Of course it is lower! You have plenty of rich people living in known places without any special security and no one comes to kidnap them because they cannot just send over their whole wealth in an irreversible transaction in a second.
The problem is not to know who has money, it is a system in which it is trivial to transfer it without any supervision and without any way to go back.
Just like encryption and cash. You wanna ban or discourage its use too?
Bad people can do bad things with good technology but that doesn't mean good people shouldn't use and benefit from that technology. I would think someone on HACKERnews would agree.
Ironic your name is "strawman" when you constructed one.
And this has nothing to do whenever the tech is good or bad, this is literally about how "untraceable" tech will make it easier for criminals to turn the supporters into helpless victims.
Since the irony is with your absolutist argument that it goes the other way too, if we have a proper surveillance state for instance there would be clear and obvious benefits to this; however this doesn't mean that these benefits outweighs the negatives far from it, hence why a lot of the tech that are raising concerns is being discussed and tested out to see how far we can create a better world while not forsaking said tech.
The question about crypto isn't can it keep the feds from auditing it, it's whenever or not it's worth having an anonymous currency given all the implications, risks and general problematic aspect of it outweighs the benefits of it.
So far it seems that people have moved away from crypto due to that reason, and instead it's mostly seen as a speculative market.
Its a adhominem trap and you fell for it. None of the things I said was a strawman, your comments obviously implied if there even should be anonymous money which you doubled down here.
>it's whenever or not it's worth having an anonymous currency given all the implications
And I think it is worth the same way privacy or autonomy is worth the "risk". Maybe you should ask people in less safe and stable countries if they trust there state with there money or people in unsafe environments auch as abuse victims, journalists, whistleblowers or activists.
"Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety."
>So far it seems that people have moved away from crypto due to that reason, and instead it's mostly seen as a speculative market.
I'm talking about crypto where the word currency means something not speculative assets like with btc. And those i can assure you are doing better than ever regardless what opinion you or anybody else has because they are, by design, censorship and tyranny resistant. the hacker spirit.
>Its a adhominem trap and you fell for it. None of the things I said was a strawman, your comments obviously implied if there even should be anonymous money which you doubled down here.
You created a strawman from a position I didn't imply or stated, since I was merely responding to your claim.
>And I think it is worth the same way privacy or autonomy is worth the "risk". Maybe you should ask people in less safe and stable countries if they trust there state with there money or people in unsafe environments auch as abuse victims, journalists, whistleblowers or activists.
What does "safe" and "stable" countries mean here? These aren't concrete words to be using if you're not going to back it up by examples.
This is because "safe" can mean either free from violent crime then for instance China would be a better contestant than USA, or "safe" as in not being worried about being persecuted by individuals/the state, then USA is considered much safer although that has slipped with the current admin.
Same thing goes with "stable".
And it's fine to advocate for privacy due safety but you cannot proclaim there's no consequences of this and implying then that it's "better" because of this is naïve at best.
>"Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety."
Using that quote outside of the context it was meant to address is a bit cheesy.
>I'm talking about crypto where the word currency means something not speculative assets like with btc. And those i can assure you are doing better than ever regardless what opinion you or anybody else has because they are, by design, censorship and tyranny resistant. the hacker spirit.
And also extremely prone to support criminals/government seeking to destabilize/promote abuse and victims of said economic abuse/scams have far less protection.
>You created a strawman from a position I didn't imply or stated, since I was merely responding to your claim.
I said privacy and anonymity is important to prevent bad people robbing people, you said that criminals can use it too, I said so can anything good too but is no argument against using them. You should look up what strawman actually means before using it as gotcha
>What does "safe" and "stable" countries mean here? These aren't concrete words to be using if you're not going to back it up by examples.
Needing an example for bad coutries or environments existing??? You know what you are right there does not exist such countries, my bad it was just a strawman because we live in heaven on earth.
>And it's fine to advocate for privacy due safety but you cannot proclaim there's no consequences of this and implying then that it's "better" because of this is naïve at best.
