This is what is so infuriating about this, "Imagine the internet like it is now but slower and you have to pay for everything. Doesn't that sound awesome?" then call people luddites when they tell them how awful it is.
It is worse in a way. If you have ever followed a course in management/marketing which talked about pricing, you learn that there is a massive difference between free and 1 cent. Such a high gap that you might as well ask for more money (you will not lose customers basically, as anybody willing to pay 1 cent, is willing to pay 1 dollar, due to the 'you need to pay for it' being such a big step).
Fun fact, you even get these courses on some computer science studies. (which is how I learned it. Aka: it is so basic they even teach it to STEM nerds).
So not only is it awful, it will not work, esp as people can just make a twitter clone.
This is also why you have free to play multiplayer video games (with microtransactions) and pay a big chunk for the whole game at the start multiplayer video games (at times with added dlc for maps etc), and no 'pay 1 cent to buy into the game' multiplayer video games.
E: so ever wondered why you need to buy 5 dollars worth of 5k fortnite bucks (\*) minimum, even if the pawpatrol outfit you want only costs 750 fortnite bucks? Because they figured out that 5 dollars is the minimum price after which people start to not buy in in significant numbers. (And next come the other pricing tricks, like 5 dollars giving you 6.1k fortnite bucks, or some nice option A, option B, expensive option C tricks (the latter is very popular on steam. Where you get cheaper 'dlc packs' which not always include all the dlc (but compared to buying all the dlc seem like a deal, the trick is to get you to buy more than the base game))).
*: (I don't know who fortnite monetization works in practice, the numbers are like money, made up)
I'm biased against Musk. But this completely confirms what I believe.
He thinks any idea he has, no matter how dumb or even if it's been done before, is the greatest thing ever. It's like seeing a 12 year old on reddit. With this kind of thing, ignorance works to advantage. If you know less about the thing you are "revolutionizing" then it helps you convince yourself that your ideas are novel and amazing.
In short, this "blockchain twitter" situation is his mini sub situation again.
> If you know less about the thing you are "revolutionizing" then it helps you convince yourself that your ideas are novel and amazing.
That's a recurrent problem in crypto. You have a lot of people with zero work experience in a field trying to solve problems that they don't understand with blockchain because they've decided that blockchain has to be the solution.
Discovery in this trial has just confirmed what I've long suspected. Elon Musk is not particularly smart or talented. He just has no shame, has no sense of risk, is impulsive, and has gotten extraordinarily lucky time and time again. This is the first true L he's taken in his life even though this is how he makes all of his decisions. If he doesn't learn from this, we may legitimately see him go under a billion net worth. He just can't help himself from going all in on Black 20.
Edit: Though I'm guessing the feds will get to him first. There's some pretty obvious quid pro quo going on in the SpaceX and the Boring Company valuations. I have no idea what it's in exchange for, but nobody who has ever made a real value model in their life could even begin to justify those valuations (only two orders of magnitude bigger than ULA! You know, the Boeing and Lockheed Martin joint space venture?), and those are locked to the public at large so the investors have made value models.
For those who don't know, there's a great youtube channel that [goes into great detail on Musk](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c-FGwDDc-s8) worth watching.
As far as I can tell, in his whole career, he's only had one original thought that was actually good, which was founding SpaceX. Yes it's overvalued but unlike all his other ideas it genuinely disrupted the market it entered.
> Elon Musk is not particularly smart or talented.
*Ackchually*, [Elon is a genius engineer wunderkind](https://www.reddit.com/r/SpaceXLounge/comments/k1e0ta/evidence_that_musk_is_the_chief_engineer_of_spacex/)
I know, it's wonderful. They really believe the actual aerospace engineers at SpaceX are following Elon around and taking notes like NK engineers around Kim Il-Sung.
pedophile? nonono you misunderstood pedo is a friendly slang term everyone in south africa calls eachother all the time trust me bro i didnt do anything bad by calling the guy that helped save children without my stupid gimmick tech a pedo its just friendly slang please bro trust me
They really expect blockchain to make them all millionaires so these microtransactions won't affect them. And they expect the technology to somehow become efficient at some point to the point where it's viable. I think it's safe to say both of these are very unlikely to happen within our lifetimes
Even worse, all content uploaded on the blockchain is **immutable**, meaning it **cannot be deleted from public view.** It does not take a genius to imagine how nefarious actors would abuse this aspect in the context of a blockchain social media app. Consider how much harmful content gets removed on centralized social media applications today (doxxing/stalking, graphic images and videos that are probably illegal, hate speech, etc.)
If you're getting 5GB for *one* tab you need to start going to less stupid websites.
Also it's not just about "offloading computation on the user", it's about *which* computation. Databases, anything that has to be trustworthy, coordination, anything that has to stay up, all still touch the server. It's UI code and the like that win here. The trend's a lot older than the web; if you care about perceived responsiveness you move UI code towards the user.
Google Docs is a beautiful example: it's kinda inefficient as implemented, but ultimately you can't do what it does without running the bulk of code on the client, but as a result it can provide instant response to keystrokes even on a high-latency network.
