this post was submitted on 20 May 2024
2 points (75.0% liked)

Technology

58009 readers
3055 users here now

This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.


Our Rules


  1. Follow the lemmy.world rules.
  2. Only tech related content.
  3. Be excellent to each another!
  4. Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
  5. Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
  6. Politics threads may be removed.
  7. No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
  8. Only approved bots from the list below, to ask if your bot can be added please contact us.
  9. Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed

Approved Bots


founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
 
  • Linus Torvalds, creator of Linux, does not believe in cryptocurrencies, calling them a vehicle for scams and a Ponzi scheme.
  • Torvalds was once rumored to be Bitcoin creator Satoshi Nakamoto, but he clarified it was a joke and denied owning a Bitcoin fortune.
  • Torvalds also dismissed the idea of technological singularity as a bedtime story for children, saying continuous exponential growth does not make sense.
top 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] maegul@lemmy.ml 2 points 3 months ago* (last edited 3 months ago) (3 children)

It’s interesting to see Torvalds emerge as a kind of based tech hero. I’m thinking here also of his rant not long ago on social.kernel.org (a kernel devs microblog instance) that was essentially a pretty good anti-anti-leftism tirade in true Torvalds fashion.

EDIT:

Torvalds's anti-anti-left post (I was curious to read it again):

I think you might want to make sure you don’t follow me.

Because your “woke communist propaganda” comment makes me think you’re a moron of the first order.

I strongly suspect I am one of those “woke communists” you worry about. But you probably couldn’t actually explain what either of those words actually mean, could you?

I’m a card-carrying atheist, I think a woman’s right to choose is very important, I think that “well regulated militia” means that guns should be carefully licensed and not just randomly given to any moron with a pulse, and I couldn’t care less if you decided to dress up in the “wrong” clothes or decided you’d rather live your life without feeling tied to whatever plumbing you were born with.

And dammit, if that all makes me “woke”, then I think anybody who uses that word as a pejorative is a f*cking disgrace to the human race. So please just unfollow me right now.

[–] Ledivin@lemmy.world 2 points 3 months ago* (last edited 3 months ago) (2 children)

It’s interesting to see Torvalds emerge as a kind of based tech hero.

It's just that almost everyone else that could do it ended up being fucking ghouls of people.

Torvalds can be... brusque, sure. But he doesn't support child labor, he doesn't cheat on his wife, and he isn't some crazy cult leader waging a war against workers' rights.

[–] jj4211@lemmy.world 2 points 3 months ago (1 children)

Another interesting thing to consider.

To be clear, he is rich. But he's not crazy crazy rich, like nowhere near billionaire status.

With that in mind, his kernel is a key component of RedHat's, SuSE's and Canonical whole business, with at least two of those being multi billion dollar businesses.

His kernel is a key component of Android phones, which represent over 50 billion a year in hardware spend, and a bunch of software money on top of that.

His kernel is foundational to most hosting/cloud services with just mind blowing billions of revenue quarterly.

It's used in almost every embedded device on the planet, networking gear, set top boxes, thermostats, televisions, just nearly everything.

People with a fraction of that sort of relevance are billionaires several times over. A number of billionaires owe much of their success to him. Yet he is not among their numbers.

Now there's more to things than just a kernel to be sure, but across the hundreds of billions of dollars made while running Linux, there was probably plenty of room for him to carve out a few billion for himself were he that sort of person, but he cares about the work more than gaming the dollars. I have a great deal of respect for that.

Means that while he may not always be right, but I at least believe his assessments are sincere and not trying to drive some grift or cover some insecurity about being left behind.

[–] sudo@programming.dev 0 points 3 months ago* (last edited 3 months ago) (1 children)

git is a way more important contribution to the world that the linux kernel IMO. Its basically the assembly line of almost all modern software production. And Linus actually wrote most of the initial code for it. With Linux he organized the project but was almost immediately not a major contributor. He developed git in the process of maintaining the linux repo.

