rglullis

There is already a way to mark an instance as abandoned/closed, now I need to add the functionality that removes recommendations from dead instances.

You are arguing against something I did not write and throwing around typical soundbites that are false and/or not applicable to all cryptocurrency. IOW, you are responding like a reactionary. Well done!

And no one with a minimum sense of morality cares about the labels or how they identify themselves. As long as their value system is not misrepresented, you can call them whatever you want.

You are talking about "crypto", which implies that you are talking about different blockchains, including Bitcoin and all other blockchains that rely on Proof-of-Work.

My figures are specific to the Ethereum blockchain, which is used to control transactions in Ether and many other cryptocurrencies (look for "ERC20 token standard", if you care to understand), including stablecoins that have its value anchored to different "real currencies" like USD, EUR, GBP... The Ethereum blockchain uses Proof-of-Stake and does not require "burning energy" to keep the network secure.

FWIW, I'm all for banning all blockchains based on Proof of Work, or at the very least adding a prohibitively expensive tax for every transaction done by a centralized exchange. This would be more than enough to kill Bitcoin or force them to clean up their act and switch their consensus system.

No, not "that one coin". The whole blockchain. Thousands of different cryptocurrencies and smart contracts are secured by it. The whole network is holding tens of billions of dollars worth of value, and it takes an estimated 8M USD worth of electricity in a whole year to secure it. There is no way that any existing financial banking system will ever be as efficient as this.

Arguing based on "how long it took to get there" is at best just bad argument based on sunk-cost fallacy and at worst moving the goalposts. If you care about "irreversible harm" from CO2, it would be a lot more productive if you wrote to your local city council to abolish parking minimum requirements than hating on a project that from the start was focused on creating a consensus system that did not require PoW.

Not all crypto is Bitcoin, and not all blockchains are based on Proof of Work. Ethereum's Proof of Stake consumes less electricity than all the power used by PlayStation consoles at idle.

As long as there is a market with enough liquidity, being paid in stock shares is not a problem. At all.

Also: stablecoins. If you live in a developed country you may think it's stupid, but go ask someone in Argentina or Venezuela if they rather get paid in DAI or Pesos.

I will readily agree that crypto absolutists are worse than the status quo. But I will also say that there are plenty of good people working in "web3" that are genuinely focused on building alternatives for disenfranchised groups.

The problem with web3 is in some ways similar to the problems of Fediverse and commons-based R&D: the majority of people claim they want to support the original (noble) goals, but when push comes to shove they do not back their words with actions, so the good projects get eclipsed by the psychopaths that get investment and resources because they made empty promises that appeal to people's greed. This is why we end up with A16Z scam DeFi, SBF, Threads & "source available" software projects.

It's curious: most people on Lemmy fancy themselves "anti-establishment revolutionaries", yet the mere proposal of a job market that breaks away from banks and the status quo causes them to downvote you like you are asking them to join some religious cult.

Worse still: how come there are 24 people upvoting this crap?

considering a smartphone has become somewhat a necessity.

Hard disagree. Computers? Internet access? Sure. Those are very difficult to live without. But a smartphone is still a convenience at best and an expensive toy at worst. The only reason that people think that is such an indispensable part of our lives is because people (especially in North America) will happily give away their freedoms in the name of convenience, and corporations will gladly profit from that.

have no sympathy for that kind of person

My lack of sympathy does not mean animosity. It just means that I do not submit to the idea that people can "play the victim card" when talking about the evil corporations if they are not willing to put anything on the line.

There are plenty of people who will say "I accept the ads because that is what allows me to have so much content for free". I may disagree with that, but at least it is consistent. What is hard to swallow is to see a bunch of Gen Z privileged people "protesting" against spez without giving up on anything of material substance.

"Skin in the Game" is a powerful filter. If people are not willing to put their money where their outrage is, then their opinions and desires will be completely disregarded.

I can bet that the majority of people here on Lemmy have paid a handsome amount of money for their corporate-controlled smartphone, yet paying less than 3 bucks a month to sustain an independent internet is such an ordeal? I have no sympathy for these types.