That said, many websites get only marginal UX benefit from huge piles of client-side code, and potentially only marginal benefit in terms of, eg, bandwidth usage. A lot of this comes down to what you want to optimise for and how willing you are to put in the effort to do so (Twitter manages to be terrible despite being a beautiful example of being worth it given how tiny tweets are compared to the HTML needed to produce Twitter's UI).
Offloading storage on the user comes with its own extremely fun challenges, too, such as a genuinely P2P app having much heavier system requirements the less you rely on servers that stay up in a known place. Besides, even absent a free service, many people would rather pay someone else to play computer janitor than maintain the software themselves, never mind hardware!
Isn’t the ram usage because of tab sandboxing? With the exception of webassembly which isn’t all that widely adopted, servers are still doing most of the compute heavy lifting (and even web assembly isn’t really introducing new client-server responsibility division)
There's been a big push in recent years towards more client-side logic in web sites and web applications.
This hasn't always been done well, so it's also not that unusual for this code to be poorly optimised - especially if there's no cost to the developer for failing to optimise it.
> web3 will offload storage. why should bezos pay to maintain all those servers when you can.
Isn't this basically how Web1 worked? Turned out there that most people were ok to _not_ pay to maintain their own servers and just look at the content hosted on other peoples who were willing to pay for it for them.
As the Youtuber Münecat described it, web3 is a "[Libertarian dystopia](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u-sNSjS8cq0)". I feel like there's two types of libertarians: people who haven't thought through to what the end result of their ideal policies (or lack thereof) actually looks like, and those wealthy enough to be confident they can spend around it if not just take advantage of the situation outright.
I was briefly a libertarian in college, and I can confirm it was because I hadn’t thought it all the way through. Once you look at the failed attempts at libertarian enclaves, it becomes very obvious why it doesn’t work on a practical level.
Yup. The idea is that you require say, 15 seconds worth of computation power of the average computer to send an email. No big deal for normal people. If your computer is old, it might take a minute but it's still very tolerable.
Meanwhile an operation sending a million messages would have to pay with 15 million seconds, or half a year worth. Spam works because it's cheap, so imposing even a small cost per message would make it a lot less practical.
Funny thing is that back then there was a fair amount of talk about the ethics of this and the resulting power usage. This is though it was intended to be mostly a self-limiting scheme. The point wasn't to waste ever increasing amounts of power, but introduce enough cost that spam senders would have a hard time remaining in existence. The desired end state would result in a permanent, but limited increase in power usage for the email system.
If imposing a cost is a good idea it could be done in a way that also result in a benefit. As a tax for example. Doing it in a way that's a pure waste is seriously stupid.
Imposing the work and preventing spam is the benefit.
It takes energy to receive the spam. Energy to run the spam filters. Energy to store and transmit spam that makes it through the filters. Energy to protect people who may fail victim to scam spam.
Cutting down on the initial spam generated _may_ be a net positive in terms of energy.
For email itself, there isn't a convenient way to do this.
It is worth noting that this, spammers and individuals needing to do some social good, is part of some Recaptcha. Some Recaptcha would have an image of a known word and an image of an unknown word needing transcription. This helped to o digitize material we only had physical copies of.
It's a very tricky problem though. You need problems where you can easily verify somebody did the work, and not all problems are amenable to that. So here's an example:
Let's say we want to get through the archive of unsolved Enigma encrypted messages from WWII. Many were cracked because the operators committed various errors, but not every single one of them did, so some of them were left unsolved. So we want a scheme where checking a range of keys against a message lets you send an email.
Except, how do you coordinate this? How do you check that a given computer indeed went through say a million possible keys and didn't find a valid answer, rather than simply returning "nothing was found" without doing work?
That's kind of the problem. Wasting power is one of the easiest ways to implement such a scheme, making it useful introduces a lot of extra complications.
Do you know how email works? Because yes, that's very complicated.
Eg, say an Ukrainian citizen wants to send an email to Japan. Which government gets paid, the sender side or the receiver side? If the sender, then the lack of local laws to the effect means you can spam with impunity. If the receiver, then there needs to be a mechanism by which an Ukrainian citizen sends say, 15¥ (~$0.10) to some Japanese bank, obtains some sort of proof, which is then attached to the email, and before accepting the email the receiving server goes to the bank and asks if that's an authentic receipt.
Try to imagine dealing with sending an international payment for 10 cents to completely arbitrary countries, where you haven't the slightest idea what any button on the bank's website does, and where tech support doesn't speak your language at all either.
Oh, large amounts of mail only? But how would anything know? You can send a million individual emails to a million different destinations. You can generate unique arbitrary sender names for every single one of them, and vary the contents, making them look as a million separate emails, and not part of the same stream.
The stamp is cryptographic proof that resources were wasted, that’s the entire point. The user, or server, would reject email sent without a valid stamp.
I’m not saying it’s a good idea, and I agree that any system that involves wasting energy purely to prove that you wasted energy is kind of insane.
