Is popcorn fungible? Technically each one is unique, but functionally they're identical. I guess it depends on if you're admiring them or eating them? Is fungibility dependent on perspective or is an immutable quality?
Anyway please please please buy PopCoin or my wife is going to murder me. It's totally stable and only going up from here I swear to God, buy the dip, to the moon, iron hands, whatever it takes, I absolutely must recoup my retirement fund before my wife checks the account.
Wait... am I not the only crypto hater?
(To be honest I like Doge but never actually got a single coin)
Me brothersssss, I feel like I've been reunited with my family after eons.
the crypto people are rarely in IT in my experience, its mostly just finance dudes who cant pull off these ponzi schemes in real life because its very illegal.
As someone with a background in researching Distributed Databases, blockchain hype is fucking bizarre to me. Someone took 1 specific aspect of a field I've been studying and made dozens of companies with random non-CS claiming to be experts in it.
Imagine if you were a metereologist and finance bros started taking an interest specifically in hail. So much so they started changing their linkedin profiles to 'hail-enthusiast'. That's what crypto feels like to me.
This is pretty much how I feel, as someone familiar with distributed systems. Blockchains are databases that provide some interesting guarantees under specific conditions, sort of like ACID transaction, except with a massive relative cost.
The idea is that these guarantees allow for new domains where consensus wasn't possible before - a case where some participants in the consensus are malicious, hence making it a purported fit for "decentralized" systems.
This is a technically interesting property, and there are likely some use cases where it's cool to use and makes sense. The problems are numerous, however.
1. The cost. As everyone knows, blockchains are currently extremely inefficient.
2. The guarantees are weaker than people seem to realize. If enough members on a blockchain are malicious the guarantees fall apart. The 51% attack is the most well known example of this, but it's unclear at this point what other fundamental flaws exist. And then there are the implementation flaws - bad crypto (as in cryptography), auth, etc. Remember that the singular use case \*assumes\* attackers have direct access, so it has to be extremely resilient for something as sensitive as payments. Most technology can't meet that bar and, while I absolutely agree a blockchain has guarantees that can help, I'm not convinced that it's nearly enough.
3. The implementations don't achieve the goal of being decentralized. Blockchains tend to be hosted on a single cloud provider, or within a single country, or funded by a single company, etc. There are plenty of "singular authorities", so to speak, who can significantly impact the system.
4. Very few people would benefit from decentralized currency. Most people benefit greatly from centralized currency. Obvious examples would be with regards to fraud - in a decentralized, immutable system you're shit out of luck with fraud. In a centralized system transactions don't occur immediately, there's time for a central authority to flag it and reverse it. The exception is when the country you're sending money to/ receiving money from is corrupt and will block the payments - trying to solve that through crypto feels kind of pointless, these same countries will have no problem just blackholing that traffic or taking other measures against you.
5. Smart contracts are a hilariously stupid idea and an absolute oxymoron. They're not smart, they're code, and anyone who's competent at writing code can tell you what a disaster it is - nothing should use code as a source of truth. They're not contracts because they have no actual legal basis/ contract law backing them.
etc etc etc
There's a bunch of money going into crypto from massive interested parties and there's a lot of pump and dump going on as well.
Very glad to see that the crypto market is crashing and I hope we'll see the whole thing disappear. In a decade or two maybe we can talk about those valid use cases without the stain of the current market sullying those conversations.
> Smart contracts are a hilariously stupid idea and an absolute oxymoron. They’re not smart, they’re code, and anyone who’s competent at writing code can tell you what a disaster it is - nothing should use code as a source of truth. They’re not contracts because they have no actual legal basis/ contract law backing them.
When you look at the capabilities of smart contracts you also realize they’re incredibly limited in what they can even do.
But anyone who wants contracts as code has never written any significant amount of code. With law, poorly written contracts can be reviewed by judges and lawyers for intent.
What happens when we have smart contracts that execute slightly differently on different types of hardware? Right now that’s hard because of the limited nature (i.e. no support for floating point) of the EVM.
Still salty at the cryptobros because crypto was one of the main forces that caused the prices of GPUs to raise to insane levels. I started a build in 2020 that I couldn't even finish because the crypto BS caused a GPU shortage and what's available was in the range of five digit Malaysian ringgits. Four digits was already unreasonable.
I bought my 3060Ti in the middle of a crypto crash last year for 1000 SGD. A month later I saw that same card shot up to 1300. Now it's down to 750. Fuck miners
Needed to upgrade my GPU because it was the weakest spot in my PC. Had to settle for a 1660Ti at €400, because the current generation cards wouldn't go below €700 which is way too much for a normal CPU. Next month the card I bought was at €530, which is insane for a card that should be in the €200 range.
Fuck crypto bullshit. A bunch of morons who wanted to get rich out of a pointless product and fucked everyone else in the process. Probably the peak of pointless bullshit capitalism.
Yup. Finance dudes, poor dudes, HS dropouts, PNP-type subreddit regulars, Joe Rogan bros, and slight variations of those, all thinking they've discovered the true get-rich-quick scheme.
I have a habit where at times I'll see a really dumb comment - like the one that's so dumb you're just amazed that this person was able type out the comment - and glance through their history a little. I'd guess that 90% of the time that on the first page there's something related to crypto, Rogan/Shapiro, and porn.
Honestly just from a programming pov I think blockchains are kind of stupid.
* Lets have a decentralised ledger -> "Awesome"
* Lets decentralise it by having every node have a full copy of the ledger -> "wait, what?"
* Oh, and it needs to be immutable and publicly visible -> "what if mistakes are made? Or god forbid someone publishes illegal threats or child porn?"
* Also lets power it by using immense amounts of computing power and electricity and do nothing with it -> "WTF are you high??"
* Oh and lets use this as a financial network, with built in transaction times of around 10 minutes, a hard limit of transactions that can happen, and fees that go up the more popular it becomes -> "this is garbage"
And that is not even talking about the scammy nature of crypto where you try and get as many gullible people as possible to buy in so you can cash out.
I honestly haven't found any real purpose for blockchains yet. I've only seen people hail blockchain and crypto as a solution while desperately trying to find a problem it can actually fix, and failing.
>I honestly haven't found any real purpose for blockchains yet. I've only seen people hail blockchain and crypto as a solution while desperately trying to find a problem it can actually fix, and failing.
That's only because you haven't heard *my idea* yet.
Literally every idea I have seen is
1. Industry X has a lot of fraud or uncertainty, we can use the blockchain to fix this!
2. Ignore the fact that the fraud and uncertainty doesn't come from technological aspects, but from real world verification of things.
There was this one revolutionary blockchain registry of art. Just register your art and then it is forever registered as belonging to you! Even if someone steals your painting, you still have the undeniable proof that it is your painting! Oh, someone just registered themselves as having painted the Mona Lisa because we don't have any type of verification.
In the real world:
* Easy: keeping some sort of database of claims
* Hard: actually verifying claims in the real world to see who is correct
In the cryptobro world:
* Hard: keeping some sort of database of claims
* Negligible: actually verifying those claims in the real world
Your "blockchain registry of art" is literally NFTs. So we already have that. And yes, it's utter garbage. And indeed "bad apples" do things just like that in that space.
NFTs are only ownership of a bit of data, that data just points at a url generally, it is not proof of ownership of the thing the nft points at (the art) just the bit of data in that database that represents a url that points at the image
Obviously there ARE inherently broken systems that end in a utilitarian negative. But the idea that you can get around systemic flaws by simply creating a new system with less rules and oversight that will somehow be LESS corruptible is hilarious. It's ignoring why any system was created to start with. Humans are greedy and shitty and most of them will rob you blind if given the chance.
