You can just use crypto for its intended purpose and not give a shit about the whole culture around it. I frequently use it to buy gift cards not available in my country, a VPN, and pay securely without giving away all my data.
The real issue is people coming and bastardizing the concept by trying to get rich, and treating it as some kind of gambling machine.
He didn't say "i don't believe in crypto because it's a scam" he said "I don't believe in crypto, except on its use as a scam" so it'd be great to hear why.
The focus of what Torvalds said is the concept of tech singularity. TL;DR "nice fiction, it doesn't make sense in a reality of finite resources". I'll move past that since most of the discussion is around cryptocurrencies.
Now, copypasting what he says about cryptocurrencies:
For the record, I also don't believe in crypto currencies (except as a great vehicle for scams - they have certainly worked very well for the "spread the word to find the next sucker holding the bag" model of Ponzi schemes). Nor do I believe in Santa Claus, the tooth fairy, or the Easter bunny.
For those who understood this excerpt as "Tarvalds thinks that cryptocurrencies dant ezizt lol lmao": do everyone a favour and go back to Reddit with your blatant lack of reading comprehension. When he says that he doesn't believe in them, he's saying that he does not see them as a viable alternative to traditional currency. (He does not say why, at least not in that message.)
And for those eager to babble "ackshyually ponzi schemes work different lol lmao": you're bloody missing the point. He's highlighting that a large part of the value associated with cryptocurrencies is speculation, not its actual usage. Even cryptocurrency enthusiasts acknowledge this.
I apologise to the others - who don't fit either category of trashy people I mentioned above - for the tone. Read the comments in this very thread and you'll likely notice why of the tone.
I think crypto does have its place in anonymous transfers and stuff like that but the current form of crypto isnt that. First of all it would need to be something stable and crypto is everything but stable.
All currencies fluctuate against each other, but in most cases the currencies all fluctuate downwards in value within very close proximity to each other. You only see cracks start to appear when one currency becomes much weaker than the other ones. Look at the Japanese yen in the most recent days for an example. The big difference is that with the major cryptocurrencies the supply is either capped or very seriously constrained so it actually goes up in value while every other fiat currency in the world goes down in value over time.
Why does the headline say "Crypto" but then snippet says "cryptocurrencies"? Do people not realize these are not the same thing? The inventor of Linux does believe in crypto, that's why it's in Linux!
Algorithm??? I can understand not coming up with "Artificial Intelligence", but if "Al" is "algorithm", then that means they think its A L, with the L lowercase. So, that means they aren't pronouncing it "aye eye" or "aye el" they're pronouncing it "Al". Like the first name Al.
Which just makes me think of a reboot of Married with Children. Except it's just Peggy surrounded by cyborgs made to look and sound like the original characters.
So now Peggy wants sex, and she says "OOOOHHHHH AAAAAALLLLLLL!!!!"
Followed by a robot drinking a beer, and sticking his hands down his pants. Somehow even artificial Al looks defeated.
It's the most annoying thing of these enthusiasts: they glorify cryptocurrencies and blockchain while glossing over the massively important and actually useful cryptography discipline in the background.
"Crypto" has become a widely used abbreviation for "cryptocurrency," even though "crypto" itself refers to the general field of cryptography and its encryption techniques. This informal usage reflects how cryptocurrencies have become the most recognizable application of cryptography for most people.
Yes, because people were trained to look for the lock icon, though pretty much every site has it now, whether it’s something that necessitates security vs just privacy benefits. Maybe looking for the lock is outdated, idk, but it was emphasized a lot a few years ago.
Lets see, cryptocurrencies involve tech bros, fin bros and lots of money. I am not surprised it is on its way to become the most disgusting money making scheme in the world.
Well, I guess big name figures have a right to be wrong. Surprising since he is the creator of such a foundational piece of open source software that he would not like another piece of open source software just seems a bit hypocritical in my opinion
Maybe I'm thinking more Richard Stalman than Linus Torvalds. But if he made Linux to promote freedom from corporates, then it seems like he should like cryptocurrency because it's open source as well and permits freedom from government inflation. Humanity has never had a money not controlled by governments, except for gold and silver, and those are not easily sent over the internet.
In that case, though, why should it matter if Linus Torvalds promotes it? Something is a money if it is generally accepted as payment; gold and silver have self-evident value to people, and governments can use violence to ensure the value of money, but celebrity endorsement is hardly a reason to accept something as money.
Fair enough, that should be a point in its favor though, at the very least. Our entire banking system runs on closed source proprietary software that people cannot inspect for vulnerabilities on generally closed source operating systems that people cannot inspect for vulnerabilities.
He (Linus Torvalds) made Linux as a hobby during his time in college/university to teach him about operating system design. Because it was the part of the operating system called the kernel that the GNU project didn't have yet (more on this in a moment), it became very popular.
Richard Stallman created the GNU project because he believed that every person should have the right to study and share the software that runs on their computer.
There is nothing specifically anti-corporate in either of their motivations.
Being open source does not make it good by default.
The ledger being visible to every node makes it pretty bad. You can figure out the identity of users just by circumstantial evidence.
And just because it's not controlled by the government doesn't mean, there aren't powerful corporate people inside that can and will enact control over the chain. Otherwise Ethereum classic wouldn't exist and Jordan Belford or Peter Thiel wouldn't be fans of crypto.
u.today
Active