5 ms·

I'm not a big fan of limiting hardware to run only approved software. One day it's for limiting crypto mining, the next day it will be for limiting our ability

I'm not a big fan of limiting hardware to run only approved software. One day it's for limiting crypto mining, the next day it will be for limiting our ability to use strong encryption. It's a slippery slope.

DangitBobby 5y ago
It would be much easier if crypto could just die out.
- schappim 5y ago
  Why? I saw a good use for this week when journalists used it to purchase a car in war torn Ukraine.
  - DangitBobby 5y ago
    Thats wonderful. Im sure a handful of victories can be listed. I highly doubt they wouldn't have found another way to purchase a car, though. Anyway, I need not remind you of how big a boon cryptocurrencies have been to criminals and con artists. I think it should be pretty clear to anyone on this site why someone would be against them, just like it's clear to me why someone would be for them.
    - Broken_Hippo 5y ago
      I highly doubt they wouldn't have found another way to purchase a car, though. Exactly this. I'm guessing if they needed food they'd be out of luck.
      - schappim 5y ago
        You’re probably not wrong.
    - schappim 5y ago
      > I highly doubt they wouldn't have found another way to purchase a car, though There was no cash. ATMs we’re dry. > boon cryptocurrencies have been to criminals and con artists It is probably overstated. Orders of magnitude more criminal activity would be going through cash and even orgs that are meant to KYC, such as Western Union or even iTunes gift certificates. How many grannies are sending crypto vs providing logins to their bank accounts? I’m not a crypto-apologist, I just haven’t heard any solid arguments against it that can’t also be said about cash or the traditional banking system.
      - fnomnom 5y ago
        > There was no cash. ATMs we’re dry. paypal, venmo, cashapp etc would have worked the same. for all of them and for crypto you need to be in the ecosystem (need wallets, accounts, apps etc) and internet access.
        schappim 5y ago
        All very US centric apps (with the exception of Paypal), but PayPal would gouge them on fees. I guess what I want to get across is I’m not evangelising crypto, I just don’t necessarily want the space to die. I want them to keep iterating on the concept and see what other benefits can be generated.
        deleted 5y ago
        [deleted]
    - whywhywhywhy 5y ago
      If war broke out in my country I’d be glad I could take my money across the border by memorizing some words rather than dragging silver or possibly now worthless currency.
  - hypertele-Xii 5y ago
    Was that single car worth the energy waste equivalent of a small country? Detonating a nuclear bomb to kill one person isn't exactly a praise for its effectiveness, either.
    - roblabla 5y ago
      A single transaction does not use the energy equivalent of a small country. Last estimation I've seen said they used around 1719.51kWh. That's still a whole damn lot (around 60 days of energy use of an average US household), but you won't power a country with it.
    - runeks 5y ago
      > Was that single car worth the energy waste equivalent of a small country? What if this energy waste enabled the purchase of 1,000 cars for people in desperate need? Would it then be worth it? What if it were a million cars, or a billion?
  - nisegami 5y ago
    Got a link to that? Cryptocurrencies seem to me to be a poor choice in a situation where there might be issues with infrastructure like the electrical grid or internet connectivity.
    - schappim 5y ago
      > Got a link Got a car today. Bought it with #bitcoin as all ATM's are almost cleared out and the credit card terminals are down. Hopefully, it will allow us to report a little from #Donbass while also keeping us safe and granting us an escape if things starts heating up here. [1] [1] https://twitter.com/efmikkelsen/status/1497283116028686336?s=21 https://twitter.com/efmikkelsen/status/1497283116028686336?s... They did end up both getting shot in the leg(s), but are now safe
    - i67vw3 5y ago
      Afaik, you send bitcoin by radio waves from a transmitter. To run that transmitter, you will need electricity. The electricity can be made in such situations via a generator/inverter by burning diesel.
- bouncycastle 5y ago
  It won't, and it's a very important technology since it's the only way for humans to store digital property without relying on some government or corporation. Also, it ever gets attacked, much more will be at stake, including your freedom for choosing what software can be run on your computer.
  - DangitBobby 5y ago
    Cryptocurrencies, not cryptography. My software freedom is not dependent on the existence of cryptocurrencies. My hardware freedom is currently significantly hampered by them.
    - bouncycastle 5y ago
      freedom for me, but not anyone else. Genius.
      - DangitBobby 5y ago
