While I’m not entirely sure I agree with these points, I do understand them. I only meant to convey that firing guns into the air is on another level of stupid compared to fireworks.

A well-made and safely launched firework has a way lower chance of returning to earth than a 7.62 bullet.

Unless you cause harm to others (like accidentally starting the next pandemic), how could you ever punish someone for treating themselves? 🤣

We don’t, as far as I know, make cutting your own arm off illegal and I fail to see how this is different.

PS: I’m not arguing against you, just noodling philosophically.

Fuck

I don’t know how, but I would still manage to lose this day one.

Fucking.

Eh, with a reasonably modern computer you can get to a desktop environment and browser done in a day.

You mistyped a few fucks.

I’m an older generation and (generally) refrain from swearing myself, but seeing censored posts on Lemmy drives me fucking insane. This isn’t a preschool nor is it an advertiser-friendly place. We should keep it that way.

Horus Guard represent!

https://youtu.be/8dIdYkwWg_g

Taken a little out of context, but still funny.

If you’re suggesting something like cryptocurrency or a return to the gold standard, I challenge you to explain how that would help in this situation.

It’s 2024. It’s rude not to jam your tongue in there!

And dick?

But you couldn’t release your own projects based on this under pure MIT or Apache-2.0. Presumably you’d need to include the same restriction about selling on Atlassian’s marketplace.

Arguably Thomas Riker is the evil one.

A cryptocurrency without crypto is just a currency then?

Regardless of whether it’s eroding trust in cryptography today, I still assert it was a reasonable choice when the term was coined. Cryptocurrency depends fundamentally on cryptography.

just because it uses sha256 as it’s proof of work doesn’t make it crypto, as it was essentially picked out of a hat.

You could probably switch proof-of-work to use some non-cryptographic primitive with similar properties (maybe protein folding?) and it would still serve the same purpose, ignoring the economic problems. I will concede that point.

Bitcoin still cannot function without cryptography. Each UTXO is bound to a particular key pair. Each block refers to its parent using a hash. If either of those were switched to a non-cryptographic primitive, there would be no way to authenticate the owner of a UTXO, nor would there be a way to prove the ordering of blocks. Removing cryptography from cryptocurrency would make it entirely useless as a currency.

And for the signing of transactions, are we going to start calling bank checks crypto?

Banks existed for a thousand years without the existence of cryptography. If you removed cryptography from RCS, you’d still have the rest of the standard for messaging.

I hate to be that guy, but Bitcoin uses elliptic curve cryptography to sign transactions, and SHA256 is definitely in the field of cryptography. While cryptocurrency isn’t purely cryptography, it is cryptography plus economics. Borrowing the “crypto” prefix, at least in my opinion, is reasonable.

This is a government office. A government should be able to build the technical knowledge required to keep a private signing key secure.

I do agree that individual-to-individual cryptography is more difficult, but how often do you need to check the authenticity of a document from a friend or acquaintance, digital or otherwise?