Not sure if you've considered this, but I think you can query the Instagram API. That way your friends wouldn't have to worry about posting to multiple sites, and you would still be able to filter out just those accounts.
I haven't done anything with the instagram API myself so not 100% on this but I could maybe help you out if you were
I agree completely. Gyms are great but by no means necessary.
In my unprofessional opinion, if you start with even just a few bodyweight exercises, it is a great way to get going. Doing sit-ups, plank, squats, lunges, and a few different types of push-ups is enough to start developing solid foundational strength.
First of all thank you for providing actual real examples as a rebuttal to my claim. Honestly, I appreciate it!
Just persecute anyone who runs a bitcoin miner
If you can achieve this for everywhere on the planet, this would completely work.
Which as far as I know is as simple as just tracking internet traffic using the bitcoin network protocol. Unfortunately, anonymous internet access would make this very difficult.
Also, stop people from converting bitcoin into currency. This is the main thing I was thinking for a long time.
Despite how illegal it is to buy hard drugs online, you can still do it with relative ease and risklessness if you know what you're doing.
I just don't see how it is feasible to eliminate this completely.
It obviously begs the question of if we ban it at the legal level, is that not sufficient? In the context of traditional finance, yes, of course it is. For blockchains? I don't think so. The use-cases that DeFi provides (which if you are not aware of, please lmk) means that there will always be demand for it. On top it being technologically infeasible to stop anyone from accessing/running blockchains.
I do believe that it might be possible to achieve all of this if blockchains are banned in enough countries that it becomes less desirable to the extent that nobody wants to use them. But I believe that achieving this would be an astronomical task.
Database > blockchain.
Could you provide a bit more elaboration for why you say that?
hahaha just gonna assume you're joking
Like any network, blockchains are only valuable to people if there’s a mass consensus that they are. If no one wants to trade BTC or run miners, then it no longer has any value.
The difference here is, on smart contract blockchains, there are financial protocols that actually do something beyond just sending around BTC.
You are correct in saying that if everybody decides they want to start using Dogecoin, or anything else in the world that meets criteria, as a store of value instead of BTC, then BTC would become worthless. However ETH, on the other hand, is a token for participation in a network that actually does stuff. It does stuff beyond just transferring/trading. It allows our entire financial system to become immutable and anonymous (well, pseudonymous, but practically anonymous).
Look at myspace these days or any other network that has waned in popularity. Because other networks came along that were deemed as "better". That doesn't mean the fundamental idea of "social media" stopped being widely adopted.
There’s a bunch of pumping of BTC and other cryptos recently, but the curve will shift into decline at some point. I am not referring to the prices of individual cryptocurrencies. I would argue that this is irrelevant.
There’s a bunch of pumping of BTC and other cryptos recently, but the curve will shift into decline at some point. The reality of the global markets today, is that there’s lots of cash/value that doesn’t know where to go. The ratcheting of global inequality and the concentration of wealth is driving all kinds of value-store assets to ridiculous levels.
I agree. As it stands today, cryptocurrencies are mostly used as gambles.
Blockchain is just a cryptographically sound way to launder wealth into a value-store. I'm sorry, but blockchains have way more use-cases than that. If you replaced "Blockchain" with just "Bitcoin", then you would have more ground.
If you want to learn more about why I am saying this stuff, a good primer I just found is here: https://ethereum.org/en/defi/
NFTs, as they stand today, are obviously completely useless.
DAOs are far from useless.
overthrow capitalism by destroying all the money. I am in no way saying that.
I’m not clear on why this mode of finance is more entrenched than centralized structures. It is not more culturally entrenched, because mass adoption has not happened yet. It is far more technologically entrenched because of its immutability.
Unfortunately, there is a lot more to Decentralised Finance than just "this ledger says I own a thing. Please trust it and respect my ownership."
When you have written code that exists on the blockchain, it exists forever. When you are a DAO that governs this financial protocol you have written, there is an immutable connection that provides the DAO with ownership.
More what I am asking is "is it feasible to stop people participating in decentralised finance protocols?" It is possible, but without completely turning off the internet, I can not see any actual activities that a government/group/whatever could carry out that would stop participation in decentralised finance.
In traditional finance, it is easy. Just seize banks, the stock market, etc. How do you seize the blockchain?
You are basing your entire argument off an idea that for something to "produce value", it has to have a direct & physically tangible benefit.
If I strand bezos tomorrow with a pile of amazon stock certificates, how long he will last?
Do you think that Bezos hasn't benefited greatly off being the largest owner of Amazon?
You're correct; he can't eat Amazon stocks. But he can control one of the largest companies in the world with them.
Can I live in blockchain? Can I eat blockchain?
What kind of fallacious argument is that?
Can I live in supermassive conglomerate? Can I eat supermassive conglomerate?
No, but they sure as hell provide a lot of value to some very rich people.
Blockchains produce a lot of value. It is ignorant to think otherwise.
When people get the opportunity to perform every financial activity they currently perform, but in a completely autonomous and private way, they will flock to it.
Don't get me wrong. As it stands today, the main smart contract blockchains are not scalable enough to support the entire world's financial transactions. It is infeasible for every financial institution to switch to Ethereum. Within the next two years max, that will no longer be the case.
Edit: Within the next two years maximum, Ethereum 2.0 (sharding, PoS) will be finished, a multitude of EVM-compatible optimistic rollup protocols will be finished, I don't want to guess where will be with zero knowledge rollups, but if I had to I would say we're probably going to be pretty close to an EVM compatible ZK rollup protocol.
All of this will provide scalability in the factors of hundreds of thousands, not even mentioning the ability to create new, completely robust, Arbitrum networks as seen fit by protocol creators.
Thank you for this post