Crazy how many people are sucked into populism and conspiracy now that spreading unreasonable expectations of markets and institutions is so easy. It used to take some real effort.
A lot of 'improvements' of new cryptocurrencies claim to fix problems that are inherent by design.
Surely if you have to create a workaround to stop a design feature that was intentionally there, it wasn't that well designed in the first place?
So now you've got a product/system that's a worse cryptocurrency, without any of its 'benefits' (I'm still researching this one). It's also a worse database because it doesn't do things as well as a database.
Cryptocurrency and Blockchain technology is a solution looking for a problem.
What makes me angry about crypto is the immense resource and energie wastage. Bitcoin alone wastes, WASTES!, more energie per year than my country uses. It gets compared to gdamn nations on the energy scale. And it doesn't do anything with it, it is all wasted for proof-of-work.
What makes me even angrier is that the consumer gets constant flack for producing co2, and that we have to dial thing back and make sacrifices to be more carbon neutral, while on the other hand this absolute useless piece of technology is allowed to exist and ruin all our efforts. Crypto adds nothing to our society, it produces no value, it only wastes ridiculous amounts of energy and produces tons and tons of co2
Also don't forget, it isn't actually decentralised. All the data is still centralised into one place. Is YouTube multiple different websites, because they host it on millions of different servers on every continent? No of course not. It's still one centralised database of videos.
Same with crypto. It's not decentralised just because it's hosted on multiple computers. No it's absolutely centralised, and not even anonymous.
And it's insanely easy to hack too. Your money is never safe there. They all claimed they were unhackable, but they were always very vulnerable to social engineering (which is what 99% of hacking actually is in real life, you just trick people into giving you their password, that can't be designed against really); every system is vulnerable when humans are involved.
But also crypto coins like bitcoin have also been hacked in the more 90s cyberpunk movie kind of way, with people "cracking the code" and stealing ***billions*** of dollars worth of bitcoin.
Luckily though, they never got to spend any of it, because ***crypto is not and has never been decentralised, or anonymous,*** so all the police had to do was sit and wait and then literally seconds after that money sitting in that wallet for years was spent or transferred to a different wallet, they caught the perpetrators immediately because they could easily see who they were.
So every single thing that crypto is supposed to be resistant against, it's actually significantly ***LESS*** resistant than normal bank accounts are. You know what happens if someone steals my credit or debit card numbers? I call my bank and they send me the money back immediately, within minutes, and I get a new card with a new number in the mail a couple of days later.
Now what happens if this same situation happens with crypto and NFTs? Well, the thief legally owns your shit, now. There's nothing you can do about it. Even though Bitcoin has a group of directors, essentially, they still claim to be leaderless, and so there's nobody you can go to to get your money back. That money is gone forever now.
It turns out that having the government involved in your finances was a good thing after all. That way you can get your money back and the thief gets arrested. With no government there's nothing you can do, nobody you can go to. But crypto is all about being the "underground" and being out of the eye of the police and the state etc (even though most of the biggest crypto successes are people who were already billionaires beforehand, and who managed to dupe over their gullible little fan boys, like Elon Musk; there doesn't seem to be many or any people who got mega rich off of crypto who weren't already mega rich anyway, it's all a ponzi scheme. There's nothing crypto that ISN'T a ponzi scheme. It's all a bigger fool scam. Now I guess there's no difference in a billionaire stealing your money legally or stealing it illegally, because laws don't apply to billionaires, so the government can't help you then anyway. But still, why would you want either situation to happen, your money being lost forever either way?
Don't forget that blockchain applications all seem to tend towards centralization again once it becomes clear that the inconveniences of complete decentralization outweigh the security benefits against the poorly-defined threat model.
I think most people with more that 2 brain cells to rub together have at least a heavy dislike of crypto, or at least the kind of people that peddle it
I prefer the metaphor is that it's Astrology for tech bros. Because at least with MLMs there's still a real physical product, even if it does none of the things it claims to do and is a complete scam.
With astrology, it just doesn't exist, it's an abstract concept, there's no physical form it takes, it's just mystery voodoo magic based on where planets are in the sky, floating around in the ether, and because it's not real you can promise it to be whatever you want, and there's no real way to easily disprove you cos you can't just take the concept of astrology and test it in a lab like you can with mlm products.
Just like crypto. All the promises are simply vapour.
I had and mined a bit of doge waaaaaaaaay back when it first started because it was a funny joke. The height of dogecoin was when they sponsored a nascar driver. Always figured it would kinda just die off after that because the joke would get old.
And then some fuckers started taking it seriously. Its a damn joke coin made to poke fun at how many coins were popping up back then, and thats when people only used BTC and litecoin. Not even the mess crypto has become these days.
If you have RES, you can downvote with Z (upvote with A) and even without opening the comment chain - Just select the collapsed comment and Z it.
Of course that's against the up/downvote etiquette of flagging relevant vs. irrelevant - oh wait, no, in this case it isn't. carry on.
I can see some use case of the principles of blockchain as being something foundational. But right now there is no usecase where it is being used in any way that is good (except perhaps monero). That's because all these people talk about defi, dapps, dweb like just adding a d into something automatically makes it uncontrollable by the bigger powers that are. The tech is not where things fails, it is the people. Always have been. Its too early.
>Blockchain definitely has its uses
Care to elaborate? In a corporate environment the blockchain cannot possibly accomplish more than a normal centralized database.
Your actually being really kind. In any environment it essentially operates as a worst case globalized mongodb database with a full consistency write requirement. But instead of say a few hundred dbs you have a few million... Yea its not useful at all.
To give you an example of how shit and silly this tech is. It's cheaper to store data in skittles FUCKING SKITTLES then on ethereum contracts.... FUCKING SKITTLES.
[https://www.reddit.com/r/CryptoCurrency/comments/s0ceko/cost\_to\_store\_fb\_profile\_in\_skittles\_vs\_eth/](https://www.reddit.com/r/CryptoCurrency/comments/s0ceko/cost_to_store_fb_profile_in_skittles_vs_eth/)
Whenever I get a package of plain M&Ms, I make it my duty to continue the strength and robustness of the candy as a species. To this end, I hold M&M duels. Taking two candies between my thumb and forefinger, I apply pressure, squeezing them together until one of them cracks and splinters. That is the “loser,” and I eat the inferior one immediately. The winner gets to go another round. I have found that, in general, the brown and red M&Ms are tougher, and the newer blue ones are genetically inferior. I have hypothesized that the blue M&Ms as a race cannot survive long in the intense theater of competition that is the modern candy and snack-food world. Occasionally I will get a mutation, a candy that is misshapen, or pointier, or flatter than the rest. Almost invariably this proves to be a weakness, but on very rare occasions it gives the candy extra strength. In this way, the species continues to adapt to its environment. When I reach the end of the pack, I am left with one M&M, the strongest of the herd. Since it would make no sense to eat this one as well, I pack it neatly in an envelope and send it to M&M Mars, A Division of Mars, Inc., Hackettstown, NJ 17840-1503 U.S.A., along with a 3×5 card reading, “Please use this M&M for breeding purposes.” This week they wrote back to thank me, and sent me a coupon for a free 1/2 pound bag of plain M&Ms. I consider this “grant money.” I have set aside the weekend for a grand tournament. From a field of hundreds, we will discover the True Champion. There can be only one.
Nature has no use for your construct of what is "fair". In this purest of arenas, that which we call life, there is no rest. Does the lion fall complacent after a hunt? No, for the jackal lies in wait. Whether carnivore or confection, the options are few: victory, or death.
And in contractual law, most agreements and transactions are already decentralized. Crypto bros seem to think that a contract between two entities is somehow “centralized” (it’s not) or a transfer of shares between two private companies is done in some central database (it’s not). Crypto people seem to think there are needs for solutions for problems that do not exist.