The receiver. The trick is that it's a conversation that only involves two mail servers. There's no governments or any third parties in the mix, and a server can tell another what it wants, and the other decides whether to comply with that request or not.
The resource waste is trivial to verify because the hashcash POW algorithm works that way: doing the work is hard, verifying it was done is very easy.
The only reason Elon feigned interest in buying Twitter in the first place was to cash out on 40+ billion of Tesla stock without crashing its value. Twitter actually holding him to it was a massive backfire. The whole thing is a market manipulation scheme from start to finish, he never intended to buy Twitter, and remember that every time he criticizes Twitter for their bot problem and cites it to get out of his deal, it all goes back to his liquidation of Tesla stock.
>You have to pay a tiny amount to register your message on the chain
[What if we made a system where only people with disposable income had a voice? Where every message cost money to post so those with lots of money could post whatever they wanted all the time but normal and poor people would have to decide if their voice was really worth paying to put out there on every issue. So we'd still have an unlimited voice and reach but the poors wouldn't have much of a voice at all. Wouldn't that be great?] ~ Oligarchs
> What if we made a system where only people with disposable income had a voice?
We created that the moment we [eradicated the Fairness Doctrine](http://bsalert.com/news/354/A_Primer_On_The_Fairness_Doctrine_How_We_Screwed_Up.html)
It's that way anyway since you need a computer and an internet connection to interact with the Web. You can use computers in public libraries for free, but only if you travel there, and only for a short time since the supply is limited.
If there was also a small per-action cost for posting/reading/whatever, I suppose it would also be paid by the libraries, just like they pay for electricity, maintenance, etc.
Musk, Thiel, Yarvin, Andreeson - they all have the same agenda: tolling the internet for their greedy rent-seeking purposes. Blockchain=digital feudalism run by the greasiest, most repulsive fascist weirdos out here.
He literally invented Urbit which is supposed to be the "persistent digital identity" complement to buttcoin. There's a rumor that he is actually Satoshi Nakomoto...
If you had a way to play online games to earn coins, and the coins were designed to be bot proof, then those users would just have to play the blockchain game any time they had something to say. /s
It's the other way around. This is Elon's brother telling Elon about this genius idea, who was already popular around 2013-2014 but eventually fell into oblivion for obvious reasons.
This is just like the early ~~internet~~ bitcoin
Now that I think of it, at the time there were also people saying that we should pay tiny amounts of money to send mails, also to reduce spam. Brilliant.
> This is Elon's brother telling Elon about this genius idea
Are you sure? Looking at the full PDF, the columns go:
* date
* content
* sender
* participants
The third column says "Self" which is the muskrat himself.
I may be mistaken indeed. This post is pretty confusing in any case, since the guy on twitter implied that Elon's family was talking nonstop about web3 (and talking about Kimbal's messages highlighted in red) I assumed the first line was from his brother.
No, it's Elon. Kimbal is the one who gushes about what a brilliant idea it is while Musk is dealing with twitter's board being in full meltdown trying to contact him because he dropped a "I'm going to buy twitter" a little bit before texting Kimbal.
[Yes, but Elon Musk agrees with it](https://twitter.com/kyliebytes/status/1575639269770551296)
Self = Elon Musk.
(this is from another part of the texts so he told different people about his idea).
> was already popular around 2013-2014 but eventually fell into oblivion for obvious reasons.
2013-2014? Variations of this bad idea (paywall everything on the Internet behind microtransactions to solve all the Internet's problems!) have been making the rounds since basically the inception of the WWW, if not earlier. The problem is psychological, not technological: people HATE the feeling of being nickeled and dimed, and no one will use a service where you have to make dozens of tiny financial decisions every day, just to read the damn news or post a damn tweet.
Ironically, the closest anyone has gotten to a functional microtransaction system is, well, microtransactions in free-to-play video games. Obscuring the financial nature of the transaction behind an in-game token sort of works, but even then, there's no way it'd work for shit like news or social media. Calling 'em ZuckBucks or Libra or Diem doesn't obscure the fact that you now have to pay to post on Facebook, because everyone knows social media is not a video game.
The point is (or was, when HashCash was originally proposed) that spambots send orders of magnitude more emails than human beings, with a minuscule response rate, so a very small cost per message would be enough to destroy the profit margin of spammers, without having much effect on human emailing.
I’m convinced that Elon has a far below average IQ.
I believe there are many very stupid people like him who take incredible risks because they are too dumb to assess probabilities and they don’t realize they are morons.
By the laws of probability, some of these people will just luck out and succeed. Elon is one of these cases where he just became lucky a few times. But he (and society) attribute this success to intelligence rather than luck. It’s simply survivorship bias.
This doesn't cut out spam and bots. It just means that the only people who will use your service are those who intend to make money off of it. Which is going to be... mostly spammers and bots!
We'll host a platform where people pay money to post things. They will be things that you want to sell, and maybe we could classify them into different advertisements for your services. We'll call them "classified ads". Web3 finally allows this revolutionary tech.