        That reply probably sounded pretty smart in your head. Maybe you think I'm suggesting that we should outlaw or criminalize them? That makes sense based on your previous comment. But I said no such thing. Wishing it ill is not the same as taking away your freedom.
    - randomhodler84 5y ago
      And that is where the contradiction exists — let’s say you get your way, and governments start arresting people doing arbitrary computation on their graphics card — let’s say hashing. That would very bad for everyone’s freedoms, software and hardware. The same anticryptocurrency playbook is what was used against cryptography in the 90s. Technology that challenges the powerful is dangerous! It’s ok to not like cryptocurrency and not use it. Others can, and will. Be on the side that empowers people with technology, not the side that wants to take it away.
      - forgetfulness 5y ago
stingraycharles 5y ago
Isn’t this the case in many different products? E.g. I can buy a car which has certain features “locked”, because it’s cheaper for the manufacturing company to have a single production line, and helps ease supply chain / inventory management as well.
- eru 5y ago
  Yes. And I think the formulation 'I'm not a big fan of' is exactly right here: It's a bit annoying, but also a trade-off I'd be willing to make for the right advantages.
ggreg84 5y ago
> I'm not a big fan of limiting hardware to run only approved software. One day it's for limiting crypto mining, the next day it will be for limiting our ability to use strong encryption. It's a slippery slope. I'd assume that developing extra features costs money. If a buyer doesn't need a feature, why should they have to pay for it? For example, if a gamer does not need drivers for a CAD program, or crypto features, why should the gamer have to foot the bill for developing these features, and suffer the consequences of them (e.g. scarcity due to cryptominers buying all gaming cards) ?
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]
- 7steps2much 5y ago
  There is a difference between hardware that simply doesn't support a use case and hardware that technically supports stuff but was artificially locked to no longer do so. If the hardware was actually different then of course your argument would make sense, you could build cards that can only be used for a certain use case and sell those, but in that case you wouldn't have to lock down the card anyways
  - greggsy 5y ago
    Intel have been selling cpus with binned cores for ages for performance reasons, and some IBM mainframes require you to license some features in hardware which you’ve purchases. I know it’s counter to human nature to be denied use of the physical object that you bought, but it’s not new territory.
  - ggreg84 5y ago
    Reply in this comment thread: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=30568961 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=30568961
    - 7steps2much 5y ago
      > The claim that this should be free because software and hardware costs nothing once you already have developed is illogical. CAD software, GPU driver software for CAD, and GPU hardware to meet CAD's demand, continues to evolve, which costs money. I do agree with you, developers are expensive. And if i came across that way then that wasn't my intention. If a gaming CPU doesn't support CAD tasks, never did so in the past and nobody expects them to suddenly do so. However, what i personally was referring to is not lacking Software Support for a certain feature set but software throttling of Hardware. Sadly it is something that happens a lot. Phones throttling because they received software updates, graphics cards pretending to be artificially slow because drivers include code specifically to slow them down. In my opinion there is a big difference between "Sorry, we don't support that use case, but good luck to you" and "We are going to invest time to stop you from doing X" The first is fine, it happens all the time. The second is (in my eyes) not.
Aunche 5y ago
There are plenty of examples of hardware being artificially constrained, and low hash rate GPUs are hardly the first. Slippery slope fallacy aside, why would you need a top of the line GPU to do strong encryption? That's something you can do with a pen and paper if you're motivated enough.
- i_have_an_idea 5y ago
  and you can send messages for free by lighting a fire and creating smoke signals, so why bother having the internet? /s
- post_break 5y ago
  I just hacked my 3ds because nintendo is closing the eshop permanently. It uses GPUs to exploit something in the OS based off of known keys. The power needed to crack the code in 1-5 minutes requires powerful GPUs. Are you suggesting if NVIDIA decided to block something like this, I do it with pen and paper?
  - sbarre 5y ago
    Yeah any artificial limitation on strong encryption would be on the decrypt side, not the encrypt side.
- wyager 5y ago
  > why would you need a top of the line GPU to do strong encryption He's referring to the fact that this is an assault on general purpose computing, not that he specifically needs a GPU to do encryption.