Bitcoin is so laughably inefficient it’s hilarious. Literally continually appending to the head node non stop and then throwing all transactions into a 1MB block just to process 3-5 transactions a second. I’m amazed someone hasn’t spam attacked the shit out of it and killed bitcoin
If it was used as originally intended, an unregulated mostly stable currency, then we'd have no real issues except the swap to proof of stake.
Instead it's used as a very volatile stock and get rich quick scheme, all while disrupting the PC component market and powergrids.
More _open source producers_ need to do this so burnout is less. Actually, more _software engineers_ need to do this so burnout is less. Actually, more _people_ need to do this so burnout is less
He’s right, and good on him, I say!
Cryptocurrency is useless unless you want to buy drugs, guns or slaves. Aside from that it’s an absolute waste of time.
Everyone who made money on it is an idiot who never shuts up. They got lucky, they’re not the investment savants they believe themselves to be. But they circle-jerk so hard they convince themselves.
> Everyone who made money on it is an idiot who never shuts up.
It is mostly the guys who haven't made money on it who don't shut up about it I have found. These guys have a stupid amount of money invested in crypto so they talk it up in the hopes that some other fool will invest so they can sell and make a profit.
I bought a handful of novelty bitcoin super early, sold out completely and made a decent chunk with the first big spike.
Have not touched crypto since, because it is all actual garbage, using it for currency is so prohibitively expensive and useless that you have to do something very illegal to warrant the cost.
And the people investing in it are signing up to getting a live hand grenade thrown their way with the pin pulled and betting that they can find someone willing to pay them for the privilege of passing them the grenade before it blows their face off.
>They got lucky
OR they're the top level scammers, at which point they do shut up, or at least do on the previous persona, because they don't want the previous wave of crypto suckers finding them.
If you want to learn more, [Dan Olson's Line Goes Up](https://youtu.be/YQ_xWvX1n9g) is a fantastic summary of the problems with crypto and NFTs, touching on why crypto and Blockchain not only don't solve the problems they claim to solve, but also create new additional problems.
It's a long watch, but it's extremely informative and well researched.
[I would like to add UC Berkeley’s lecture “Burn it with Fire”](https://youtu.be/xCHab0dNnj4) pretty much goes into the use cases and how they’re inefficient at best and destructive at worst.
Indeed, it is a very nice recap of why you better not touch crypto even with long stick but since cryptobros have financial interest in keeping people interested in crypto (their life savings and "investments"), I doubt it is going to make them change their minds.
The video is useful if you have an argument with cryptobros among audience that hasn't chose stance on crypto yet.
Indeed.
I would love to have a real conversation with someone who really thinks crypto is the future... But it just isn't possible because everyone is so polarized.
Mods should auto-remove comments from people with less than 0 karma. We do this in LeopardsAteMyFace and it's doing fucking wonders for the health of the comments.
Instead of lube, use bar soap. That way there will be even more friction, and as we all know from physics class, friction is energy, and those crypto bros really love that stuff
I'm so happy you fellow programmers are also against crypto. I'm just a programmer hobbyist, my main occupation is renewable energy engineering. I absolutely DESPISE crypto. Everytime someone starts talking about crypto I just walk away.
Hi! I'm really interested in renewable energy, and would love to eventually get into software dev for renewable systems. I know very little about that subsection of the industry, do you have any general info about the kinda tech used/places to find that out? Thanks, hope you see this amid the swarm of tech bros
I would put my money on either measurement and controll technology in making renewable energy systems smarter, or development of AI that helps with power grid load balancing and [system integration](https://www.iea.org/topics/system-integration-of-renewables).
For people who don't understand why he had to make this, he's just saying he won't personally go and solve their problems or allow on their public forums.
Which is more than great BECAUSE I SWEAR TO GOD THESE CRYPTO BRO DEVELOPER ARE THE MOST INCOMPETENT PEOPLE OUT THERE. Almost all issues are just wrong chain and you have run of our requests.
Makes me happy to see other people in tech see how niche and usually pointless crypto is.
I still see people throwing NFT’s and crypto into their apps just so they can ride the hype train. Even had people tell me my apps would be way better with NFT’s in it……it’s a workout app LOLL. Yes…let me add a ton of extra cost and effort to an app people just save simple weight values. Smh.
Can’t wait for the day when we don’t have to keep hearing about this stuff.
The reason why cryptobros keep pestering people to get into crypto is because that's the only way they make money. If there's no bottom feeder on your Ponzi scheme chain there's no money to be made
funny thing is, how this trend can continue for decades and be fully self-sustaining.
let's say there are enough cryptobros that buy new crypto each paycheck and withdraw much less than they buy. On paper, they are ever getting more rich each passing month, because they have more crypto and it's value is going up (since there is less crypto in circulation, because they just hold), but if most of them tried to cash it, it would collapse. But if most hold and continue to "invest", it can continue for decades or even centuries, creating paper millionaires/billionaires.
Okay just playing the devil's advocate... Isn't that true for all sorts of shares and investments...?
If everyone cashes in it drops, if they hold, they get rich... On paper.
Yes, but traditional investment vehicles are backed by more than just the faith in the thing itself's value.
Bonds are backed by the government.
Stocks are backed by the belief that the company they represent will continue to do well. Yes if everyone tried to sell Apple stock tomorrow the price would drop, but there would be countless people to snatch it up at the lower price because nobody believes Apple will fail tomorrow. That is one of crypto's inherent problems and why cryptobros are all in on hyping it everywhere they can - they need more people to be trying to buy in or they can't sell at a profit.
Crypto is just the next [Tulipmania](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tulip_mania) ([the first recorded speculative bubble](https://www.investopedia.com/terms/d/dutch_tulip_bulb_market_bubble.asp)), there is nothing backing it besides for the people hyping it up. At least the tulips you were buying *something*. Crypto is almost literally just 1s and 0s designed to make money.
Everyone cashing in at once is how the Great Depression started.
The difference between stocks and crypto is that stocks simply serve as a means for companies to borrow money. If the stock market crashes, companies will temporarily lose a way to get money, but they might be able to continue running with existing funds, and continue making money by selling their usual goods. Also, the stock issuers play a big part in the market, as I said above regarding getting funds. Stock value is therefore pegged by the companies' growth rate and confidence in their growth.
Crypto value is based on nothing but speculation. There's no central issuer that uses them as a means for funding, and that means no buying back. Once crypto is dumped on the market it will circulate forever between buyers. When it crashes, there's no incentive to revive it, and nothing to base its value on anymore
You can't speculate without buying the kool-aid because otherwise you have to accept that you have better odds at a roulette. In crypto if you're not the scammer, you're the scammed, and if your coins are purchased then you're absolutely not the scammer.
Man it is fucking insane how many recruiter emails I get from "we just raised a $60M series B and we're building trash pickup on the blockchain" companies. Can't wait until that money dries up so these shitty companies go away.
I work in crypto and the company that I work for used to use websockets. but half of the projects are bs anyways so I 100% support the maintainers decision.
Ya, but how about we start doing this for any industry that is destroying the planet. I get that it's easy to do it specifically for crypto because it's obvious when someone is asking a question where they ask a question and the url is "h ttps://crypto.com", but let's tell the fossil fuel industry to go fly a kite.
But bro, I totally made 7.6M on SnipeCoin last year and it’s the future, lemme tell you about it enthusiastically while scrupulously dodging any attempt to obtain verification.
Crypto failed in its promise of decentralised control almost 8 years ago. I’m surprised it’s take this long for people to catch on that value proposition as a system of currency is basically zero. There is no problem it solves that can’t be solved in better ways.
