You said the Bitcoin ledger is mutable. It’s not. You said Bitcoin isn’t anonymous and that’s mostly true because it’s pseduo-anonymous which can be fully anonymous if you want it to be.

but it needs to be secure and allow for anonymous transactions, and not allow for tampering with the ledger. Bitcoin has failed on all three accounts.

Lol what? No legitimate bitcoin critics make these claims against Bitcoin. The ledger is immutable and the transactions are pseudo anonymous. In fact your typical bitcoin critic lists these as downsides (“no way to reverse mistakes” and “cannot prevent money laundering”) right after the criticisms about energy consumption.

You legitimately have no idea what you’re talking about.

Shhh don’t tell people they’ll ruin it.

It’s crazy how quickly people Boomers, managers, executives and capitalists flip flop between “Salary is performance based you don’t have set hours” to “You didn’t work every hour from 9-5”. This hypocritical nonsense only drives more people to take on anti-work perspectives.

If you want me to make executive decisions then pay me like an executive.

It is I! USB-C-MAN! Begone with you foul villain!

if it’s human-viewable it’ll also be computer-viewable

Sort of. If you raise a person to look at thousands pictures of random pixels and say “that’s a fox” or “that’s not a fox” eventually they’ll make up a pattern to say if the random pixels are a fox or not. Meanwhile someone raised normally will take one look and go “that’s just random pixels it’s not a picture of anything”. AI is still in that impressionable stage. So you feed it garbage and it doesn’t know it’s garbage.

Obviously you don’t have a business degree.

The problem compounds as they post more and more content creating a feedback loop of terrible information.

We don’t talk about bubble jet.

Bitcoin: An excel spreadsheet a bunch of people agree on.
Machine Learning: Electrons in a room banging on typewriters.
Blockchain: A marketing term for linked lists.

He’d have a very difficult time proving any of it is authentic.

Woah look at mr. fancy pants with his git push arguments.

Companies like to straddle the technical challenges appeal where they’re innovative risk takers but don’t you dare try to improve on any existing system. If they just want firefighters then say so and accept that people aren’t going to be passionate about it.

That’s fine?

Signatures aren’t meant to prove authenticity. They’re proving the source which you can use to weigh the authenticity.

I think the confusion comes from the fact that cryptographic signatures are mostly used in situations where proving the source is equivalent to proving authenticity. Proving a text message is from me proves the authenticity as there’s no such thing as doctoring my own text message. There’s more nuance when you’re using signatures to prove a source which may or may not be providing trustworthy data. But there is value in at least knowing who provided the data.

“Herd immunity” comes into play here. If those people keep getting dismissed by most other people because the video isn’t signed they’ll give up and follow the crowd. Culture is incredibly powerful.

We’ve had this discussion a lot in the Bitcoin space. People keep arguing it has to change so that “grandma can understand it” but I think that’s unrealistic. Every technology has some inherent complexities that cannot be removed and people have to learn if they want to use it. And people will use it if the motivation is there. Wifi has some inherent complexities people have become comfortable with. People know how to look through lists of networks, find the right one, enter the passkey or go through the sign on page. Some non-technical people know enough about how Wifi should behave to know the internet connection might be out or the route might need a reboot. None of this knowledge was commonplace 20 years ago. It is now.

The knowledge required to leverage the benefits of cryptographic signatures isn’t beyond the reach of most people. The general rules are pretty simple. The industry just has to decide to make the necessary investments to motivate people.

I remember when they had the same conversations about packet sniffers.

Turned out the answer was to use encryption and switches.

Not much of a future to believe in these days.

Fucking delusional pricks.