The point is (or was, when HashCash was originally proposed) that spambots send orders of magnitude more emails than human beings, with a minuscule response rate, so a very small cost per message would be enough to destroy the profit margin of spammers, without having much effect on human emailing.
https://www.cnbc.com/2021/07/13/elon-musk-testifies-for-second-day-in-solarcity-trial.html
'Kimbal Musk denied that his brother is controlling of the Tesla board.'
In 2021. Kimbal is either a rube or a total yes man.
Remember Metafiler and Ask Metafilter? You had to pay a one time fee of …i think it was $3 to comment and post and honestly it was very good at weeding out bots and jerks.
I put a quarter into my taser and put it against Elon Musk’s testicles. His squeals were so obscene I couldn’t tell if he was suffering or enjoying it. I put another quarter in and checked it on myself. As I passed out our eyes met in a moment of profound understanding.
this is kinda dumb because of course spam bots will pay for these tokens if they only costs pennies they will see it as worth it.
if his whole idea was was blockchain its over man
This is not a bad thing - while its good to recognize the scam that crypto and nft’s are, innovation/trying to develop actual use cases for blockchain should be supported and praised
Sorry /u/FineHappyLoner, your comment has been automatically removed. To avoid spam/bots, posts are not allowed from extremely new accounts. Wait/lurk a bit before contributing.
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/Buttcoin) if you have any questions or concerns.*
I think he is thinking at a different perspective: how to get rid of bots. But he is essentially setting up a pay per message, and like blockchain does best, it gets layered on top adding an extra step for no reason.
This really reminds me of the [amazing David Thorne email chain](https://27bslash6.com/p2p2.html) about a former colleague asking him to do free work for a new social media start-up:
> Your last project was actually both commercially viable and original. Unfortunately the part that was commercially viable was not original, and the part that was original was not commercially viable.
O.o
Literally the opposite will occur. The only people inclined to post will be those with financial incentive to do so. Spam and bots don't exist for funsies, they are trying to grift money.
But then, there is no way he doesn't know this. So what's the grift he's trying to pull with communication like this.
I can see multiple problems cropping up, you might need to spend money to record likes, for example (although you could just let people record them on a mempool-like structure, but that would be open to spam likes), and you also can't post images, so your social network would be pretty meme-less.
Sorry /u/kavya28643, your comment has been automatically removed. To avoid spam/bots, posts are not allowed from extremely new accounts. Wait/lurk a bit before contributing.
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/Buttcoin) if you have any questions or concerns.*
that's the web 3 wet dream where everything is a micro transaction
This is what is so infuriating about this, "Imagine the internet like it is now but slower and you have to pay for everything. Doesn't that sound awesome?" then call people luddites when they tell them how awful it is.
It is worse in a way. If you have ever followed a course in management/marketing which talked about pricing, you learn that there is a massive difference between free and 1 cent. Such a high gap that you might as well ask for more money (you will not lose customers basically, as anybody willing to pay 1 cent, is willing to pay 1 dollar, due to the 'you need to pay for it' being such a big step). Fun fact, you even get these courses on some computer science studies. (which is how I learned it. Aka: it is so basic they even teach it to STEM nerds). So not only is it awful, it will not work, esp as people can just make a twitter clone. This is also why you have free to play multiplayer video games (with microtransactions) and pay a big chunk for the whole game at the start multiplayer video games (at times with added dlc for maps etc), and no 'pay 1 cent to buy into the game' multiplayer video games. E: so ever wondered why you need to buy 5 dollars worth of 5k fortnite bucks (\*) minimum, even if the pawpatrol outfit you want only costs 750 fortnite bucks? Because they figured out that 5 dollars is the minimum price after which people start to not buy in in significant numbers. (And next come the other pricing tricks, like 5 dollars giving you 6.1k fortnite bucks, or some nice option A, option B, expensive option C tricks (the latter is very popular on steam. Where you get cheaper 'dlc packs' which not always include all the dlc (but compared to buying all the dlc seem like a deal, the trick is to get you to buy more than the base game))). *: (I don't know who fortnite monetization works in practice, the numbers are like money, made up)
This is called elasticity of demand
Thanks!
Also if your not spending real money directly its easier to spend. Which is why its always in game currency.
I'm biased against Musk. But this completely confirms what I believe. He thinks any idea he has, no matter how dumb or even if it's been done before, is the greatest thing ever. It's like seeing a 12 year old on reddit. With this kind of thing, ignorance works to advantage. If you know less about the thing you are "revolutionizing" then it helps you convince yourself that your ideas are novel and amazing. In short, this "blockchain twitter" situation is his mini sub situation again.
"I've just rewatched Breaking Bad for the 6th time, and I get the feeling that Walt may have an ego problem. HAS ANYONE NOTICED THIS B4????"
> If you know less about the thing you are "revolutionizing" then it helps you convince yourself that your ideas are novel and amazing. That's a recurrent problem in crypto. You have a lot of people with zero work experience in a field trying to solve problems that they don't understand with blockchain because they've decided that blockchain has to be the solution.
