Straight up inversion of being differentiated form (life) out of same flow (inception towards death). Everything perceivable represents moving differences. Perceiving something implies that it exists within a different position.
And of course the parasitic few tempt the ignorant many to consent to identity (sameness) under the umbrella of diversity (difference)...
Humanity: comfortably numb within ignorance
Roger Waters: "Hello? (Hello, hello, hello)"..."Is there anybody in there?"..."Just nod if you can hear me"..."Is there anyone at home?"
Yeah, it'd be such a terrible thing to prevent companies from being able to access, buy and sell my data without permission and reimbursement.
Pkvi, stop getting implementation confused with underlying technology.
Do you hate language? Because language is used to enslave us. The water that gives you life is also giving life to your enemy. Surely, we should ban all water.
I'm anti BTC, ETH, XRP, and a million other projects because they are bad implementations for various reasons. A wide concept like 'decentralized identity' doesn't even necessitate a cryptocurrency, it could be a blockchain with no currency.
A decentralized blockchain is just a database that can be mathematically guaranteed to not be tampered with. No need to just some authority like say your bank or gov.
You're just hating on computers entirely. Which could be valid position if you weren't using one right now.
Please start providing meaningful commentary on specific implementations you dont like, if you would like to be more effective.
That's not owning your own data, nor is it decentralized. That's already what we have in the current central banking system.
You're still confusing cryptocurrency and blockchain; implementations vs the underlying technology.
None of the things you cite are inherent to blockchains. All of them are possible and more probable in centralized banking.
None of your cited experiences provide any relevance to blockchains.
I never proposed that encryption makes blockchains secure. They are tamper-evident, but if you're worrying about encryption being the weak point in blockchains then cryptocurrencies are the least of your concerns, so you might want to triage a little.
Also encryption itself is almost never broken. Poor implementations lead to decryption, or computational power increases so that exhaustive bruteforcing becomes trivial on old algos. All algos have an expected EOL.
Web3 is a name brand created by polkadot. Web 3.0 is a marketing buzzword. Web 3.0 will be defined when the marketing people want to start pitching web 4.0, just like web 1.0 and 2.0.
You don't provide any alternative to the things you oppose, it's just all FUD all the time.
I have no idea what Rolling Stone is saying in that headline and subheading, and I'm not going to find the article to read in depth to find out.
https://reclaimthenet.org/?s=digital+id
https://cyprus-mail.com/2022/05/08/cash-is-dying-time-to-get-ready-for-the-digital-euro/
http://gigablast.com/search?c=main&qlangcountry=en-us&q=cbdc
Straight up inversion of being differentiated form (life) out of same flow (inception towards death). Everything perceivable represents moving differences. Perceiving something implies that it exists within a different position.
And of course the parasitic few tempt the ignorant many to consent to identity (sameness) under the umbrella of diversity (difference)...
Humanity: comfortably numb within ignorance
Roger Waters: "Hello? (Hello, hello, hello)"..."Is there anybody in there?"..."Just nod if you can hear me"..."Is there anyone at home?"
Yeah, it'd be such a terrible thing to prevent companies from being able to access, buy and sell my data without permission and reimbursement.
Pkvi, stop getting implementation confused with underlying technology.
Do you hate language? Because language is used to enslave us. The water that gives you life is also giving life to your enemy. Surely, we should ban all water.
I'm anti BTC, ETH, XRP, and a million other projects because they are bad implementations for various reasons. A wide concept like 'decentralized identity' doesn't even necessitate a cryptocurrency, it could be a blockchain with no currency.
A decentralized blockchain is just a database that can be mathematically guaranteed to not be tampered with. No need to just some authority like say your bank or gov.
You're just hating on computers entirely. Which could be valid position if you weren't using one right now.
Please start providing meaningful commentary on specific implementations you dont like, if you would like to be more effective.
That's not owning your own data, nor is it decentralized. That's already what we have in the current central banking system.
You're still confusing cryptocurrency and blockchain; implementations vs the underlying technology.
None of the things you cite are inherent to blockchains. All of them are possible and more probable in centralized banking.
None of your cited experiences provide any relevance to blockchains.
I never proposed that encryption makes blockchains secure. They are tamper-evident, but if you're worrying about encryption being the weak point in blockchains then cryptocurrencies are the least of your concerns, so you might want to triage a little.
Also encryption itself is almost never broken. Poor implementations lead to decryption, or computational power increases so that exhaustive bruteforcing becomes trivial on old algos. All algos have an expected EOL.
Web3 is a name brand created by polkadot. Web 3.0 is a marketing buzzword. Web 3.0 will be defined when the marketing people want to start pitching web 4.0, just like web 1.0 and 2.0.
You don't provide any alternative to the things you oppose, it's just all FUD all the time.
"Solo Ceesay" in Simple Gematria equals: 119
It's also an anagram for "aye ceo sols" aka I SEE YOUR SOULS; so who knows what that baby's brother is up to?