[–] RecluseRamble@lemmy.dbzer0.com 2 points 3 months ago

I disagree. Git is great but we'd have done fine with Subversion or whatever. Could you imagine the whole internet running on Windows Server though? The thought alone makes my skin crawl.

[–] huginn@feddit.it 0 points 3 months ago (1 children)

he doesn’t cheat on his wife

he doesn't cheat on his wife so far.

[–] Coasting0942@reddthat.com 0 points 3 months ago (1 children)

He’ll live long enough to end up on the wrong side of the polygamy rights fight. But I’d like to be surprised.

[–] rooroo@feddit.de 0 points 3 months ago

The fuck is that even supposed to mean

[–] Neato@ttrpg.network 1 points 3 months ago

That guy seems pretty rad.

[–] bulwark@lemmy.world 0 points 3 months ago (1 children)

I wonder what direction the Linux kernel will go once he's gone. Obviously it will continue to go on and Torvalds should get a statue somewhere if he doesn't already have one.

[–] maegul@lemmy.ml 1 points 3 months ago (1 children)

I don't follow thinigs closely at all, but I'm under the impression he's already starting to kinda take his hands off of the wheel? If so, maybe that picture is emerging now, at least behind the scenes.

[–] Rustmilian@lemmy.world 0 points 3 months ago* (last edited 3 months ago) (1 children)

Linus hasn't written kernel code in years at this point, however he still is the final gate keeper of what gets merged and an active code reviewer, he manages the entire direction of the project.

As of what will happen when Linus passes, that's already been decided. The position of projects leader will go to his most trusted project co-maintainer, which we have a good idea of who that is.

[–] Andrenikous@lemm.ee 0 points 3 months ago (1 children)

For the uninformed, who is that?

[–] Rustmilian@lemmy.world 1 points 3 months ago* (last edited 3 months ago)

There are a few candidates, the most prominent are probably :

  • Greg Kroah-Hartman: Played a pivotal role in stabilizing the memory management subsystem and enhancing block I/O performance, both critical areas for system stability and performance.
  • Sage Sharp (formally Sarah Sharp) : Instrumental in the development and maintenance of the networking subsystem and the ARM architecture code, ensuring compatibility and efficient networking for various ARM-based devices.
  • Git Junio Hamano: Maintainer of Git, the version control system that underpins Linux development. His leadership in maintaining Git ensures smooth collaboration and efficient code management for the vast kernel developer community.

Greg Kroah-Hartman is speculated to be the most likely candidate, but it also depends on a few factors. Like, if Linus dies suddenly vs dying slowly or just stepping down, there'd be a big difference in selection process.

Ofc, things may change in the future and there's many other talented developers who can be considered. Nothing is set in stone.

[–] Screemu@lemmy.dbzer0.com 1 points 3 months ago

Linus is already a multimillionaire, he doesn't need a pump and dump.

[–] thefrankring@lemmy.world 1 points 3 months ago

Linus creates kernels. Nothing to do with cryptocurrency. Tech is tech, but I wouldn't necessarily listen to him about other things than kernels and computers. For example, he doesn't even believe in FOSS, and he openly supports Google because of Android, Chromebooks and ChromeOS using Linux.

[–] Socsa@sh.itjust.works 1 points 3 months ago

The value of a crypto token is ostensibly related to the value of the apps which the blockchain supports. It's meant to be both a form of compensation for participating in the network, and as currency for purchasing services from blockchain apps. That's how it derives intrinsic value. So if there is social media which runs on a blockchain, then the hosts within that blockchain get tokens for participating, and eg, advertisements or subscriptions are purchased in tokens. This means those who manage those participant nodes can sell their tokens to those who want to buy blockchain services. As the cumulative value of these services grows, an entire crypto economy is established, and it becomes effectively another form of fiat which has a real exchange rate backed by some real economic activity.

This is how it's supposed to work. The problem is that we just don't have any compelling apps, and the initial speculation has all but ensured that this cannot happen organically because the market cap is already just so much bigger than any realistic medium term outlook for intrinsic value. Bitcoin's blockchain would have to support some form application value which is bigger than the biggest companies in the world, and right now it basically has zero useful applications.

