5 ms·

so state should be deciding what algorithms im not allowed run on my computer? thats absurd and fascist

rowanG077 5y ago
It's not deciding what algorithms you are allowed to run. It only has to be actually useful. If you find the bitcoin algorithm has use then you are free to run it. If you consider that fascist. Then it's also fascist that you aren't allowed to burn trash in your own backyard, which is illegal in many countries. The government is simply doing the job it's supposed to. Protecting their subjects.
- pibi 5y ago
  Actually useful is subjective. What's the carbon footprint of all the gpu rigs in the world used to play video games? Is that useful for you?
  - rowanG077 5y ago
    It's not subjective. At least not in the way you are wording it. Bitcoins algorithm has no purpose. It's burning power to mine a resource that has no inherent value. Gaming has obvious value. Entertainment in all forms is necessary for people to feel happy.
- Delk 5y ago
  Although I might disagree with the use of the word "fascist" here, I don't think that's an entirely fair comparison. Societies usually ban things that are directly harmful to someone else (or in some cases to the person themselves), and burning trash in a populated area falls under that. Indirectly harmful things could also be banned, but the consumption of resources alone usually doesn't satisfy that in a liberal society unless the resource is rather scarce. (Think water during drought.) In other cases, use of resources and other indirectly harmful things just tend to be taxed. A better comparison might be banning driving for no objectively useful or socially acceptable reason. I can see how one could deem it kind of totalitarian if driving for no purpose were legally banned. Add in the fact that many people here probably take computing personally (as do I), and it's no surprise that it will seem totalitarian to decide which kinds of computation you can use your resources for, regardless of whether the computation actually makes any sense to an outsider. edit: word choice

It's not deciding what algorithms you are allowed to run. It only has to be actually useful. If you find the bitcoin algorithm has use then you are free to run it. If you consider that fascist. Then it's also fascist that you aren't allowed to burn trash in your own backyard, which is illegal in many countries. The government is simply doing the job it's supposed to. Protecting their subjects.

pibi 5y ago
Actually useful is subjective. What's the carbon footprint of all the gpu rigs in the world used to play video games? Is that useful for you?
- rowanG077 5y ago
  It's not subjective. At least not in the way you are wording it. Bitcoins algorithm has no purpose. It's burning power to mine a resource that has no inherent value. Gaming has obvious value. Entertainment in all forms is necessary for people to feel happy.
Delk 5y ago
Although I might disagree with the use of the word "fascist" here, I don't think that's an entirely fair comparison. Societies usually ban things that are directly harmful to someone else (or in some cases to the person themselves), and burning trash in a populated area falls under that. Indirectly harmful things could also be banned, but the consumption of resources alone usually doesn't satisfy that in a liberal society unless the resource is rather scarce. (Think water during drought.) In other cases, use of resources and other indirectly harmful things just tend to be taxed. A better comparison might be banning driving for no objectively useful or socially acceptable reason. I can see how one could deem it kind of totalitarian if driving for no purpose were legally banned. Add in the fact that many people here probably take computing personally (as do I), and it's no surprise that it will seem totalitarian to decide which kinds of computation you can use your resources for, regardless of whether the computation actually makes any sense to an outsider. edit: word choice