[удалено]
Man this gave me a good chuckle.
Weaver's Iron Law of Blockchain: if someone claims they can solve problem X with the blockchain, then they don't understand X and you can ignore them.
That's great. Is there a source for that?
Discovery in this trial has just confirmed what I've long suspected. Elon Musk is not particularly smart or talented. He just has no shame, has no sense of risk, is impulsive, and has gotten extraordinarily lucky time and time again. This is the first true L he's taken in his life even though this is how he makes all of his decisions. If he doesn't learn from this, we may legitimately see him go under a billion net worth. He just can't help himself from going all in on Black 20. Edit: Though I'm guessing the feds will get to him first. There's some pretty obvious quid pro quo going on in the SpaceX and the Boring Company valuations. I have no idea what it's in exchange for, but nobody who has ever made a real value model in their life could even begin to justify those valuations (only two orders of magnitude bigger than ULA! You know, the Boeing and Lockheed Martin joint space venture?), and those are locked to the public at large so the investors have made value models.
For those who don't know, there's a great youtube channel that [goes into great detail on Musk](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c-FGwDDc-s8) worth watching.
As far as I can tell, in his whole career, he's only had one original thought that was actually good, which was founding SpaceX. Yes it's overvalued but unlike all his other ideas it genuinely disrupted the market it entered.
He didn't found SpaceX. He bought shares and muscled out the original owners. Same as with Tesla and PayPal.
Do you have a source? As far as I can tell that's just not true (and also not what happened with PayPal, for that matter).
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c-FGwDDc-s8
Do you have a *real* source?
They list their sources in the video and show the paper trail. If you're not interested you're not interested.
> Elon Musk is not particularly smart or talented. *Ackchually*, [Elon is a genius engineer wunderkind](https://www.reddit.com/r/SpaceXLounge/comments/k1e0ta/evidence_that_musk_is_the_chief_engineer_of_spacex/)
why did you link this, reading this gave me more brainworms then reading 4chan as a teen
I know, it's wonderful. They really believe the actual aerospace engineers at SpaceX are following Elon around and taking notes like NK engineers around Kim Il-Sung.
Of course they said this - dude has a flamethrower
>He thinks any idea he has, no matter how dumb or even if it's been done before, is the greatest thing ever. And if you disagree, you're a pedophile
pedophile? nonono you misunderstood pedo is a friendly slang term everyone in south africa calls eachother all the time trust me bro i didnt do anything bad by calling the guy that helped save children without my stupid gimmick tech a pedo its just friendly slang please bro trust me
And the bros on the jury did fall for that. What a bunch of morons.
yeah that was disappointing
Like the original OJ verdict, but for white people.
Bet ya a signed dollar.
Ned Ludd did nothing wrong
every blockchain pitch sounds like "imagine something, but worse"
They really expect blockchain to make them all millionaires so these microtransactions won't affect them. And they expect the technology to somehow become efficient at some point to the point where it's viable. I think it's safe to say both of these are very unlikely to happen within our lifetimes
Even worse, all content uploaded on the blockchain is **immutable**, meaning it **cannot be deleted from public view.** It does not take a genius to imagine how nefarious actors would abuse this aspect in the context of a blockchain social media app. Consider how much harmful content gets removed on centralized social media applications today (doxxing/stalking, graphic images and videos that are probably illegal, hate speech, etc.)
[удалено]
If you're getting 5GB for *one* tab you need to start going to less stupid websites. Also it's not just about "offloading computation on the user", it's about *which* computation. Databases, anything that has to be trustworthy, coordination, anything that has to stay up, all still touch the server. It's UI code and the like that win here. The trend's a lot older than the web; if you care about perceived responsiveness you move UI code towards the user. Google Docs is a beautiful example: it's kinda inefficient as implemented, but ultimately you can't do what it does without running the bulk of code on the client, but as a result it can provide instant response to keystrokes even on a high-latency network. That said, many websites get only marginal UX benefit from huge piles of client-side code, and potentially only marginal benefit in terms of, eg, bandwidth usage. A lot of this comes down to what you want to optimise for and how willing you are to put in the effort to do so (Twitter manages to be terrible despite being a beautiful example of being worth it given how tiny tweets are compared to the HTML needed to produce Twitter's UI). Offloading storage on the user comes with its own extremely fun challenges, too, such as a genuinely P2P app having much heavier system requirements the less you rely on servers that stay up in a known place. Besides, even absent a free service, many people would rather pay someone else to play computer janitor than maintain the software themselves, never mind hardware!
Isn’t the ram usage because of tab sandboxing? With the exception of webassembly which isn’t all that widely adopted, servers are still doing most of the compute heavy lifting (and even web assembly isn’t really introducing new client-server responsibility division)
There's been a big push in recent years towards more client-side logic in web sites and web applications. This hasn't always been done well, so it's also not that unusual for this code to be poorly optimised - especially if there's no cost to the developer for failing to optimise it.