DangitBobby 5y ago

It would be much easier if crypto could just die out.

schappim 5y ago
Why? I saw a good use for this week when journalists used it to purchase a car in war torn Ukraine.
- DangitBobby 5y ago
  Thats wonderful. Im sure a handful of victories can be listed. I highly doubt they wouldn't have found another way to purchase a car, though. Anyway, I need not remind you of how big a boon cryptocurrencies have been to criminals and con artists. I think it should be pretty clear to anyone on this site why someone would be against them, just like it's clear to me why someone would be for them.
  - Broken_Hippo 5y ago
    I highly doubt they wouldn't have found another way to purchase a car, though. Exactly this. I'm guessing if they needed food they'd be out of luck.
    - schappim 5y ago
      You’re probably not wrong.
  - schappim 5y ago
    > I highly doubt they wouldn't have found another way to purchase a car, though There was no cash. ATMs we’re dry. > boon cryptocurrencies have been to criminals and con artists It is probably overstated. Orders of magnitude more criminal activity would be going through cash and even orgs that are meant to KYC, such as Western Union or even iTunes gift certificates. How many grannies are sending crypto vs providing logins to their bank accounts? I’m not a crypto-apologist, I just haven’t heard any solid arguments against it that can’t also be said about cash or the traditional banking system.
    - fnomnom 5y ago
      > There was no cash. ATMs we’re dry. paypal, venmo, cashapp etc would have worked the same. for all of them and for crypto you need to be in the ecosystem (need wallets, accounts, apps etc) and internet access.
      - schappim 5y ago
        All very US centric apps (with the exception of Paypal), but PayPal would gouge them on fees. I guess what I want to get across is I’m not evangelising crypto, I just don’t necessarily want the space to die. I want them to keep iterating on the concept and see what other benefits can be generated.
        deleted 5y ago
        [deleted]
  - whywhywhywhy 5y ago
    If war broke out in my country I’d be glad I could take my money across the border by memorizing some words rather than dragging silver or possibly now worthless currency.
- hypertele-Xii 5y ago
  Was that single car worth the energy waste equivalent of a small country? Detonating a nuclear bomb to kill one person isn't exactly a praise for its effectiveness, either.
  - roblabla 5y ago
    A single transaction does not use the energy equivalent of a small country. Last estimation I've seen said they used around 1719.51kWh. That's still a whole damn lot (around 60 days of energy use of an average US household), but you won't power a country with it.
  - runeks 5y ago
    > Was that single car worth the energy waste equivalent of a small country? What if this energy waste enabled the purchase of 1,000 cars for people in desperate need? Would it then be worth it? What if it were a million cars, or a billion?
- nisegami 5y ago
  Got a link to that? Cryptocurrencies seem to me to be a poor choice in a situation where there might be issues with infrastructure like the electrical grid or internet connectivity.
  - schappim 5y ago
    > Got a link Got a car today. Bought it with #bitcoin as all ATM's are almost cleared out and the credit card terminals are down. Hopefully, it will allow us to report a little from #Donbass while also keeping us safe and granting us an escape if things starts heating up here. [1] [1] https://twitter.com/efmikkelsen/status/1497283116028686336?s=21 https://twitter.com/efmikkelsen/status/1497283116028686336?s... They did end up both getting shot in the leg(s), but are now safe
  - i67vw3 5y ago
    Afaik, you send bitcoin by radio waves from a transmitter. To run that transmitter, you will need electricity. The electricity can be made in such situations via a generator/inverter by burning diesel.
bouncycastle 5y ago
It won't, and it's a very important technology since it's the only way for humans to store digital property without relying on some government or corporation. Also, it ever gets attacked, much more will be at stake, including your freedom for choosing what software can be run on your computer.
- DangitBobby 5y ago
  Cryptocurrencies, not cryptography. My software freedom is not dependent on the existence of cryptocurrencies. My hardware freedom is currently significantly hampered by them.
  - bouncycastle 5y ago
    freedom for me, but not anyone else. Genius.
    - DangitBobby 5y ago
      That reply probably sounded pretty smart in your head. Maybe you think I'm suggesting that we should outlaw or criminalize them? That makes sense based on your previous comment. But I said no such thing. Wishing it ill is not the same as taking away your freedom.
  - randomhodler84 5y ago
    And that is where the contradiction exists — let’s say you get your way, and governments start arresting people doing arbitrary computation on their graphics card — let’s say hashing. That would very bad for everyone’s freedoms, software and hardware. The same anticryptocurrency playbook is what was used against cryptography in the 90s. Technology that challenges the powerful is dangerous! It’s ok to not like cryptocurrency and not use it. Others can, and will. Be on the side that empowers people with technology, not the side that wants to take it away.
    - forgetfulness 5y ago

