lol

Yes, Monero fills a niche, and it’s the closest crypto asset to resemble a currency.

However, your previous post talked about replacing finance with Bitcoin. Even if we pretend you were talking about Monero, that just means you have a one world currency, and no one at the helm who can guide monetary policy for any one country.

You shouldn’t need a degree in finance or economics to understand how disastrous that would be, especially for smaller and poorer countries.

So, Bitcoin and the rest of crypto are all commodities, not currencies. They are commodities with a high environmental cost, and a floor of zero because they have no tangible assets to speak of.

Monero can fill a niche, and I’m actually happy about that because I like Monero and the principles behind the project. Unless of course you believe that includes delusions of grandeur and replacing all world currency and financial systems, with the magic of the “just the right crypto”.

What the fuck dude.

Why are you posting paintings that depict my O face?

This is like Victorian revenge porn.

This has to be a joke right? Satire?

I mean, it’s one thing to be a long on Bitcoin, or even just see it’s value as a niche commodity.

But suggesting Bitcoin mining is an energy efficient way to heat buildings, is capable of replacing global finance, or that it creates more tangible benefits than artisanal glass blowers…?

You know what I can do with a artisanal piece of glass? Hold it, use it, own it.

You know what I can do with Bitcoin? Speculate that if I hold on to it long enough, I can convert it to actual currency that can actually be used as a currency.

Unlike BTC, which is just a speculative commodity, with no tangible assets to provide an actual floor.

The floor on crypto is zero. If I buy a bunch of gold right now, even if the price crashes, I still have a bunch of gold.

I can see it now. This great AI mediator will reach the consensus that Eric Schmidt is correct. We shouldn’t worry about meeting our climate goals, we should cook the planet faster to accelerate AI development.

Eventually of course, the AI will save us.

Now some of you might think that’s a terrible idea, from bad actors, that simply suits their own greed.

Don’t worry. The new Google AI wouldn’t leave us without a backup plan.

That backup plan? If plan A fails, simply reduce human population by 35%.

Concerned about who will get picked for population reduction? Don’t worry, the AI has it covered…

Bitcoin was never meant to be legal tender, and it still isn’t.

The fact that it’s now a regulated commodity is pretty antithetical to its original purpose, but still, it doesn’t make it legal tender.

But setting all that aside, you’re right, monetary controls are pretty important tools of a nation state… And your alternative is what? A digital gold standard based on Bitcoin…?

That idea is so idiotic, that I can’t even start to write out the problems with it, because I wouldn’t stop.

You realize that this is a civil lawsuit right?

The only punitive action that can be taken, is monetary damages.

Unless you think that private entities, such as Alcon, should be allowed to privately prosecute criminal cases, with criminal penalties such as jail time…?

I’m not admitting to any crime. There are other ways to come into possession of blacklisted IMEI devices, and other ways for them to become blacklisted that don’t involve either of those scenarios.

Why don’t you go pull up all those FCC fines leveied on carriers for activating blacklisted phones.

Except I have used unlocked IMEI blacklisted devices on different carriers, so if one exists in theory, it doesn’t appear to be there in practice.

No, they are not. Blacklists are per carrier, at least when dealing with American primary carriers, and not MVNOs.

This is not me defending any telecom, but locking subsidized phones during the contract period, is one of the only reasonably legitimate use cases for carrier locking.

And the reason is simple, fraud. Carrier locked phones that have been reported for fraud/nonpayment, can’t be used off network. It doesn’t help recover the cost for the carrier, but it does deter that type of fraud.

Whereas unlocked phones can just be taken to another network, which means they’re resale value is worth the effort to steal in the first place.

Now, all that is true, but that doesn’t mean I’m in favor of it, or that telecoms have ever made unlocking fully paid phones easy, they haven’t, so fuck them.

And before anyone points it out, yes, I’m aware locked phones still have have value for fraud, but that fraud typically has a higher threshold for entry, as it involves having the contacts who can leverage overseas black markets.

To borrow a phrase that is fast approaching cliche, the enshitification process has begun.

They sent out a trial balloon by updating licensing to move further away from an open source model, with a wide range of implications.

They’ve now backed off claiming “it was a bug”, but it’s not like their MBA’s are business strategy wunderkinds. They’re just rehashing the same old strategy, and going by the downvotes my comment received, there’s still an audience that believes them.

But who are they kidding? This isn’t going away, and when someone shows you who they are, you should believe them.

Like I said earlier, the only variable is the timetable. The destination is a foregone conclusion.

And now that you know they still took VC funding, are you still going to keep giving them your money?

Honest question, because I’m in your same boat and I know I’m not.

My renewal is coming up. I’ve been a premium customer for probably 7 years or so, I’m not renewing.

This wasn’t a bug, this was a toe in the water to gauge the temperature.

Like it or not, this means they’ve chosen a path, and nothing is going to stop them from going down it. The only variable is the timetable.

Did you even read the article…?

Because if you had, you would know that the credit terms were established prior to Musk’s takeover.

That wasn’t their point. They assumed that billing terms aren’t already predicated upon an “airtight” contract. I’m not sure how they’re defining airtight, but a contract is a legal agreement, and when there’s a dispute, those get addressed in court, such as this, right now.

This misunderstanding isn’t entirely unreasonable. If someone hasn’t dealt with these types of transactions in a business setting, it’s not reasonable to expect them to understand how they work, or why they function like that.

The ability to serve ads and spy on you…

Both HDMI and DisplayPort feature USB/Ethernet data link capabilities, and obviously USB-C does as well.

This is dependent upon the version of the cable, and all other hardware involved, but this is well within the bounds of available ad/surveillance tech.

Cash on delivery is extremely rare in the business world, especially when dealing with enterprise customers. While I have no doubt many of Twitter’s vendors have recently switched to COD, that is not the norm.

These types of relationships typically work on anywhere from 30 to 90 day terms, depending on the vendor, client, and their history.

The article cited multiple Supreme Court cases that establish precedent, so it just might be how it works.