It’s an article from Jan 20th. I don’t think this is a new remark. I don’t think anyone read the article because everyone’s treating it like it’s new.

…so… content filters when? Let me limit it to certain subjects and I don’t need social media anymore 😂

Ok, but we made a promise in the past to take Alaska and Hawaii with us too.

I literally posted a comment back then saying “sure is odd that this is happening right before the US election. Not saying it means anything, but maybe it’s not a coincidence?” and got downvoted to hell lmao.

No, originally I said “Bitcoin is great if you don’t use the blockchain”, mocking the lightning networks existence because blockchain on its own is terrible for transactions. I never said they were almost comparable. They’re not. One is a database that’s been proven to work for all kinds of things, and the other is a techbros fantasy that wastes energy and is basically just tech stocks at this point.

Keep up.

I never said bots were the problem. I said people caring more about popularity is the problem and that once you realize this it’s super easy to program bots to imitate people by up voting/down voting what you want. But yes, call me dense when you’ve misconstrued my argument from day one.

Edit: didn’t look like my previous comment posted so I rewrote it. Considering how dense you are tho, maybe two versions will help you finally understand, so I’ll just leave it.

Because I never said bots are to blame. People are and once you realize that, programming a bot to do what people can do is super easy.

I get offended when people try to tell me I made an argument I never made. But thanks again buddy 👍

Remind me again where Bitcoin is actually used vs actual databases. It didn’t solve anything and did it in an energy hungry way. It’s not “almost sort of comparable”. All of the scams that immediately came about because it doesn’t have the numerous regulations regular financial instruments have is proof. For the last decade Bitcoin has been struggling to reach parity with financial regulations. Ffs, the US PRESIDENT JUST PULLED A RUG PULL.

Blockchain is just digital speculation.

“They tried to break free but it didn’t work”.

You know we call that a failure, right? You’re the one attaching emotion to it. Did it succeed? No. Thus it failed.

It’s not semantics. It’s basically logic. Maybe don’t try and be a sophist. I never said it couldn’t be tried again. In fact I said quite the opposite: you need to see this as a failure, address why, and make changes before trying again. But you’re just stuck on the word “failure” and your own preconceptions. No one thinks this was a test of “just Bitcoin”. The dark markets already tested Bitcoin thoroughly over a decade ago. This was a test of real world application of Bitcoin as a a government backed currency in the hopes of avoiding outside influence. Outside influence came in and managed to remove Bitcoin - the exact thing that was trying to be proved it was immune to.

But cope harder if it helps you sleep at night.

Try reading the whole thing and comprehending it as a complex thought with nuance. I’ll wait. Might take you awhile but I’ll wait.

You realize “it’s so energy and time consuming that we had to create a secondary layer to try and make it actually usable” isn’t the defense you think it is, right?

You miss my meaning. All the servers that your info passes through, all the cell towers, etc, can and in many cases do track you(even as just routine loggings). Thinking that running anything makes you more secure while connecting to a giant public network is naive.

You ended your comment saying you completely disagree with me after reiterating what I’d just said as if it were your own thought.

You really need to work on your communication and reading comprehension buddy.

Yeah, and Zelle, Cashapp, venmo, PayPal all do the same and don’t have that environmental impact you so easily dismissed.

It’s been great watching Bitcoin grow from this digital currency for buying drugs online to having all these layers added on to almost sort of make it comparable to the systems we already have. By the time you guys actually make something that isn’t just stocks with no backing but faith, we’ll have moved on to a post-money society(probably not but I have more faith in that than blockchain ever being a useful currency.

Again, for the people in the back:

The experiment was whether or not they could be independent monetarily. Not whether or not blockchain works. But whether, in actual practice, if it could provide the monetary independence some people claim it has the power to do.

Outside influences were strong enough to overwhelm Bitcoin adoption and it succumbed to those outside influences. As an experiment seeking to test whether or not Bitcoin could resist these influences it failed.

This is how experimentation works. Now you can tweak your experiment and try again, but acting like failing at the exact thing you were trying to accomplish is somehow not an experimental failure is just delusional.

So they experimented with resisting the US and IMF and it was not successful.

We call that an experimental failure.

You really don’t get it. “Blockchain” was not the experiment. “Utilizing blockchain in the global economy” was the experiment.

And it failed.

You know the towers log data too, right? And that websites themselves can track you regardless of what OS you use, right?

Privacy is good, but stop with this “Linux is a magic weapon” BS.

So when I wrote about bots, I was describing them as an effect created by a cause. You went and reversed the two and are thinking I blamed bots.

No.

What I said was that voting based moderation is a popularity contest. An easy way to win popularity contests is to stuff the ballot. On the internet, you can do this with bots. Ergo, the rise in bots all over the Internet is a consequence of our popularity based algorithms and systems. That type of moderation just doesn’t work. But please, keep misunderstanding people and then blaming others. I’m sure that’ll help.

If you’re gonna disagree with my idea, at least get it right. You’re not being downvotted heavily for not agreeing with the hive mind in the right way. You’re being downvotted for lacking reading comprehension and going off on a crazy sounding tangent.

So all the progressive businesses that hire these kinds of people will close and lose revenue while the non-progressive businesses, the ones you really want to hurt, will stay open and collect the revenue they’d normally collect along with a bonus from customers they bring over. Also remember that it’s the lower income people who have less choices about when and where to shop. Close the only store they shop at on the only day they have time to do groceries and you’re hurting them way more than the more privileged person who can just go another day or travel further.

This feels way more like cutting off your nose to spite your face

The experiment was to move beyond external parties. They were not able to do so and returned to using external parties. Ergo “the experiment failed”.