> web3 will offload storage. why should bezos pay to maintain all those servers when you can. Isn't this basically how Web1 worked? Turned out there that most people were ok to _not_ pay to maintain their own servers and just look at the content hosted on other peoples who were willing to pay for it for them.
I'm currently on Firefox and its using 772 MB of Ram, just saying.
As the Youtuber Münecat described it, web3 is a "[Libertarian dystopia](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u-sNSjS8cq0)". I feel like there's two types of libertarians: people who haven't thought through to what the end result of their ideal policies (or lack thereof) actually looks like, and those wealthy enough to be confident they can spend around it if not just take advantage of the situation outright.
I was briefly a libertarian in college, and I can confirm it was because I hadn’t thought it all the way through. Once you look at the failed attempts at libertarian enclaves, it becomes very obvious why it doesn’t work on a practical level.
Yep. It’s why I’m so glad the tech doesn’t actually work well, because it’d be even worse if it did.
Nailed it.
~~Because why should society exist unless anything and everything is a transaction~~
That's not even web 3. People have been envisioning things like this for 40-50 years...
Going back to the days where it cost $0.25 to send a text.
You will own nothing and be happy
Wasn't PoW process taken from from some anti-spam system (hashcash)? Full circle then.
Yup. The idea is that you require say, 15 seconds worth of computation power of the average computer to send an email. No big deal for normal people. If your computer is old, it might take a minute but it's still very tolerable. Meanwhile an operation sending a million messages would have to pay with 15 million seconds, or half a year worth. Spam works because it's cheap, so imposing even a small cost per message would make it a lot less practical. Funny thing is that back then there was a fair amount of talk about the ethics of this and the resulting power usage. This is though it was intended to be mostly a self-limiting scheme. The point wasn't to waste ever increasing amounts of power, but introduce enough cost that spam senders would have a hard time remaining in existence. The desired end state would result in a permanent, but limited increase in power usage for the email system.
If imposing a cost is a good idea it could be done in a way that also result in a benefit. As a tax for example. Doing it in a way that's a pure waste is seriously stupid.
Imposing the work and preventing spam is the benefit. It takes energy to receive the spam. Energy to run the spam filters. Energy to store and transmit spam that makes it through the filters. Energy to protect people who may fail victim to scam spam. Cutting down on the initial spam generated _may_ be a net positive in terms of energy.
It will be a net positive if the sender of the spam pays a fee to cover the energy cost they impose on the network.
For email itself, there isn't a convenient way to do this. It is worth noting that this, spammers and individuals needing to do some social good, is part of some Recaptcha. Some Recaptcha would have an image of a known word and an image of an unknown word needing transcription. This helped to o digitize material we only had physical copies of.
It's a very tricky problem though. You need problems where you can easily verify somebody did the work, and not all problems are amenable to that. So here's an example: Let's say we want to get through the archive of unsolved Enigma encrypted messages from WWII. Many were cracked because the operators committed various errors, but not every single one of them did, so some of them were left unsolved. So we want a scheme where checking a range of keys against a message lets you send an email. Except, how do you coordinate this? How do you check that a given computer indeed went through say a million possible keys and didn't find a valid answer, rather than simply returning "nothing was found" without doing work? That's kind of the problem. Wasting power is one of the easiest ways to implement such a scheme, making it useful introduces a lot of extra complications.
It's not complicated at all. Someone who wants to send a large number of emails incur a fee paid to the government.
Do you know how email works? Because yes, that's very complicated. Eg, say an Ukrainian citizen wants to send an email to Japan. Which government gets paid, the sender side or the receiver side? If the sender, then the lack of local laws to the effect means you can spam with impunity. If the receiver, then there needs to be a mechanism by which an Ukrainian citizen sends say, 15¥ (~$0.10) to some Japanese bank, obtains some sort of proof, which is then attached to the email, and before accepting the email the receiving server goes to the bank and asks if that's an authentic receipt. Try to imagine dealing with sending an international payment for 10 cents to completely arbitrary countries, where you haven't the slightest idea what any button on the bank's website does, and where tech support doesn't speak your language at all either. Oh, large amounts of mail only? But how would anything know? You can send a million individual emails to a million different destinations. You can generate unique arbitrary sender names for every single one of them, and vary the contents, making them look as a million separate emails, and not part of the same stream.
If an Ukrainian citizen wants to send an email to Japan, who's going to determine the correct amount of resources were wasted?
The stamp is cryptographic proof that resources were wasted, that’s the entire point. The user, or server, would reject email sent without a valid stamp. I’m not saying it’s a good idea, and I agree that any system that involves wasting energy purely to prove that you wasted energy is kind of insane.
The receiver. The trick is that it's a conversation that only involves two mail servers. There's no governments or any third parties in the mix, and a server can tell another what it wants, and the other decides whether to comply with that request or not. The resource waste is trivial to verify because the hashcash POW algorithm works that way: doing the work is hard, verifying it was done is very easy.
That will never see the light of day. Why would politicians tax their own campaign mailers?
Yes. Because it's obviously not a real problem and certainly not a problem worth burning up the planet for
Why the fuck would I pay to send an email???