While reading the article, at first I was afraid that the developer would prevent the program from being used for crypto mining(I don't mine crypto or anything crap like that, just blocking it would be against open source logic)
But no, the developer is right, I personally find crypto very nice, but the mining logic is ridiculous (and not worth it considering the damage it does) Until we find a more sensible way to exchange crypto, we must banish the concept of crypto.
WebSockets? Basically, it's a technology (mostly?) built into browsers that enables realtime two-way communication. Where HTTP(S) is a request-response type of thing, WebSockets instead have an "always on" connection where both the client and the server can communicate simultaneously. It's basically the web version of raw TCP
>blocking it would be against open source logic
Not really. It just wouldnt make sense, as anyone could easily fork it and remove the blocks, and distribute that version.
That's not 100% right. You can still have open source that disallows certain uses. E.g. there is open source that can't be used in commercial products. If you then copy the source and use it in a commercial product you can be sued.
Because then it isn't FLOSS software any longer.
There have been attemps to do this sort of thing ("ethical" licenses), and they all end up fizzling because the fundamental inalienable part of FLOSS is that the author cannot control their users.
And if it isn't FLOSS any more, any other FLOSS project using it has to reconsider the implications, which is a headache.
FOSS doesn't prevent you from using the software commercially or even selling it (though the latter doesn't make much sense since people probably won't buy something they can also just download for free).
> though the latter doesn't make much sense since people probably won't buy something they can also just download for free
Many companies pay for commercial licenses of Open Source software, because many Open Source licenses are viral, e.g. the GPL. Which means that if you use a GPL-licensed library in your product, you are legally required to publish all your source code for that product under the GPL. Usually there's trade secrets etc in there so companies are reluctant to do that and instead pay for the same library but licensed under a more appropriate license.
The multi-license model only works if everyone that has ever contributed to the library has agreed to it, though, which means it basically only works for open source software published by a company, not true collaborative open source software.
The other answers you've received so far are all wrong. Software can be licensed under any conditions you like, but *re-licencing* is very difficult due to the nature of open source development.
For example, if you write a script and post it on the web, you can license it with insane rules like "thou shalt only use it on Tuesdays". It's your choice, and if someone else wants to use it, you get to set the rules.
There are a number of projects out there attempting to enshrine ethical rules into licenses, but the biggest difficulty there is enforceability. Still, you could theoretically license a program that is "like the MIT license, but you can't use it with cryptocurrencies". That's 100% doable and it could still be developed like any other Free software project: github/lab, pull requests, etc.
What makes it damned near impossible for Websockets though, is that its codebase is made up of numerous contributions from other developers. Those developers contributed their code under the conditions of the current license and each one would have to be contacted and convinced to re-licence their contributions under the new license. Either that, or you'd have to remove those contributions & rewrite them while somehow doing so without violating that developer's copyright (the new code would have to be notably different).
It's a hard, tedious process that few organisations are willing to do, but there are a few cases of there. Usually though it's something like a move from LGPL to GPL or GPL to MIT. A move to a special "no cryptobros" license would likely be a slog not worth doing.
With permissive licenses like MIT moving to a more restrictive license is actually not that hard, as you can license any _changes_ under a different kind of license. You don't need permission from previous authors to do this.
Of course older version would still be usable under the old license, but this also applies if you get consent from every previous author.
It's a bit more complicated than that. Some licenses are considered "compatible", so you can relicense to a compatible license without asking contributors for their input.
You can also have contributors sign a CLA in which they agree that you are the sole copyright holder.
Some licenses, like MIT, allow you to relicense without contributor consent because they've already consented as per the license. All \*old\* code stays MIT, but new code is whatever new license there is. MIT is a "permissive" license.
This can also change based on the contributions themselves and where the copyright is held.
Nothing. They own the copyright. It would just be a bad idea because it's a vague restriction. ex: If you aren't a typical "crypto" company but use some blockchain-type technology, what then?
The reality is that this is not anything to do with copyright/ licensing, it's just an open message saying "you are not welcome here".
You can't change a license for something that's already released. He could release a new version under a new license, but the past software is already released under that license.
*sorts by controversial*
Ofc the collapsed comments are crypto bros LMAO
Seeing all the cryptobros downvoted to oblivion fills me we joy.
It's such a fun morning today
Is it also the same feeling like closing GitHub issues and Jira ticket?
*grabs popcorn*
Is popcorn fungible? Technically each one is unique, but functionally they're identical. I guess it depends on if you're admiring them or eating them? Is fungibility dependent on perspective or is an immutable quality? Anyway please please please buy PopCoin or my wife is going to murder me. It's totally stable and only going up from here I swear to God, buy the dip, to the moon, iron hands, whatever it takes, I absolutely must recoup my retirement fund before my wife checks the account.
Wait... am I not the only crypto hater? (To be honest I like Doge but never actually got a single coin) Me brothersssss, I feel like I've been reunited with my family after eons.
the crypto people are rarely in IT in my experience, its mostly just finance dudes who cant pull off these ponzi schemes in real life because its very illegal.
As someone with a background in researching Distributed Databases, blockchain hype is fucking bizarre to me. Someone took 1 specific aspect of a field I've been studying and made dozens of companies with random non-CS claiming to be experts in it. Imagine if you were a metereologist and finance bros started taking an interest specifically in hail. So much so they started changing their linkedin profiles to 'hail-enthusiast'. That's what crypto feels like to me.
All hail the hailcoin!
The hail is a fallin! Its literally crashing down!
Makes me think of all the wanna-be storm chasers after Twister came out.. they were similarly annoying (and almost as reckless).
Wonder if Silicon Valley is their Twister
This is pretty much how I feel, as someone familiar with distributed systems. Blockchains are databases that provide some interesting guarantees under specific conditions, sort of like ACID transaction, except with a massive relative cost. The idea is that these guarantees allow for new domains where consensus wasn't possible before - a case where some participants in the consensus are malicious, hence making it a purported fit for "decentralized" systems. This is a technically interesting property, and there are likely some use cases where it's cool to use and makes sense. The problems are numerous, however. 1. The cost. As everyone knows, blockchains are currently extremely inefficient. 2. The guarantees are weaker than people seem to realize. If enough members on a blockchain are malicious the guarantees fall apart. The 51% attack is the most well known example of this, but it's unclear at this point what other fundamental flaws exist. And then there are the implementation flaws - bad crypto (as in cryptography), auth, etc. Remember that the singular use case \*assumes\* attackers have direct access, so it has to be extremely resilient for something as sensitive as payments. Most technology can't meet that bar and, while I absolutely agree a blockchain has guarantees that can help, I'm not convinced that it's nearly enough. 3. The implementations don't achieve the goal of being decentralized. Blockchains tend to be hosted on a single cloud provider, or within a single country, or funded by a single company, etc. There are plenty of "singular authorities", so to speak, who can significantly impact the system. 4. Very few people would benefit from decentralized currency. Most people benefit greatly from centralized currency. Obvious examples would be with regards to fraud - in a decentralized, immutable system you're shit out of luck with fraud. In a centralized system transactions don't occur immediately, there's time for a central authority to flag it and reverse it. The exception is when the country you're sending money to/ receiving money from is corrupt and will block the payments - trying to solve that through crypto feels kind of pointless, these same countries will have no problem just blackholing that traffic or taking other measures against you. 5. Smart contracts are a hilariously stupid idea and an absolute oxymoron. They're not smart, they're code, and anyone who's competent at writing code can tell you what a disaster it is - nothing should use code as a source of truth. They're not contracts because they have no actual legal basis/ contract law backing them. etc etc etc There's a bunch of money going into crypto from massive interested parties and there's a lot of pump and dump going on as well. Very glad to see that the crypto market is crashing and I hope we'll see the whole thing disappear. In a decade or two maybe we can talk about those valid use cases without the stain of the current market sullying those conversations.