Never said there wasn't. literally anything has consequences, i just choose freedom with "risks" above controlling tyranny that tracks, surveils and controls every transactions that claim safety.
>Using that quote outside of the context it was meant to address is a bit cheesy
It is very fitting against anti freedom and privacy rhetoric fueled by fear.
>And also extremely prone to support criminals/government seeking to destabilize/promote abuse and victims of said economic abuse/scams have far less protection.
And also extremely prone to support good individuals against these very same things and a lot more. Your fear mongering works in the other direction too. And to quote yourself "these aren't concrete words to be using if you're not going to back it up by examples"
>I said privacy and anonymity is important to prevent bad people robbing people, you said that criminals can use it too, I said so can anything good too but is no argument against using them. You should look up what strawman actually means before using it as gotcha
Not at all what I said, I said criminals can ABUSE the anonymity others enjoy to make it easier for them to ensure their victims are helpless.
Hence why I pointed out why it's a strawman, my position was never about "criminals use it to fuel/wash their crimes" but that due to the very nature of crypto being private it also means it's easier for criminals to get away with robbing people who own crypto (did you even read the article?).
>Needing an example for bad coutries or environments existing??? You know what you are right there does not exist such countries, my bad it was just a strawman because we live in heaven on earth.
Yes definitions are important.
>Never said there wasn't. literally anything has consequences, i just choose freedom with "risks" above controlling tyranny that tracks, surveils and controls every transactions that claim safety.
Good, then you should be more aware of my point than acting out as if I am proposing something radically different to your idea of freedom.
>It is very fitting against anti freedom and privacy rhetoric fueled by fear.
Except that the context has nothing to do with freedom or privacy but taxation, and most measure that goes against freedom with certain exceptions are rarely born out of fear but paid in blood.
>And also extremely prone to support good individuals against these very same things and a lot more. Your fear mongering works in the other direction too. And to quote yourself "these aren't concrete words to be using if you're not going to back it up by examples"
Which specific concerns would a good individual have about the traditional currency system that has plenty of laws (depending of course where you live, but let's assume in the west) protecting their assets both from illegal seizure and from theft, especially since they have a democratic right to vote in people to represent their interest in either weakening or strengthening laws that enhances privacy, protection and ownership of their assets?
What specific concern there does crypto solve?
If it is privacy to ensure the feds can't track that you bought a bad dragon dildo then absolute I 100% agree that is a valid point, but then you also need to owe up to that point and agree that any exploitation that comes from such anonymity will also be part of unfortunate reality of dealing with crypto.
Also please point out the so called "fear mongering" in my point? That I am arguing against your point? Quite bizarre Orwellian way of seeing a discussion.
Or again you are aware you're arguing in a discussion that is about an article detailing crimes being done mainly thanks weaponizing crypto's anonymity against the owner(s)?
>And to quote yourself "these aren't concrete words to be using if you're not going to back it up by examples"
Such as the various rug pulls done by various crypto coins (latest being Trump + his wife), before that the various influencers and their memecoins (hawk tuah coin being just the latest), to this very article pointing out people being robbed and there's not much to be done about stopping the transaction.
Who is this they? cryptocurrencies and there users are a highly fragmented ecosystem. Ofc if you only listen to the most obnoxious superficial corners you will find conmen like in any community involving finances.
cryptocurrencies solve real world problems but like any technology also have drawbacks.
It was a win win arrangement of sorts. Europe got to spend less on defense. US won a reliable ally that would not challenge them much, and help enforce worldwide US dominance. Basically a near vassal situation.
How exactly was the US benefiting in this arrangement? Sounds very one sided if the American tax payer is doing the bulk of spending while Europe is freeloading
The US has allies in return for this spending. A block of people who stand against autocrats and with the US.
It also bought a much more peaceful and free world. Not just nice because it is better for people, but also because it gives opportunity for trade.
Note that it might have been possible for the US to convince the rest of NATO to spend more on their defense without losing the faith of their allies. This sure isn't the way to do it.