[–] YtA4QCam2A9j7EfTgHrH@infosec.pub 1 points 3 months ago (1 children)

I fucking hate that the crypto currency ghouls have captured the word “crypto”. When I first read this I was wondering why in the fuck would Linus not like cryptography. My brain is old and crypto will always mean cryptography.

[–] grrgyle@slrpnk.net 1 points 3 months ago

We just got to wait it out. Gods willing, it'll come back to meaning cryptography again.

[–] takeda@lemmy.world 0 points 3 months ago (1 children)

If after 16 years you still have to be asked if you believe in crypto, then chances are that it is a scam.

[–] MataVatnik@lemmy.world 0 points 3 months ago (1 children)

Good point, I always wondered if there is a way the technology will evolve and somehow find a niche that's unexpected. But you're right, 16 years is a long time to be meandering.

[–] AIhasUse@lemmy.world 0 points 3 months ago (1 children)

It's such a first-world thing to not understand all the good that crypto has done. There are countless lives that have been financially saved by having a safe place to hold wealth while their countries' fiat collapsed. It's just a short matter of time until many first world folks understand this as well.

[–] moitoi@lemmy.dbzer0.com 0 points 3 months ago (1 children)

Evading paying taxes is a good thing? Well no.

[–] Cypher@lemmy.world 0 points 3 months ago (1 children)

Even if you live under a genocidal regime?

[–] al4s@feddit.de 0 points 3 months ago

Yes, because infrastructure, subsidies, education and social spending still need to happen and not paying your taxes will erode those things long before they stop a genocide. If you don't care about getting in trouble with your government, there are more effective things that can be done.

[–] erwan@lemmy.ml 0 points 3 months ago (3 children)

Crypto means cryptography, stop using it to talk about cryptocurrency.

[–] MalachaiConstant@lemmy.world 0 points 3 months ago (1 children)

Is it not clear which definition of Crypto he's using?

Linus coming out against cryptography seems so unrealistically silly to me that it's not even worth considering.

[–] Magnetar@feddit.de 0 points 3 months ago

The security of Linux 2000 will be based entirely on steganography, Linux founder announces

[–] englislanguage@lemmy.sdf.org 0 points 3 months ago (3 children)

Yeah, that headline is very misleading. Crypto(graphy) is essential for the digital world to exist whereas the other stuff is a pyramid & money laundering scheme.

[–] shortwavesurfer@monero.town 0 points 3 months ago (1 children)

So the equivalent of the population of the United States plus 40% are money-londerers. Because somewhere between five and seven percent of the world's population uses cryptocurrency and that's 400 million to 550 million people.

[–] kaffiene@lemmy.world 0 points 3 months ago (1 children)
load more comments (1 replies)
[–] retrieval4558@mander.xyz 0 points 3 months ago (1 children)

It's not "misleading," because the vast majority of people understand what the current colloquial use of crypto is.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] Emmie@lemm.ee 0 points 3 months ago* (last edited 3 months ago) (1 children)

It’s useful for buying drugs online on the dark web so I for one like it

load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments (1 replies)
[–] shotgun_crab@lemmy.world 0 points 3 months ago* (last edited 3 months ago) (2 children)

Crypto is just a waste of resources, similar to AI

[–] leanleft@lemmy.ml 1 points 1 month ago

POS does not consume resources.
This goes to show how low-effort the criticism campaigns are.
However... all cryptos have their health tied to bitcoin which is a large energy consumer. So the point is actually still very true (due to some other reason).

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] kn98@feddit.nl 0 points 3 months ago* (last edited 3 months ago) (1 children)

I only like two cryptocurrencies.

Nano: free transactions, each wallet runs it’s own blockchain, so it’s got no negative impact on the environment.