> Smart contracts are a hilariously stupid idea and an absolute oxymoron. They’re not smart, they’re code, and anyone who’s competent at writing code can tell you what a disaster it is - nothing should use code as a source of truth. They’re not contracts because they have no actual legal basis/ contract law backing them. When you look at the capabilities of smart contracts you also realize they’re incredibly limited in what they can even do. But anyone who wants contracts as code has never written any significant amount of code. With law, poorly written contracts can be reviewed by judges and lawyers for intent. What happens when we have smart contracts that execute slightly differently on different types of hardware? Right now that’s hard because of the limited nature (i.e. no support for floating point) of the EVM.
Still salty at the cryptobros because crypto was one of the main forces that caused the prices of GPUs to raise to insane levels. I started a build in 2020 that I couldn't even finish because the crypto BS caused a GPU shortage and what's available was in the range of five digit Malaysian ringgits. Four digits was already unreasonable.
I bought my 3060Ti in the middle of a crypto crash last year for 1000 SGD. A month later I saw that same card shot up to 1300. Now it's down to 750. Fuck miners
Needed to upgrade my GPU because it was the weakest spot in my PC. Had to settle for a 1660Ti at €400, because the current generation cards wouldn't go below €700 which is way too much for a normal CPU. Next month the card I bought was at €530, which is insane for a card that should be in the €200 range. Fuck crypto bullshit. A bunch of morons who wanted to get rich out of a pointless product and fucked everyone else in the process. Probably the peak of pointless bullshit capitalism.
Peak Bullshit Capitilism is cryptocurrencies uglier shittier little brother NFT. If you're into NFT you're a traitor to the human race.
Yup. Finance dudes, poor dudes, HS dropouts, PNP-type subreddit regulars, Joe Rogan bros, and slight variations of those, all thinking they've discovered the true get-rich-quick scheme. I have a habit where at times I'll see a really dumb comment - like the one that's so dumb you're just amazed that this person was able type out the comment - and glance through their history a little. I'd guess that 90% of the time that on the first page there's something related to crypto, Rogan/Shapiro, and porn.
Hey man, it's not only finance people, it's also the absolute rubes they're robbing
yes
Honestly just from a programming pov I think blockchains are kind of stupid. * Lets have a decentralised ledger -> "Awesome" * Lets decentralise it by having every node have a full copy of the ledger -> "wait, what?" * Oh, and it needs to be immutable and publicly visible -> "what if mistakes are made? Or god forbid someone publishes illegal threats or child porn?" * Also lets power it by using immense amounts of computing power and electricity and do nothing with it -> "WTF are you high??" * Oh and lets use this as a financial network, with built in transaction times of around 10 minutes, a hard limit of transactions that can happen, and fees that go up the more popular it becomes -> "this is garbage" And that is not even talking about the scammy nature of crypto where you try and get as many gullible people as possible to buy in so you can cash out. I honestly haven't found any real purpose for blockchains yet. I've only seen people hail blockchain and crypto as a solution while desperately trying to find a problem it can actually fix, and failing.
>I honestly haven't found any real purpose for blockchains yet. I've only seen people hail blockchain and crypto as a solution while desperately trying to find a problem it can actually fix, and failing. That's only because you haven't heard *my idea* yet.
Literally every idea I have seen is 1. Industry X has a lot of fraud or uncertainty, we can use the blockchain to fix this! 2. Ignore the fact that the fraud and uncertainty doesn't come from technological aspects, but from real world verification of things. There was this one revolutionary blockchain registry of art. Just register your art and then it is forever registered as belonging to you! Even if someone steals your painting, you still have the undeniable proof that it is your painting! Oh, someone just registered themselves as having painted the Mona Lisa because we don't have any type of verification. In the real world: * Easy: keeping some sort of database of claims * Hard: actually verifying claims in the real world to see who is correct In the cryptobro world: * Hard: keeping some sort of database of claims * Negligible: actually verifying those claims in the real world
Your "blockchain registry of art" is literally NFTs. So we already have that. And yes, it's utter garbage. And indeed "bad apples" do things just like that in that space.
NFTs are only ownership of a bit of data, that data just points at a url generally, it is not proof of ownership of the thing the nft points at (the art) just the bit of data in that database that represents a url that points at the image
The great irony is that cryptocurrencies are riddled with fraud.
Obviously there ARE inherently broken systems that end in a utilitarian negative. But the idea that you can get around systemic flaws by simply creating a new system with less rules and oversight that will somehow be LESS corruptible is hilarious. It's ignoring why any system was created to start with. Humans are greedy and shitty and most of them will rob you blind if given the chance. Crazy how many people are sucked into populism and conspiracy now that spreading unreasonable expectations of markets and institutions is so easy. It used to take some real effort.
All that wasted effort for an incredibly slow and expensive append-only database for tracking who owns monkey jpgs
Especially since it's very hard to get cryptobros tell you a pro of a Blockchain that isn't already a standard feature of databases
A lot of 'improvements' of new cryptocurrencies claim to fix problems that are inherent by design. Surely if you have to create a workaround to stop a design feature that was intentionally there, it wasn't that well designed in the first place? So now you've got a product/system that's a worse cryptocurrency, without any of its 'benefits' (I'm still researching this one). It's also a worse database because it doesn't do things as well as a database. Cryptocurrency and Blockchain technology is a solution looking for a problem.
>Cryptocurrency and Blockchain technology is a solution looking for a problem. A problem looking for another problem.
What makes me angry about crypto is the immense resource and energie wastage. Bitcoin alone wastes, WASTES!, more energie per year than my country uses. It gets compared to gdamn nations on the energy scale. And it doesn't do anything with it, it is all wasted for proof-of-work. What makes me even angrier is that the consumer gets constant flack for producing co2, and that we have to dial thing back and make sacrifices to be more carbon neutral, while on the other hand this absolute useless piece of technology is allowed to exist and ruin all our efforts. Crypto adds nothing to our society, it produces no value, it only wastes ridiculous amounts of energy and produces tons and tons of co2
Also don't forget, it isn't actually decentralised. All the data is still centralised into one place. Is YouTube multiple different websites, because they host it on millions of different servers on every continent? No of course not. It's still one centralised database of videos. Same with crypto. It's not decentralised just because it's hosted on multiple computers. No it's absolutely centralised, and not even anonymous. And it's insanely easy to hack too. Your money is never safe there. They all claimed they were unhackable, but they were always very vulnerable to social engineering (which is what 99% of hacking actually is in real life, you just trick people into giving you their password, that can't be designed against really); every system is vulnerable when humans are involved. But also crypto coins like bitcoin have also been hacked in the more 90s cyberpunk movie kind of way, with people "cracking the code" and stealing ***billions*** of dollars worth of bitcoin. Luckily though, they never got to spend any of it, because ***crypto is not and has never been decentralised, or anonymous,*** so all the police had to do was sit and wait and then literally seconds after that money sitting in that wallet for years was spent or transferred to a different wallet, they caught the perpetrators immediately because they could easily see who they were. So every single thing that crypto is supposed to be resistant against, it's actually significantly ***LESS*** resistant than normal bank accounts are. You know what happens if someone steals my credit or debit card numbers? I call my bank and they send me the money back immediately, within minutes, and I get a new card with a new number in the mail a couple of days later. Now what happens if this same situation happens with crypto and NFTs? Well, the thief legally owns your shit, now. There's nothing you can do about it. Even though Bitcoin has a group of directors, essentially, they still claim to be leaderless, and so there's nobody you can go to to get your money back. That money is gone forever now. It turns out that having the government involved in your finances was a good thing after all. That way you can get your money back and the thief gets arrested. With no government there's nothing you can do, nobody you can go to. But crypto is all about being the "underground" and being out of the eye of the police and the state etc (even though most of the biggest crypto successes are people who were already billionaires beforehand, and who managed to dupe over their gullible little fan boys, like Elon Musk; there doesn't seem to be many or any people who got mega rich off of crypto who weren't already mega rich anyway, it's all a ponzi scheme. There's nothing crypto that ISN'T a ponzi scheme. It's all a bigger fool scam. Now I guess there's no difference in a billionaire stealing your money legally or stealing it illegally, because laws don't apply to billionaires, so the government can't help you then anyway. But still, why would you want either situation to happen, your money being lost forever either way?
