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.
Getting digital cable in my bedroom as a kid was both a blessing and a curse, and I listened to Michio Kaku a lot. Didn’t understand half of it, but hey, it was cool.
Keep in mind, this was when I was a kid and thought all adults were good people and didn’t understand that Kaku and Tyson were dickheads or that Discovery Science was junk food borderline scifi.
Linus creates kernels. Nothing to do with cryptocurrency.
Tech is tech, but I wouldn't necessarily listen to him about other things than kernels and computers.
For example, he doesn't even believe in FOSS, and he openly supports Google because of Android, Chromebooks and ChromeOS using Linux.
This. One could find a lot of smart people "believing" in crypto (whatever this means), while being unrelated to them, and their opinion would mean nothing as well.
Of course, Linus is a kernel expert. Not crypto. I have nothing against him. I wouldn't listen to the US president about kernel either.
If you need crypto advice, listen to a crypto expert. Not sure why my comment gets downvoted but it seems common sense to me.
Cryptos can be a useful technology in certain targeted fields but they are not the solution to capitalism, it is much more important to focus on social issues and mutual aid.
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.
The value of a crypto token is ostensibly related to the value of the apps which the blockchain supports. It's meant to be both a form of compensation for participating in the network, and as currency for purchasing services from blockchain apps. That's how it derives intrinsic value. So if there is social media which runs on a blockchain, then the hosts within that blockchain get tokens for participating, and eg, advertisements or subscriptions are purchased in tokens. This means those who manage those participant nodes can sell their tokens to those who want to buy blockchain services. As the cumulative value of these services grows, an entire crypto economy is established, and it becomes effectively another form of fiat which has a real exchange rate backed by some real economic activity.
This is how it's supposed to work. The problem is that we just don't have any compelling apps, and the initial speculation has all but ensured that this cannot happen organically because the market cap is already just so much bigger than any realistic medium term outlook for intrinsic value. Bitcoin's blockchain would have to support some form application value which is bigger than the biggest companies in the world, and right now it basically has zero useful applications.
What if... crypto currency has been a psyop all along. Ultimately eliminating physical currency and government having full blown control of digital currency.
Oh I'm trying to suggest that like many technologies. The infancy of it is laced with people who are scamming others. Medicine had a go about with this phase as well; and to my understanding is now widely regarded as a "good move". Even if some dude use to sell cocaine mixed with alcohol and called it medicine because it made you feel better.
There's a few with a thousand on top of all time for Lemmy. It would have to break those before it gets there. But since we've got a perfect storm of Linux, crypto, and anti ai discussions going, all we need is @PugJesus to make a top level comment about how not voting for Biden is voting for Trump to really push it over the top.
Crypto is a textbook example of why we as a society can't have nice things. To many people are selfish and self serving, and not enough people are willing to ostracize those types of people from society for such actions.
I don't believe in crypto either because it's current value is solely derived on how much you can exchange it for real money. Outside of a few edge cases, nobody buys anything with crypto outside of the black market.
I'm sure crypto is a great solution to some finance problems related to centralized banking that I'm too lazy or dumb to care about, but I look at the energy consumption to calculate these massive chains for little tangible benefit, and the scammers and hypemen who are profiting off of other people's hopes and desires to get rich quick on the next big boom, and I can't help but feel like it's an actively harmful element of society. At the very least, whatever regulations are currently in place that are attempting to reign in crypto are insufficient at reducing harm.
u.today
Top