Monero: allows for anonymous transfers

[–] Laser@feddit.de 0 points 3 months ago (1 children)

Omg we're cryptocurrency twins. I hold exactly these two for the same reasons

[–] lemming741@lemmy.world 0 points 3 months ago (1 children)
[–] Laser@feddit.de 0 points 3 months ago

Mostly holding Nano, used Monero quite often - should probably spend some Nano at one point... But vendors accepting it here are rare

[–] shortwavesurfer@monero.town 0 points 3 months ago (1 children)

Well, I guess big name figures have a right to be wrong. Surprising since he is the creator of such a foundational piece of open source software that he would not like another piece of open source software just seems a bit hypocritical in my opinion

[–] match@pawb.social 0 points 3 months ago* (last edited 3 months ago) (1 children)

inventor of sushi hates my "crumbly strawberry queso" idea? just seems a bit hypocritical imo

[–] shortwavesurfer@monero.town 0 points 3 months ago (1 children)

Maybe I'm thinking more Richard Stalman than Linus Torvalds. But if he made Linux to promote freedom from corporates, then it seems like he should like cryptocurrency because it's open source as well and permits freedom from government inflation. Humanity has never had a money not controlled by governments, except for gold and silver, and those are not easily sent over the internet.

[–] JaN0h4ck@feddit.de 0 points 3 months ago

Being open source does not make it good by default.

The ledger being visible to every node makes it pretty bad. You can figure out the identity of users just by circumstantial evidence.

And just because it's not controlled by the government doesn't mean, there aren't powerful corporate people inside that can and will enact control over the chain. Otherwise Ethereum classic wouldn't exist and Jordan Belford or Peter Thiel wouldn't be fans of crypto.

[–] whotookkarl@lemmy.world 0 points 3 months ago (1 children)

Equivocating cryptocurrency, block chain tech, and bitcoin is disingenuous to say none of that exists like fairies or Santa Claus. It exists just as much as PGP or AES or the deficit does. It's dumb to think any of that is going to launch you to extreme wealth or solve everyone's problems, but it is a good way to try to prevent governments from using that currency issuance power in ways their citizens would prefer they did not.

Even if you don't agree with the politics it is a pretty interesting technology for consensus building between potentially adverse participants. Someone with experience maintaining open source repos could at least appreciate that aspect.

[–] SpaceCowboy@lemmy.ca 0 points 3 months ago (1 children)

it is a good way to try to prevent governments from using that currency issuance power in ways their citizens would prefer they did not.

And instead it should be hedgefunds that have that power?

There is a need for currency and someone is going to have control over the value of that currency. At least with the government you can vote the bastards out.

[–] whotookkarl@lemmy.world 0 points 3 months ago (1 children)

I don't think anything we've seen yet solves wealth inequality, but whether that becomes a property of a currency or not may change.

I agree voting is important for governance but what if citizens held that specific power by default instead of the government, and if the government wanted to use that power they would require asking for it? It's the same people doing the voting but for a specific measure instead of a representative. I didn't think we're there yet but that being a possibility seems hopeful.

[–] JaN0h4ck@feddit.de 0 points 3 months ago

It already exists without crypto tokens and it's called a referendum.

Different countries use it to different extents. The Swiss Country does a lot of it, for example.

But referendums are not always a good idea and are extremely prone to manipulation by the media and populism (see Brexit). Minorities are also underrepresented in referendums, which poses a real problem with these things.

Having an elected government with separation of power is definitely always better, than whatever DAOs are doing.

[–] Username@feddit.de 0 points 3 months ago

Then why does the kernel have a crypto API?

Checkmate, Satoshi Torvalds!

[–] MystikIncarnate@lemmy.ca 0 points 3 months ago (1 children)

My hot take is this:

Crypto currency, when in its infancy, had a halfway decent concept.... now? It's a shitshow.

Crypto bros tend to argue about the main currencies, Bitcoin, etherium, etc. Meanwhile, there's about 1000 currencies that aren't talked about for every currency with any weight behind it.