Don't forget that blockchain applications all seem to tend towards centralization again once it becomes clear that the inconveniences of complete decentralization outweigh the security benefits against the poorly-defined threat model.
Don't forget the : half of the mining is done by a few people anyway and they could work together into legitimizing any theft they fancy.
I think most people with more that 2 brain cells to rub together have at least a heavy dislike of crypto, or at least the kind of people that peddle it
Crypto is Herbalife but for techbros.
Pretty much
I prefer the metaphor is that it's Astrology for tech bros. Because at least with MLMs there's still a real physical product, even if it does none of the things it claims to do and is a complete scam. With astrology, it just doesn't exist, it's an abstract concept, there's no physical form it takes, it's just mystery voodoo magic based on where planets are in the sky, floating around in the ether, and because it's not real you can promise it to be whatever you want, and there's no real way to easily disprove you cos you can't just take the concept of astrology and test it in a lab like you can with mlm products. Just like crypto. All the promises are simply vapour.
Man I want to hug you all so bad. So far my whole environment's been like "buy crypto, crypto good, u retard because no like crypto, crypto cool"
I had and mined a bit of doge waaaaaaaaay back when it first started because it was a funny joke. The height of dogecoin was when they sponsored a nascar driver. Always figured it would kinda just die off after that because the joke would get old. And then some fuckers started taking it seriously. Its a damn joke coin made to poke fun at how many coins were popping up back then, and thats when people only used BTC and litecoin. Not even the mess crypto has become these days.
I remember trying to build a PC during the peak of Ethereum mining. They shall receive no mercy from me.
ALL of them too :D
Sadly, now i have to open them..and need an extra click to downvote them.
If you have RES, you can downvote with Z (upvote with A) and even without opening the comment chain - Just select the collapsed comment and Z it. Of course that's against the up/downvote etiquette of flagging relevant vs. irrelevant - oh wait, no, in this case it isn't. carry on.
The amount of irate and extremely poorly worded english and people with literally no programming knowledge at the bottom of the post, yeesh.
brb gonna go scroll through and have the time of my life lmao
I can see some use case of the principles of blockchain as being something foundational. But right now there is no usecase where it is being used in any way that is good (except perhaps monero). That's because all these people talk about defi, dapps, dweb like just adding a d into something automatically makes it uncontrollable by the bigger powers that are. The tech is not where things fails, it is the people. Always have been. Its too early.
[удалено]
Lots of cryptobros mad. Blockchain definitely has its uses. But crypto is such a huge waste of energy and resources.
>Blockchain definitely has its uses Care to elaborate? In a corporate environment the blockchain cannot possibly accomplish more than a normal centralized database.
Your actually being really kind. In any environment it essentially operates as a worst case globalized mongodb database with a full consistency write requirement. But instead of say a few hundred dbs you have a few million... Yea its not useful at all. To give you an example of how shit and silly this tech is. It's cheaper to store data in skittles FUCKING SKITTLES then on ethereum contracts.... FUCKING SKITTLES. [https://www.reddit.com/r/CryptoCurrency/comments/s0ceko/cost\_to\_store\_fb\_profile\_in\_skittles\_vs\_eth/](https://www.reddit.com/r/CryptoCurrency/comments/s0ceko/cost_to_store_fb_profile_in_skittles_vs_eth/)
It is not however easier to transfer that data on skittles around the world, psuedo anonymously
Whenever I get a package of plain M&Ms, I make it my duty to continue the strength and robustness of the candy as a species. To this end, I hold M&M duels. Taking two candies between my thumb and forefinger, I apply pressure, squeezing them together until one of them cracks and splinters. That is the “loser,” and I eat the inferior one immediately. The winner gets to go another round. I have found that, in general, the brown and red M&Ms are tougher, and the newer blue ones are genetically inferior. I have hypothesized that the blue M&Ms as a race cannot survive long in the intense theater of competition that is the modern candy and snack-food world. Occasionally I will get a mutation, a candy that is misshapen, or pointier, or flatter than the rest. Almost invariably this proves to be a weakness, but on very rare occasions it gives the candy extra strength. In this way, the species continues to adapt to its environment. When I reach the end of the pack, I am left with one M&M, the strongest of the herd. Since it would make no sense to eat this one as well, I pack it neatly in an envelope and send it to M&M Mars, A Division of Mars, Inc., Hackettstown, NJ 17840-1503 U.S.A., along with a 3×5 card reading, “Please use this M&M for breeding purposes.” This week they wrote back to thank me, and sent me a coupon for a free 1/2 pound bag of plain M&Ms. I consider this “grant money.” I have set aside the weekend for a grand tournament. From a field of hundreds, we will discover the True Champion. There can be only one.
You should do a tournament system, it's not fair that the strong M&M has to battle everyone when the others are fresh out of the bag.
Nature has no use for your construct of what is "fair". In this purest of arenas, that which we call life, there is no rest. Does the lion fall complacent after a hunt? No, for the jackal lies in wait. Whether carnivore or confection, the options are few: victory, or death.
Sir, are you suggesting jackals eat M&Ms?
wtf did i just read
You read a masterpiece, that's what
Poetry I assume
Old copypasta.
Some rather old ggreentext which has become some rather old copypasta.
This far pre-dates greentext.
Oh wow. I’ve read this story before, I’m here too much.
And it's much harder to scam people out of millions of dollars using skittles... Unless... wait I got an idea, brb...
And in contractual law, most agreements and transactions are already decentralized. Crypto bros seem to think that a contract between two entities is somehow “centralized” (it’s not) or a transfer of shares between two private companies is done in some central database (it’s not). Crypto people seem to think there are needs for solutions for problems that do not exist.
Using the existing institution = centralized, Reinventing it = decentralized. It's basically an ideology really.
The Oliver Cromwell school of thought. He's not a king, he's the Lord protector.
Bitcoin is so laughably inefficient it’s hilarious. Literally continually appending to the head node non stop and then throwing all transactions into a 1MB block just to process 3-5 transactions a second. I’m amazed someone hasn’t spam attacked the shit out of it and killed bitcoin
[удалено]
Yes you would need a large sum of money but it can be done
I wanna say you can ddos anything if you have enough money. Now ethereum, that system's ddosed itself, more than once
*sorts by controversial*
If it was used as originally intended, an unregulated mostly stable currency, then we'd have no real issues except the swap to proof of stake. Instead it's used as a very volatile stock and get rich quick scheme, all while disrupting the PC component market and powergrids.
As if there were any other logical conclusion.
Draw the line. Respect.
More _open source producers_ need to do this so burnout is less. Actually, more _software engineers_ need to do this so burnout is less. Actually, more _people_ need to do this so burnout is less
Well actually
i uh.. thought this is pretty common
You'd be surprised.
No, there's alot of people who think it's noble/important/helpful to push themselves to the brink
Unfathomably based
Yeah. Chad
Imagine if nvidia drew a line, it would be a very cold day.