There are way more possibilities. And the main one is that any negative effect would only be visible in a long time (let's say 10 years) and by that time it may take 10-20 years again to change course.
For instance say you lower standards for building bridges, how do you assess the success? First you may notice nothing, because all bridges under construction stay with their design, so consequence 0. After a few years, construction costs may go down because the new standard allow to cut some corners. Great! Success! Now 30 years in the future maybe suddenly the bridge has a failure that costs 20x the savings at the time of construction. Well suddenly not great. But changing the standard at that point would not fix all the bridges built over those 30 years.
Evaluating public policies is often very hard and it's sometimes only possible a long time after. I would also say that weather or not a policy is good or has positive impact has little impact on winning or losing elections. Lots of terrible policies can win you voters. Just like building the best product is not the easiest way to make money. For both goods and elections, playing on emotions works a lot better.
The timeline for some things is way longer than 10-20 years and, in cases like data collection, we simply lose out forever.
What we're seeing right now, and it's not just the US, are policies that risk depriving future generations of data that may be critical to solving problems 50 or 100 years from now. If you say that collecting water quality data is a waste of money because we don't have problems with water quality, that's a permanent decision that can't be reversed and will adversely affect future researchers. It's incredibly frustrating.
In the bridge example above, even with bridges failing after 30 years, the average person won't be able to assess whether or not it was a success or a failure. You'd have to know the cost of initial construction, lifetime maintenance costs, replacement cost, the value gained from short term savings, etc.. Coming up with a calculation to categorize it as a success or failure could be difficult if everyone is acting in good faith. Throw in politics, partisan interests, propaganda, etc. and it seems almost impossible.
No matter what side people fall on politically, everyone should consider unbiased, non-partisan data collection a vital government service. If you disagree on how the data should be collected, do it both ways and debate the merits as long as you want. Just make sure the data stays available.
We have examples of this kind of thing happening[1]; in the 1970s Eli Ron invented a new way of making concrete ceilings called Pal-Kal; it was easier, faster and cheaper. Also prone to be weak if done without care and sometimes extremely dangerous. Used a lot around Israel there were some non-fatal failures and a committee setup to investigate it banned it in 1996[2]. In 2001 the Versailles Hall in Jerusalem collapsed killing 23 people. Eli Ron was given four years in prison for manslaughter. There were no good records of every building built with Pal-Kal in Jerusalem to go and check them; now any that are known to use it can be structurally checked every year, and demolished if found unsafe because there isn't a good cheap way to strengthen them, but there may be more of them unknowingly using it.
Another is the Morandi Bridge collapse in Italy in 2018[3], it had been designed as a steel cable suspension bridge with the cables encased in concrete meaning there was no good way to check if they were rusting. The engineer who designed it (click his name in Wikipedia) was calling attention to risks and problems in his design since the 1970s without the responsible companies/government departments taking it seriously enough.
Also see how big Wikipedia's "List of bridge failures" is[4]
I have never seen a syntax highlighter for SQL that actually covers the real deal from Postgres dialect. Basic stuff is covered and then suddenly you use a combination that isn't covered and the colors are all wrong. This is even true for pgadmin, which is ironic.
Unlike most programming languages, SQL built in syntax is huuuuuge and it is very hard to cover it all, especially as it varies with the dialect.
I use Jetbrains and there is at least full coverage for MSSQL in my experience, which is a huge dialect -- not only syntax highlighting but full IDE features like autocompletion and target name refactoring etc.
Hora do you know that? I've seen really well optimized React apps and very poorly optimized Svelte apps. It's not like using Svelte magically makes performance good. Just like using Unreal Engine doesn't mean that a game is optimized. You just have different, maybe better, tools to improve performance.
"robust ecosystem" is a rather optimistic view of the rust situation...
I would have said "a bunch of 0.x libraries that do 80% of the work and let you figure you the hard 20% while being slightly incompatible with each other, and that will be painful to glue together because of the rules for traits"