stingraycharles 5y ago

Isn’t this the case in many different products? E.g. I can buy a car which has certain features “locked”, because it’s cheaper for the manufacturing company to have a single production line, and helps ease supply chain / inventory management as well.

eru 5y ago
Yes. And I think the formulation 'I'm not a big fan of' is exactly right here: It's a bit annoying, but also a trade-off I'd be willing to make for the right advantages.

ggreg84 5y ago

> I'm not a big fan of limiting hardware to run only approved software. One day it's for limiting crypto mining, the next day it will be for limiting our ability to use strong encryption. It's a slippery slope. I'd assume that developing extra features costs money. If a buyer doesn't need a feature, why should they have to pay for it? For example, if a gamer does not need drivers for a CAD program, or crypto features, why should the gamer have to foot the bill for developing these features, and suffer the consequences of them (e.g. scarcity due to cryptominers buying all gaming cards) ?

deleted 5y ago
[deleted]
7steps2much 5y ago
There is a difference between hardware that simply doesn't support a use case and hardware that technically supports stuff but was artificially locked to no longer do so. If the hardware was actually different then of course your argument would make sense, you could build cards that can only be used for a certain use case and sell those, but in that case you wouldn't have to lock down the card anyways
- greggsy 5y ago
  Intel have been selling cpus with binned cores for ages for performance reasons, and some IBM mainframes require you to license some features in hardware which you’ve purchases. I know it’s counter to human nature to be denied use of the physical object that you bought, but it’s not new territory.
- ggreg84 5y ago
  Reply in this comment thread: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=30568961 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=30568961
  - 7steps2much 5y ago
    > The claim that this should be free because software and hardware costs nothing once you already have developed is illogical. CAD software, GPU driver software for CAD, and GPU hardware to meet CAD's demand, continues to evolve, which costs money. I do agree with you, developers are expensive. And if i came across that way then that wasn't my intention. If a gaming CPU doesn't support CAD tasks, never did so in the past and nobody expects them to suddenly do so. However, what i personally was referring to is not lacking Software Support for a certain feature set but software throttling of Hardware. Sadly it is something that happens a lot. Phones throttling because they received software updates, graphics cards pretending to be artificially slow because drivers include code specifically to slow them down. In my opinion there is a big difference between "Sorry, we don't support that use case, but good luck to you" and "We are going to invest time to stop you from doing X" The first is fine, it happens all the time. The second is (in my eyes) not.

Aunche 5y ago

There are plenty of examples of hardware being artificially constrained, and low hash rate GPUs are hardly the first. Slippery slope fallacy aside, why would you need a top of the line GPU to do strong encryption? That's something you can do with a pen and paper if you're motivated enough.

i_have_an_idea 5y ago
and you can send messages for free by lighting a fire and creating smoke signals, so why bother having the internet? /s
post_break 5y ago
I just hacked my 3ds because nintendo is closing the eshop permanently. It uses GPUs to exploit something in the OS based off of known keys. The power needed to crack the code in 1-5 minutes requires powerful GPUs. Are you suggesting if NVIDIA decided to block something like this, I do it with pen and paper?
- sbarre 5y ago
  Yeah any artificial limitation on strong encryption would be on the decrypt side, not the encrypt side.
wyager 5y ago
> why would you need a top of the line GPU to do strong encryption He's referring to the fact that this is an assault on general purpose computing, not that he specifically needs a GPU to do encryption.