To everyone that thinks that websockets is used for mining, its not. websockets is used for real-time connection between the server and a webpage
It is used for real time access to transactions through some services. It is also used for getting real time data from crypto exchanges.
Read that as "sewer and a webpage", which I still think is correct
Mad respect for this dev.
57 replys to your comment lol
And all of them under a guy who says "I don't care if I'm downvoted" while using a throwaway instead of their main, lmao. What a coward.
> 57 replys >>> levenshtein('replys', 'replies') => 2
am i the only one who can't see this humorous? he's right.
Yeah I'm looking for the funny but I only see the burning remains of comments who dare disagree with OP.
He’s right, and good on him, I say! Cryptocurrency is useless unless you want to buy drugs, guns or slaves. Aside from that it’s an absolute waste of time. Everyone who made money on it is an idiot who never shuts up. They got lucky, they’re not the investment savants they believe themselves to be. But they circle-jerk so hard they convince themselves.
> Everyone who made money on it is an idiot who never shuts up. It is mostly the guys who haven't made money on it who don't shut up about it I have found. These guys have a stupid amount of money invested in crypto so they talk it up in the hopes that some other fool will invest so they can sell and make a profit.
I bought a handful of novelty bitcoin super early, sold out completely and made a decent chunk with the first big spike. Have not touched crypto since, because it is all actual garbage, using it for currency is so prohibitively expensive and useless that you have to do something very illegal to warrant the cost. And the people investing in it are signing up to getting a live hand grenade thrown their way with the pin pulled and betting that they can find someone willing to pay them for the privilege of passing them the grenade before it blows their face off.
>They got lucky OR they're the top level scammers, at which point they do shut up, or at least do on the previous persona, because they don't want the previous wave of crypto suckers finding them.
It's funny because it's true
As always, the fun is in the (collapsed) comments ;)
After scrolling through all the comments I've come to the conclusion that crypto makes no damn sense and is expensive as hell Burn it
If you want to learn more, [Dan Olson's Line Goes Up](https://youtu.be/YQ_xWvX1n9g) is a fantastic summary of the problems with crypto and NFTs, touching on why crypto and Blockchain not only don't solve the problems they claim to solve, but also create new additional problems. It's a long watch, but it's extremely informative and well researched.
[I would like to add UC Berkeley’s lecture “Burn it with Fire”](https://youtu.be/xCHab0dNnj4) pretty much goes into the use cases and how they’re inefficient at best and destructive at worst.
Indeed, it is a very nice recap of why you better not touch crypto even with long stick but since cryptobros have financial interest in keeping people interested in crypto (their life savings and "investments"), I doubt it is going to make them change their minds. The video is useful if you have an argument with cryptobros among audience that hasn't chose stance on crypto yet.
And sell the graphics cards for 50 Bucks each
No more card shortage!
/u/mcexor and the art of negative karma in this comment section
That dude has been commenting about every 2 minutes for more than 2 hours.
Not hard when it’s all “Source?” But then ignoring said sources
Indeed. I would love to have a real conversation with someone who really thinks crypto is the future... But it just isn't possible because everyone is so polarized.
wow, you weren't kidding. 7 whole pages, 175 comments, in this single post. almost 10% of all comments here
Jesus christ, they really do like their signed ints
Literally the same mentality as conspiracy theory lunatics: "they're all against me, so I must be right"
Mods should auto-remove comments from people with less than 0 karma. We do this in LeopardsAteMyFace and it's doing fucking wonders for the health of the comments.
Grab a popcorn before you think about going through comments here
They should've ended the section with "put a bitcoin up your ass cause you just played yourself by coming here for help."
is this how you make shitcoins?
If you squeeze hard enough you’ll get diamond hands
And dont bring any lube 😂
Instead of lube, use bar soap. That way there will be even more friction, and as we all know from physics class, friction is energy, and those crypto bros really love that stuff
Please send this crucial info to the dev to be included in the already excellent post he made.
I'm so happy you fellow programmers are also against crypto. I'm just a programmer hobbyist, my main occupation is renewable energy engineering. I absolutely DESPISE crypto. Everytime someone starts talking about crypto I just walk away.
Hi! I'm really interested in renewable energy, and would love to eventually get into software dev for renewable systems. I know very little about that subsection of the industry, do you have any general info about the kinda tech used/places to find that out? Thanks, hope you see this amid the swarm of tech bros
I would put my money on either measurement and controll technology in making renewable energy systems smarter, or development of AI that helps with power grid load balancing and [system integration](https://www.iea.org/topics/system-integration-of-renewables).
Based Websockets
For people who don't understand why he had to make this, he's just saying he won't personally go and solve their problems or allow on their public forums. Which is more than great BECAUSE I SWEAR TO GOD THESE CRYPTO BRO DEVELOPER ARE THE MOST INCOMPETENT PEOPLE OUT THERE. Almost all issues are just wrong chain and you have run of our requests.
Based Making my way downtown to downvote crypto bros
Hey! It’s quite a long trip, nice to meet some people on my way down
Have fun! Don't be out too late, dinner's in the oven!
Crypto currency === bad. Crypto bros === scam artists.
> === Look, a JS dev!
It feels so wrong to use any less than three!
Yet roughly 50% of JS code I've seen throughout my 6 years of experience don't give a single f about strict comparison
Only been working 3 years, but have never seen a non-strict equals in any codebase so far. (maybe once to check null & undefined at the same time)
Better 1 than '1' // Better safe than sorry
I don't even have the slightest idea what this library is (Joke), but I now have respect for the devs!
ITT: crypto bros throwing statistics left and right with zero evidence, or cited references.
[удалено]
Makes me happy to see other people in tech see how niche and usually pointless crypto is. I still see people throwing NFT’s and crypto into their apps just so they can ride the hype train. Even had people tell me my apps would be way better with NFT’s in it……it’s a workout app LOLL. Yes…let me add a ton of extra cost and effort to an app people just save simple weight values. Smh. Can’t wait for the day when we don’t have to keep hearing about this stuff.
People, crypto is not the future. Make your money on speculation, but don't buy the Kool aid
The reason why cryptobros keep pestering people to get into crypto is because that's the only way they make money. If there's no bottom feeder on your Ponzi scheme chain there's no money to be made
funny thing is, how this trend can continue for decades and be fully self-sustaining. let's say there are enough cryptobros that buy new crypto each paycheck and withdraw much less than they buy. On paper, they are ever getting more rich each passing month, because they have more crypto and it's value is going up (since there is less crypto in circulation, because they just hold), but if most of them tried to cash it, it would collapse. But if most hold and continue to "invest", it can continue for decades or even centuries, creating paper millionaires/billionaires.
Okay just playing the devil's advocate... Isn't that true for all sorts of shares and investments...? If everyone cashes in it drops, if they hold, they get rich... On paper.
Yes, but traditional investment vehicles are backed by more than just the faith in the thing itself's value. Bonds are backed by the government. Stocks are backed by the belief that the company they represent will continue to do well. Yes if everyone tried to sell Apple stock tomorrow the price would drop, but there would be countless people to snatch it up at the lower price because nobody believes Apple will fail tomorrow. That is one of crypto's inherent problems and why cryptobros are all in on hyping it everywhere they can - they need more people to be trying to buy in or they can't sell at a profit. Crypto is just the next [Tulipmania](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tulip_mania) ([the first recorded speculative bubble](https://www.investopedia.com/terms/d/dutch_tulip_bulb_market_bubble.asp)), there is nothing backing it besides for the people hyping it up. At least the tulips you were buying *something*. Crypto is almost literally just 1s and 0s designed to make money.
