This seems pretty out of touch. They're the first challenger to fiat currencies ever. Outlawing them will stifle any innovation that arises from their development.
>Outlawing them will stifle any innovation that arises from their development.
This seems pretty out of touch.
I own some crypto. Mostly BTC, some ETH and even a bit of XRP I've held onto. I can see the utility, maybe. But, what innovation is happening in this space? It's mostly scam after scam.
There are literally thousands of coins on CoinMarketCap. What are they all doing?
> They're the first challenger to fiat currencies ever.
Direct commodity and commodity-representational currencies were the first challengers to fiat currencies, and for about the first millenium after the first know fiat was introduced, generally won.
Cryptocurrency is not the “first challenger to fiat currency ever”.
Yes, the simple past (“for the first millenium after the 10th century introduction of fiat, commodity currency alternatives mostly won”) has different meaning than the past perfect (“commodity currencies have won the battle with fiat currencies”), and I choose which one I used for the exact meaning intended.
> Also, until the 70s, USD was backed by gold.
Yes, the US dollar until recently was most of the time a commodity (either direct in coins traded for their metalli1a13@c value, or representational in redeemable notes) currency, part of the millenium of triumph of commodity over fiat.
Previously, you tried to say that FB was going to, I don't know, Sue startups who use LLAMA or something, due to them not yet releasing a commerical license, with a permissive license?
Do you still stand by this statement, now that FB has commercially released a large language model?
And then question 2 would be, what possible argument could someone say to you, to have convinced you that your previous argument was not justified, given that new evidence has proven that to be the case?
> Previously, you tried to say that FB was going to, I don't know, Sue startups who use LLAMA or something, due to them not yet releasing a commerical license, with a permissive license?
I’m not certain how to parse the last part of that sentence, but I'm fairly certain that I didn’t ever try to say that Facebook was going to sue LLaMa users, startups or otherwise.
I may have argued that the license terms created sufficient legal risk that most firms would be loathe to build on top of it, but that’s very much not the same thing.
> Do you still stand by this statement, now that FB has commercially released a large language model?
As far as I know, they have announced plans to release an LLM (which may or may not be LLaMa) with a commercially-usable (maybe open source) license in the near future, but have not yet done so.
But since I don’t recall making the claim (and have very clear reasons why I would have been unlikely to have), I won't stand by it even without the new information you indicate (which seems premature, AFAICT.)
Outlawing Cryptographic exchanges and transfers are not outlawing distributed ledger technology nor networks with tokens not denominated or traded in US dollars.
The only notable innovation to come from cryptocurrencies is the rise of ransomware, a drain on the global economy that funds terrorists and dictatorships.
There was ransomware in the 90s. For small amounts, they often requested prepaid gift cards or for you to call premium phone numbers. For larger amounts, wire transfers to countries with weak law enforcement.
Cyberextortion rings still operate out of countries with weak law enforcement or tacit approval of their governments, so I don't know if disappearance of cryptocurrency would hurt them much.