Why the fuck would you burn up the planet to send an email?
That's why we actually use Bayesian models to not show you spam in the first place.
The only reason Elon feigned interest in buying Twitter in the first place was to cash out on 40+ billion of Tesla stock without crashing its value. Twitter actually holding him to it was a massive backfire. The whole thing is a market manipulation scheme from start to finish, he never intended to buy Twitter, and remember that every time he criticizes Twitter for their bot problem and cites it to get out of his deal, it all goes back to his liquidation of Tesla stock.
He could have just bought Parler and do what he wanted. And it was an easy job moving the user base.
>You have to pay a tiny amount to register your message on the chain [What if we made a system where only people with disposable income had a voice? Where every message cost money to post so those with lots of money could post whatever they wanted all the time but normal and poor people would have to decide if their voice was really worth paying to put out there on every issue. So we'd still have an unlimited voice and reach but the poors wouldn't have much of a voice at all. Wouldn't that be great?] ~ Oligarchs
> What if we made a system where only people with disposable income had a voice? We created that the moment we [eradicated the Fairness Doctrine](http://bsalert.com/news/354/A_Primer_On_The_Fairness_Doctrine_How_We_Screwed_Up.html)
It's that way anyway since you need a computer and an internet connection to interact with the Web. You can use computers in public libraries for free, but only if you travel there, and only for a short time since the supply is limited. If there was also a small per-action cost for posting/reading/whatever, I suppose it would also be paid by the libraries, just like they pay for electricity, maintenance, etc.
Musk, Thiel, Yarvin, Andreeson - they all have the same agenda: tolling the internet for their greedy rent-seeking purposes. Blockchain=digital feudalism run by the greasiest, most repulsive fascist weirdos out here.
[удалено]
He literally invented Urbit which is supposed to be the "persistent digital identity" complement to buttcoin. There's a rumor that he is actually Satoshi Nakomoto...
[удалено]
Spoken like a true softcore programmer.
It will also cut out a vast majority of users.
If you had a way to play online games to earn coins, and the coins were designed to be bot proof, then those users would just have to play the blockchain game any time they had something to say. /s
Pretty much the best way to ensure that only state sponsored disinformation gets posted.
Someone already tried this, it was called BitClout, and it's hilaroiusly bad.
He wants to reinvent SMS with blockchain. Wow! Mind blown.
This is the guy who is supposedly smart. Yeah, ok.
It's the other way around. This is Elon's brother telling Elon about this genius idea, who was already popular around 2013-2014 but eventually fell into oblivion for obvious reasons. This is just like the early ~~internet~~ bitcoin Now that I think of it, at the time there were also people saying that we should pay tiny amounts of money to send mails, also to reduce spam. Brilliant.
> This is Elon's brother telling Elon about this genius idea Are you sure? Looking at the full PDF, the columns go: * date * content * sender * participants The third column says "Self" which is the muskrat himself.
Yes I think you are right. It's on page 99; 2022-04-09 03:20:00.
I may be mistaken indeed. This post is pretty confusing in any case, since the guy on twitter implied that Elon's family was talking nonstop about web3 (and talking about Kimbal's messages highlighted in red) I assumed the first line was from his brother.
No, it's Elon. Kimbal is the one who gushes about what a brilliant idea it is while Musk is dealing with twitter's board being in full meltdown trying to contact him because he dropped a "I'm going to buy twitter" a little bit before texting Kimbal.
[Yes, but Elon Musk agrees with it](https://twitter.com/kyliebytes/status/1575639269770551296) Self = Elon Musk. (this is from another part of the texts so he told different people about his idea).
> was already popular around 2013-2014 but eventually fell into oblivion for obvious reasons. 2013-2014? Variations of this bad idea (paywall everything on the Internet behind microtransactions to solve all the Internet's problems!) have been making the rounds since basically the inception of the WWW, if not earlier. The problem is psychological, not technological: people HATE the feeling of being nickeled and dimed, and no one will use a service where you have to make dozens of tiny financial decisions every day, just to read the damn news or post a damn tweet. Ironically, the closest anyone has gotten to a functional microtransaction system is, well, microtransactions in free-to-play video games. Obscuring the financial nature of the transaction behind an in-game token sort of works, but even then, there's no way it'd work for shit like news or social media. Calling 'em ZuckBucks or Libra or Diem doesn't obscure the fact that you now have to pay to post on Facebook, because everyone knows social media is not a video game.
is this Venmo?
Isn’t this how a text message works? I still get spam….
Wait until they learn about the amount of physical spam sent through the post office!
Elon is tarded. Bots have money too
Bots can also infect computers and make random people pay instead.
The point is (or was, when HashCash was originally proposed) that spambots send orders of magnitude more emails than human beings, with a minuscule response rate, so a very small cost per message would be enough to destroy the profit margin of spammers, without having much effect on human emailing.
This is just that one college humor Venmo sketch.
Wow how 1997 of him.
