4 ms·

I think we’ve lost control of our machines. At least when we attach them to internet. I’m not sure what the answer is but better security and a rethinking of

I think we’ve lost control of our machines. At least when we attach them to internet. I’m not sure what the answer is but better security and a rethinking of user authorizations seems to be in order.

pyrale 5y ago
We never had it. It was just not really useful to destroy someone else's toys. The key to the current spree of ransomware is the massively improved ability to monetize digital hostage-taking. I don't really understand how financial watchdogs have let this go through, but cryptos have become a massive loophole in kyc and anti-laundering regulations. Recent moves in that sector seem to hint that this party is about to end and, hopefully, will create enough friction to reduce ransomware activity.
- silexia 5y ago
  Cryptocurrencies have been a disaster. The only place to actually use is a currency is in criminal activity. The amount of environmental damage caused by proof of work is massive. We need regulation.
  - ChrisClark 5y ago
    >The only place to actually use is a currency is in criminal activity. This discredits your entire post. Your other points may be valid, but how can anyone be sure if this one is provably false?
    - silexia 5y ago
      The statement was a bit hyperbolic, but not by much. Have you ever used cryptocurrency for any routine transaction? How much total money have you spent in cryptocurrency if so? It's very newsworthy when people like Elon musk say they will accept cryptocurrency for the very reason that most businesses do not. And I would be surprised if more than a handful of Teslas have been sold via cryptocurrency.
      - pyrale 5y ago
        > And I would be surprised if more than a handful of Teslas have been sold via cryptocurrency. I personally would be surprised if Tesla made more money from selling those cars than they made by pumping btc with that news line.
      - nyghtly 5y ago
        Musk has already backtracked on accepting crypto at Tesla, citing environmental concerns. A cynical person might assume that it was just a publicity stunt in order to pump bitcoin. https://www.bbc.com/news/business-57096305 https://www.bbc.com/news/business-57096305
    - briffle 5y ago
      name a single large company that accepts crypto payments?
      - reaperducer 5y ago
        I'm not into cryptocurrency at all, but I've read that some of the billion-dollar casinos in Las Vegas take it. My domain registrar does, and it's not exactly a fly-by-night operation. I think at least one airline does. Though I might be remembering that wrong. I won't ever get into crypto because I like money that keeps working when the lights go out. But I don't think it's either as fringe, nor as mainstream, as the two sides present.
  - matheusmoreira 5y ago
    > The only place to actually use is a currency is in criminal activity. There's actually less illicit activity in cryptocurrency than in USD. > The amount of environmental damage caused by proof of work is massive. Not even 1% of global energy consumption. When is this FUD gonna stop?
    - rland 5y ago
      What would be an acceptable percentage of global energy consumption by cryptocurrency to you?
      - matheusmoreira 5y ago
        Depends on which cryptocurrency you're talking about. Bitcoin? 0%. Monero? +Infinity. The real question is: why do we still allow oil companies to exist when they're the ones responsible for much of the world's pollution? Because the USD is backed by oil.
        pyrale 5y ago
        > why do we still allow oil companies to exist Probably because attempting to enforce an oil ban overnight would probably involve death counts in the 9-10 digits. That is why any attempt is going to be progressive, and we can all agree that it's not going nearly fast enough. That question is kind of a diversion from the current discussion, though.
        matheusmoreira 5y ago
        > That question is kind of a diversion from the current discussion, though. It's really not. Cryptocurrencies have no real impact on the environment so discussing that is not really productive. Better to redirect discussion towards real problems which are actually destroying the planet. Problems which will never be properly solved because powerful people depend on their existence. The petrodollar, trade with China, etc.
matheusmoreira 5y ago
Maybe computers shouldn't be talking to strangers in the first place. Why do they accept connections from anyone? These problems would be rare if only authorized persons could connect. Single packet authorization makes the computer ignore all traffic unless a cryptographically signed packet is sent. It's like the computer is not even there. Can't exploit anything without the ability to send payloads. Of course, the internet would lose its mass appeal. Maybe it wasn't meant to be.