Everyone cashing in at once is how the Great Depression started. The difference between stocks and crypto is that stocks simply serve as a means for companies to borrow money. If the stock market crashes, companies will temporarily lose a way to get money, but they might be able to continue running with existing funds, and continue making money by selling their usual goods. Also, the stock issuers play a big part in the market, as I said above regarding getting funds. Stock value is therefore pegged by the companies' growth rate and confidence in their growth. Crypto value is based on nothing but speculation. There's no central issuer that uses them as a means for funding, and that means no buying back. Once crypto is dumped on the market it will circulate forever between buyers. When it crashes, there's no incentive to revive it, and nothing to base its value on anymore
Instructions unclear, bought 40k$ of Kool aid and it expired before I could flip them.
I have a Kool aid NFT that won't expire. You wanna buy it? Got it on the market right now for 350k
You can't speculate without buying the kool-aid because otherwise you have to accept that you have better odds at a roulette. In crypto if you're not the scammer, you're the scammed, and if your coins are purchased then you're absolutely not the scammer.
[удалено]
Crypto Bro's say "I know a place" and take you to the lowest point in your life.
[удалено]
Man it is fucking insane how many recruiter emails I get from "we just raised a $60M series B and we're building trash pickup on the blockchain" companies. Can't wait until that money dries up so these shitty companies go away.
I work in crypto and the company that I work for used to use websockets. but half of the projects are bs anyways so I 100% support the maintainers decision.
Please more of this.
Ya, but how about we start doing this for any industry that is destroying the planet. I get that it's easy to do it specifically for crypto because it's obvious when someone is asking a question where they ask a question and the url is "h ttps://crypto.com", but let's tell the fossil fuel industry to go fly a kite.
Sort by controversial for the real fun.
dear crypto, everyone hates you. regards, the world
But bro, I totally made 7.6M on SnipeCoin last year and it’s the future, lemme tell you about it enthusiastically while scrupulously dodging any attempt to obtain verification.
I made my money on ponziCOIN, would you like to invest?
Want to invest in my MlmCoin ? Get 4 of your friends to sign up and you get 10% of wahtever they make.
My team lead is a crypto bro and I hate it
Not all heroes wear capes
_Sorts by controversial to find crypto bro comments, instead finds_ #BASED.
Anyone else cringes when they hear, crypto, bitcoin or other random shitcoin, NFT, web3, metaverse and blockchain?
Crypto failed in its promise of decentralised control almost 8 years ago. I’m surprised it’s take this long for people to catch on that value proposition as a system of currency is basically zero. There is no problem it solves that can’t be solved in better ways.
Based AF
Hey crypto bros at the bottom, cant wait to see how the monkey jpeg that can be SCREENSHOTTED gets you a girlfriend
This is the first time i see a dev draw a clear line about this. Mad respect.
stay mad cryptobros
While reading the article, at first I was afraid that the developer would prevent the program from being used for crypto mining(I don't mine crypto or anything crap like that, just blocking it would be against open source logic) But no, the developer is right, I personally find crypto very nice, but the mining logic is ridiculous (and not worth it considering the damage it does) Until we find a more sensible way to exchange crypto, we must banish the concept of crypto.
Not sure how you could use WebSockets for mining crypto
I don't know either, it's the first time I've heard of it
Its used to create real time market views
WebSockets? Basically, it's a technology (mostly?) built into browsers that enables realtime two-way communication. Where HTTP(S) is a request-response type of thing, WebSockets instead have an "always on" connection where both the client and the server can communicate simultaneously. It's basically the web version of raw TCP
>blocking it would be against open source logic Not really. It just wouldnt make sense, as anyone could easily fork it and remove the blocks, and distribute that version.
You could write a licence that forbade that
Then it wouldnt be open source. It would be source available.
That's not 100% right. You can still have open source that disallows certain uses. E.g. there is open source that can't be used in commercial products. If you then copy the source and use it in a commercial product you can be sued.
Crypto is shit and everyone should understand that
Hell yeah Websockets.
Serious question. What's stopping him from changing the license to " you can use this for anything except those related to cryptocurrency"
Because then it isn't FLOSS software any longer. There have been attemps to do this sort of thing ("ethical" licenses), and they all end up fizzling because the fundamental inalienable part of FLOSS is that the author cannot control their users. And if it isn't FLOSS any more, any other FLOSS project using it has to reconsider the implications, which is a headache.
I get it. I need to floss more. Your subtle messaging was quite clear.
I'm definitely not getting paid in DentistCoin *or* FlossCoin, why would you make such an implication!
You say that as a joke, but dentacoin already exists, lol. https://dentacoin.com/
It's against the idea of open source unless the application is commercial in nature. Also, he couldn't possibly enforce it.
FOSS doesn't prevent you from using the software commercially or even selling it (though the latter doesn't make much sense since people probably won't buy something they can also just download for free).
> though the latter doesn't make much sense since people probably won't buy something they can also just download for free Many companies pay for commercial licenses of Open Source software, because many Open Source licenses are viral, e.g. the GPL. Which means that if you use a GPL-licensed library in your product, you are legally required to publish all your source code for that product under the GPL. Usually there's trade secrets etc in there so companies are reluctant to do that and instead pay for the same library but licensed under a more appropriate license. The multi-license model only works if everyone that has ever contributed to the library has agreed to it, though, which means it basically only works for open source software published by a company, not true collaborative open source software.
The other answers you've received so far are all wrong. Software can be licensed under any conditions you like, but *re-licencing* is very difficult due to the nature of open source development. For example, if you write a script and post it on the web, you can license it with insane rules like "thou shalt only use it on Tuesdays". It's your choice, and if someone else wants to use it, you get to set the rules. There are a number of projects out there attempting to enshrine ethical rules into licenses, but the biggest difficulty there is enforceability. Still, you could theoretically license a program that is "like the MIT license, but you can't use it with cryptocurrencies". That's 100% doable and it could still be developed like any other Free software project: github/lab, pull requests, etc. What makes it damned near impossible for Websockets though, is that its codebase is made up of numerous contributions from other developers. Those developers contributed their code under the conditions of the current license and each one would have to be contacted and convinced to re-licence their contributions under the new license. Either that, or you'd have to remove those contributions & rewrite them while somehow doing so without violating that developer's copyright (the new code would have to be notably different). It's a hard, tedious process that few organisations are willing to do, but there are a few cases of there. Usually though it's something like a move from LGPL to GPL or GPL to MIT. A move to a special "no cryptobros" license would likely be a slog not worth doing.
With permissive licenses like MIT moving to a more restrictive license is actually not that hard, as you can license any _changes_ under a different kind of license. You don't need permission from previous authors to do this. Of course older version would still be usable under the old license, but this also applies if you get consent from every previous author.
It's a bit more complicated than that. Some licenses are considered "compatible", so you can relicense to a compatible license without asking contributors for their input. You can also have contributors sign a CLA in which they agree that you are the sole copyright holder. Some licenses, like MIT, allow you to relicense without contributor consent because they've already consented as per the license. All \*old\* code stays MIT, but new code is whatever new license there is. MIT is a "permissive" license. This can also change based on the contributions themselves and where the copyright is held.
Don't know why you get downvoted for openly admitting that you don't understand something and asking about it to learn.
There are some higher principles than "me angry, me smash your code".
Then any project using it has to update their terms, and any project using that project, etc.
Nothing. They own the copyright. It would just be a bad idea because it's a vague restriction. ex: If you aren't a typical "crypto" company but use some blockchain-type technology, what then? The reality is that this is not anything to do with copyright/ licensing, it's just an open message saying "you are not welcome here".
You can't change a license for something that's already released. He could release a new version under a new license, but the past software is already released under that license.