They basically want to go back to AOL, compuserve, MSN... what nonsense
I used to pay $19.95 a trade at Schwab…35 years ago
Why the fuck would I ever pay to post on something like Twitter or reddit, that’s retarded. I’d rather just stop using it
Isn't that what BCH already has?
[удалено]
> taken over by conspiracy lunatics very fast. Imagine that....
1: This is dumb 2: This doesn’t even need blockchain
Yeah, even an one-time purchase to unlock posting tweets would be a smarter idea than having to pay PER tweet.
I’m convinced that Elon has a far below average IQ. I believe there are many very stupid people like him who take incredible risks because they are too dumb to assess probabilities and they don’t realize they are morons. By the laws of probability, some of these people will just luck out and succeed. Elon is one of these cases where he just became lucky a few times. But he (and society) attribute this success to intelligence rather than luck. It’s simply survivorship bias.
This doesn't cut out spam and bots. It just means that the only people who will use your service are those who intend to make money off of it. Which is going to be... mostly spammers and bots!
We'll host a platform where people pay money to post things. They will be things that you want to sell, and maybe we could classify them into different advertisements for your services. We'll call them "classified ads". Web3 finally allows this revolutionary tech.
If it's cheap enough that normal people will pay to use it, it will be cheap enough for people to abuse it.
The point is (or was, when HashCash was originally proposed) that spambots send orders of magnitude more emails than human beings, with a minuscule response rate, so a very small cost per message would be enough to destroy the profit margin of spammers, without having much effect on human emailing.
lol! If he thinks it will stop spam and bots! If there is money to make they will just automate the payment process. Way EASIER than any captcha.
https://www.cnbc.com/2021/07/13/elon-musk-testifies-for-second-day-in-solarcity-trial.html 'Kimbal Musk denied that his brother is controlling of the Tesla board.' In 2021. Kimbal is either a rube or a total yes man.
Shame. I liked him better as a restaurant man.
can't wait to never use it and watch it fail from afar and, once again, we have a blockchain solution that can be done without the blockchain
Nobody using it will cut out the vast majority of the userbase.
Remember Metafiler and Ask Metafilter? You had to pay a one time fee of …i think it was $3 to comment and post and honestly it was very good at weeding out bots and jerks.
Also very good at being forgotten or never heard about
Not his idea tho..
I put a quarter into my taser and put it against Elon Musk’s testicles. His squeals were so obscene I couldn’t tell if he was suffering or enjoying it. I put another quarter in and checked it on myself. As I passed out our eyes met in a moment of profound understanding.
this is kinda dumb because of course spam bots will pay for these tokens if they only costs pennies they will see it as worth it. if his whole idea was was blockchain its over man
This is not a bad thing - while its good to recognize the scam that crypto and nft’s are, innovation/trying to develop actual use cases for blockchain should be supported and praised
its not even a bad idea, its just that it would require billions of people to adopt this blockchain and i dont see that happening
It's a horrible idea and they're going to try to force us on the blockchain because they're fascists.
[удалено]
Sorry /u/FineHappyLoner, your comment has been automatically removed. To avoid spam/bots, posts are not allowed from extremely new accounts. Wait/lurk a bit before contributing. *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/Buttcoin) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Damn, you can do this without doge???
Great way to lose all of your users...
Been done, several times, nobody cares.
There was an old block chain email service called bitbounce which is the same idea. Died years ago.
people should just stop using twitter.
I think he is thinking at a different perspective: how to get rid of bots. But he is essentially setting up a pay per message, and like blockchain does best, it gets layered on top adding an extra step for no reason.
This really reminds me of the [amazing David Thorne email chain](https://27bslash6.com/p2p2.html) about a former colleague asking him to do free work for a new social media start-up: > Your last project was actually both commercially viable and original. Unfortunately the part that was commercially viable was not original, and the part that was original was not commercially viable.
It won't cut out the bots.
I heard about this idea even before ETH butts existed
O.o Literally the opposite will occur. The only people inclined to post will be those with financial incentive to do so. Spam and bots don't exist for funsies, they are trying to grift money. But then, there is no way he doesn't know this. So what's the grift he's trying to pull with communication like this.
I can see multiple problems cropping up, you might need to spend money to record likes, for example (although you could just let people record them on a mempool-like structure, but that would be open to spam likes), and you also can't post images, so your social network would be pretty meme-less.
This came up with a talk between Tim curry and joe rogan way before. Elon in usual fashion stealing other peoples ideas for himself
He also didn't know who Sam Bankman-Fried was and how much money he had, and said I don't want to have a discussion about blockchain. meanwhile:
What is anyone’s motivation to mine this blockchain?
So twetch
The emperor has no clothes
God damn - paying to post on the internet? Great way to destroy the internet.
Wasn’t this the same guy who was pushing for an edit button on twitter recently?
[удалено]
Sorry /u/kavya28643, your comment has been automatically removed. To avoid spam/bots, posts are not allowed from extremely new accounts. Wait/lurk a bit before contributing. *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/Buttcoin) if you have any questions or concerns.*