The main problem with CC's is that it's all hype and confidence based. There's nothing tangible attached to it. I often equate it, for non-cryptocurrency people, to stocks trading. Often, stock is trading above what the actual value of the stock is. Most of the time in IPOs the price of the stock immediately jumps after the stock is released, then trends along some impression of how the company is doing. If there's a loss in confidence in the company the value of the stock drops, etc. It's pretty simple supply and demand beyond that. If investors have high confidence in the company to profit, demand for their stock will increase, and since supply is pretty much fixed (aside from shenanigans like stock splits and whatnot), price goes up. Same goes for the inverse, low confidence leads to low demand, price goes down.

It's similar with so-called crypto. Confidence goes up but supply is fairly stagnant, so the price goes up. Same with the inverse.

The primary difference between the two as investments, is that stocks get repaid (depending on a few factors) if the company goes under. The stock represents a monetary value for assets owned by the company, both liquid and physical assets. Crypto, however, has no such backing. If Bitcoin goes away for some reason, all you're left with is essentially digital trash.

This is mainly true for all of the talked about cryptocurrencies. The majority of currencies are not really following the same trends. After the initial golden era of CC's, it became a breeding ground for pump and dump schemes. Since it's entirely unregulated, borderline impossible to regulate, and AFAIK, no such regulation exists to govern it, there's no law against pump and dump schemes in the CC world. So it became a huge problem. We see this a lot with NFTs. Touching on NFTs for a second: if you own an NFT, all you actually own is a receipt that is an attestation or receipt that you paid for whatever the NFT is. That's it. The content behind the NFT, whether it's artwork or whatever, isn't locked. It's actually the opposite of locked, it's publically available on the blockchain, by design. The only thing you "own" is a tag in the blockchain that says you paid for it.

Pump and dump, for those unaware, is where you artificially inflate the value of something making it seem like a really good deal so everyone buys it, raising demand and prices, then the people who generated the hype dump their investment, cashing out when the value is high, and making off with the money while the value of the investment tanks.

This is very very frequently the case with NFTs. Since it's unregulated and entirely confidence based, the creators of NFTs will say whatever they have to (aka lie), to increase the confidence in the NFT, then sell it, and let the value freefall afterwards. They've even gone to the point of buying their own NFTs with dummy accounts for top dollar to have records on the blockchain that people can look up, which say it was sold for x amount in whatever cryptocurrency, to inspire others to think they're getting a bargain when they get it for some fraction of that initial transaction. The perpetrators then sell and disappear.

Several other crypto scams like this have also happened, mostly with NFTs but also with lesser known currencies. One that I heard of, required some token to exist to perform any transactions on the blockchain. When the perpetrators were done, they deleted the token, effectively locking the currency to never be traded again. Therefore those with the now digital trash of that crypto/NFC, couldn't sell to anyone else and they were stuck with the digital garbage data that used to represent their investment.

"Big" currencies, especially older currencies, are fairly stable in terms of confidence, but they're still volatile, and backed by nothing more than confidence. Any "new" CCs are a gamble to see whether they're legit at all, or just a pump and dump. The number of currencies that start high, then drop to nil and never recover, is significant.

Here's a controversial one, Elon Musk, for all of his flaws, isn't an idiot. He pump and dumped Dogecoin, by tweeting about it to bolster it, then divesting when it surged from his influence. I think this was pretty obvious, but I think a lot of people missed it. IIRC, he did it twice. I'm speculating, since I don't know which blockchain wallet is his, so I can't verify, but, he likely picked up a crapton of Doge then did his tweet, dumped when it went high, waited for it to drop again, picked up a crapload more, tweeted again, and finally dumped at another high to earn even more. Since then, doge has not been doing superb. He inspired volatility in the currency and profited from the crypto bros getting excited about it.

The evidence is there and when you look past the confidence game, and look at the numbers, it tells a story that most people don't want to see.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] db2@lemmy.world 0 points 3 months ago (1 children)

I guess we should all get rid of our bitcoin that's worth hundreds of times more than when we bought it, because an operating system kernel developer doesn't like it.

Linus is awesome but he's not a god, his opinion of things outside the Linux kernel is just the opinion of a guy. Stop worshipping him, he doesn't even like it.

load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments
view more: next ›