pyrale 5y ago

We never had it. It was just not really useful to destroy someone else's toys. The key to the current spree of ransomware is the massively improved ability to monetize digital hostage-taking. I don't really understand how financial watchdogs have let this go through, but cryptos have become a massive loophole in kyc and anti-laundering regulations. Recent moves in that sector seem to hint that this party is about to end and, hopefully, will create enough friction to reduce ransomware activity.

silexia 5y ago
Cryptocurrencies have been a disaster. The only place to actually use is a currency is in criminal activity. The amount of environmental damage caused by proof of work is massive. We need regulation.
- ChrisClark 5y ago
  >The only place to actually use is a currency is in criminal activity. This discredits your entire post. Your other points may be valid, but how can anyone be sure if this one is provably false?
  - silexia 5y ago
    The statement was a bit hyperbolic, but not by much. Have you ever used cryptocurrency for any routine transaction? How much total money have you spent in cryptocurrency if so? It's very newsworthy when people like Elon musk say they will accept cryptocurrency for the very reason that most businesses do not. And I would be surprised if more than a handful of Teslas have been sold via cryptocurrency.
    - pyrale 5y ago
      > And I would be surprised if more than a handful of Teslas have been sold via cryptocurrency. I personally would be surprised if Tesla made more money from selling those cars than they made by pumping btc with that news line.
    - nyghtly 5y ago
      Musk has already backtracked on accepting crypto at Tesla, citing environmental concerns. A cynical person might assume that it was just a publicity stunt in order to pump bitcoin. https://www.bbc.com/news/business-57096305 https://www.bbc.com/news/business-57096305
  - briffle 5y ago
    name a single large company that accepts crypto payments?
    - reaperducer 5y ago
      I'm not into cryptocurrency at all, but I've read that some of the billion-dollar casinos in Las Vegas take it. My domain registrar does, and it's not exactly a fly-by-night operation. I think at least one airline does. Though I might be remembering that wrong. I won't ever get into crypto because I like money that keeps working when the lights go out. But I don't think it's either as fringe, nor as mainstream, as the two sides present.
- matheusmoreira 5y ago
  > The only place to actually use is a currency is in criminal activity. There's actually less illicit activity in cryptocurrency than in USD. > The amount of environmental damage caused by proof of work is massive. Not even 1% of global energy consumption. When is this FUD gonna stop?
  - rland 5y ago
    What would be an acceptable percentage of global energy consumption by cryptocurrency to you?
    - matheusmoreira 5y ago
      Depends on which cryptocurrency you're talking about. Bitcoin? 0%. Monero? +Infinity. The real question is: why do we still allow oil companies to exist when they're the ones responsible for much of the world's pollution? Because the USD is backed by oil.
      - pyrale 5y ago
        > why do we still allow oil companies to exist Probably because attempting to enforce an oil ban overnight would probably involve death counts in the 9-10 digits. That is why any attempt is going to be progressive, and we can all agree that it's not going nearly fast enough. That question is kind of a diversion from the current discussion, though.
        matheusmoreira 5y ago
        > That question is kind of a diversion from the current discussion, though. It's really not. Cryptocurrencies have no real impact on the environment so discussing that is not really productive. Better to redirect discussion towards real problems which are actually destroying the planet. Problems which will never be properly solved because powerful people depend on their existence. The petrodollar, trade with China, etc.

matheusmoreira 5y ago

Maybe computers shouldn't be talking to strangers in the first place. Why do they accept connections from anyone? These problems would be rare if only authorized persons could connect. Single packet authorization makes the computer ignore all traffic unless a cryptographically signed packet is sent. It's like the computer is not even there. Can't exploit anything without the ability to send payloads. Of course, the internet would lose its mass appeal. Maybe it wasn't meant to be.