows others in the community to re-think who they might be dealing with. An imperfect solution is hardly worth scoffing at if nothing has been tried.
If they don’t bring any improvements, then what is the point of developing them? It is arguable that there have been improvements. Also, their future in part depends upon how their cryptography is used.
Trying to adapt currency to what I need means that I am imagining something? Why do you suppose to know what they were all designed for? I just have my own uses for currency, like I assume anyone would. But my uses are strategic rather than personal.
I know. I can read about a phenomenon and still find that it amounts to a nonsensical buzzword. People are just weird about marketing their ideas in the least clear ways possible.
Respek Knuckles!
Heh, sometimes I feel that about life. 
The point of these currencies is to prevent CC charges. There are aspirational goals, but it all comes down to the 2.8% charge on transactions.
Yes. Yes we are.
2 Likes
So, let’s say I have popbawacoins and want to convert them to currency, but I can’t because I ready the click-through-license-agreement. Anyway.
You have a car that you want to exchange for popbawacoins.
Without violating the terms of the license, we exchange popbawacoins for your car.
I turn around and the thing to CarMaxx for $9675 in US Dollars.
Without violating the terms of the licensing agreement.
The only way to block something like that, is by blocking any transfers of popbawacoins.
What I outlined might not prevent any particular instance of a currency being exchanged for another, but it would still make it more difficult to operate a dedicated full-time currency exchange. Because unless you openly advertised that you were doing so, you’d have no customers. Going back to the GPL analogy, that doesn’t prevent you from stealing GPLd code for your own use, since nobody else would know about it. But if you start using it as part of a commercial service, people would be aware that you were using it unethically, and it would harm your reputation.
This topic was automatically closed after 5 days. New replies are no longer allowed.
This topic was automatically closed after 5 days. New replies are no longer allowed.
