35 crypto companies got together to make a change dot org petition called “Bitcoin Deserves an Emoji”.
F that
₿uttcoin (( should have an emoji too then!
#bitcoinscam #tetherfraud
Duh, it’s stupid. Bitcoin is the snitchcoin. Broadcasts all details of all transactions, everywhere, always, forever.
Monero.
You have to do some mild gymnastics to buy monero here but yes this is what I use for sensitive transactions too.
It’s weird because theoretically there is some kind of law that makes it harder to buy it but there are services that let you do it anyway so I am guessing it’s a cat and mouse game.Emoji of a currency used for shady shit is the last thing it needs tho lol, it would be kinda like private tracker putting ad on YouTube or smh
Right now, sure, it’s just know the guy for it. Or swap bitcoin for it on bisq.network
Emoji of a currency used for shady shit is the last thing it needs tho lol
I agree. 💲💸💵💴💶💷💳💰 should all be removed from Unicode as those currencies are used for shady shit. /s
Touché
Also your business is none of mine. I have no concerns and you haven’t of mine, thank you very much.
Biz is biz
No but if I’d be doing anything other than piracy I wouldn’t be typing it here
I am autistically obsessed with niche underground internet things. though that one isn’t really one of them I guess
Bitcoin Lightning fixes this. Monero built its first layer with this assumption, and now it’s impossible to check if there has been an inflation bug like the Value Overflow Incident.
When (not if) there’s an inflation bug, the attacker will be able to sell his free XMR indefinitely.
No. It doesn’t change any of that. It’s still trackable %100
Lightning payments are onion routed, like Tor traffic.
Still not close to the same. That’s borrowed functions on one chain. Monero is triple encrypted. You crack one and you got no time left before the next chain flips the whole shebang.
It’s not close to the same thing, but definitely not trackable 100%, and comparable levels of privacy. Having less elegant code doesn’t change that. If you’d like, we can perform a test in which I make a lightning payment and you track it.
I don’t think it’s likely that an attacker can crack even your first layer of encryption in the time it takes for a transaction to propagate and settle.
You don’t get it and i ain’t here to explain what there already exists well made such for understanding.
I don’t even get that sentence!
Monero is triple encrypted. You crack one and you got no time left before the next chain flips the whole shebang.
If monero is using sane, modern encryption algorithms, “triple encryption” doesn’t really get you meaningfully more security.
It already takes an insane amount of time to brute force good encryption algorithms, so if people are cracking your encryption, they’re doing it via some vulnerability/flaw/exploit in the algorithm which allows then to crack things much faster than brute forcing. If you use the same encryption algorithm for all three layers, you just have to exploit it three times instead of one, which isn’t really adding any difficulty to a competent attacker.
What if you use three different encryption algorithms, you may ask? Well, that’s even worse because you’ve now tripled the attack surface of your encryption scheme.
That’s not at all addressing a single thing over what goes on in Monero. You either get it or you don’t and you just don’t. Go read more, yacky.
If you’ve got some articles handy, feel free to link them. My searches aren’t finding anything about Monero’s “triple encryption”.
Cryptocurrency is speedrunning ruining everything. We might as well have a laugh at the cryptobros’ expense in the meantime.
I loved the concept at first, the idea of a decentralized currency all handled by encryption, and transactions permamently stored in a public ledger for all to see.
Then the cryptobros and the scammers caught wind of it and it’s all downhill from there.
I liked the idea for awhile as well. But for me, learning about the “proof of work” underpinning is what changed my mind. That - and the fact that cryptocurrency does not actually have any of the strengths that it claims to have. It’s definitely and interesting idea… but in practice it’s all just scams and incentivised waste.
That’s interesting. I’ve initially written it off as a scam. Until I’ve learned about the proof-of-work.
Did they or did a bunch of media get pushed that told us all what these crypto bros were doing like shitting on beaches and taking our jobs.
Seriously though I’m picking up on a trend that a lot media has a greater influence on opinion then I’ve ever seen before
If you want the name of a payment techology that isn’t snake oil, isn’t blockchain-based, isn’t a cult, doesn’t claim to be a currency, doesn’t work on proof-of-work or proof-of-stake, but actually does provide certain privacy guarantees for your basic purchasing needs, is cryptographically secure, and can be used with only FOSS, I recommend looking into GNU Taler.
The only downside is that it’s not really supported anywhere at all yet. But I do hope it becomes a real thing some day.
Please describe how I can send the money to my mom in Russia (disconnected from SWIFT) with GNU Taler today. I’ll wait.
lol the downvotes. your mom is clearly evil and doesn’t deserve any money
Exactly. With Monero, she gets it in seconds and no one can stop it.
I don’t know how I could possibly have been more explicit about it not yet being ready for any real-world use cases than I was.
It will never be ready. It doesn’t even make sense. To transact with real fiat like the US dollar, you’ll have to go through an official on-ramp and an off-ramp of the respective government. And to do an international transaction you’ll have to use one of the widely accepted systems like SWIFT. GNU Taler doesn’t appear to address anything like that. Anyhow, my comment was made with the premise of this whole thread in mind, i.e. “Bitcoin is stupid” or “snake oil”. Yet there’s no alternatives to what crypto provides. So is it that stupid after all?
How wasteful!
Anyhow, today I’m going to resume using a currency backed by oil and nukes, which encourages consumption on purpose. I will then either exploit workers by investing in a for-profit business, or get poorer.
But someday, in the future, economics will work the way I expect them to. That’s when I’ll switch to something better!
Russia has had oil and nukes and it didn’t stop the ruble from collapsing in the 90s
Maybe reexamine your assumptions
isn’t blockchain-based, doesn’t work on proof-of-work or proof-of-stake
These things weren’t introduced as a gimmick they are used to solve specific problems.
GNU Taller is pretty fragile, though. One bank issues unbacked tokens and the credibility of the whole system goes down the drain. It’s the current financial system, just rebranded. Also, it promotes taxation which automatically makes it a cult & scam.
One bank issues unbacked tokens
- The Taler protocol has bank auditors built-in.
- Your hypothetical would just as much apply to existing debit cards.
- Unbacked tokens. You mean like Tether? (Let alone Terra.)
Also, it promotes taxation which automatically makes it a cult & scam?
The fuck? How does Taler “promote taxation?”
Fuckin’ Libertarians.
Unbacked tokens. You mean like Tether?
Exactly like Tether. USDT was never backed 1:1 by USD. They don’t even try to deny it anymore. They admit it’s backed by “various assets, including BTC”, which smells like a market manipulation.
How does Taler promote taxation?
“Customers can stay anonymous, but merchants can not hide their income through payments with GNU Taler. This helps to avoid tax evasion and money laundering.”
Thank you for being honest about being pro-tax-evasion and pro-money-laundering.
Thanks, I’ll read on it :)
Yea, that is interesting! I don’t really understand a lot of it though. Wonder how censorship-resistant it can be, and whether the receiver would be able to cash it out anonymously.
I’m not an expert on it, but I’ve done a certain amount of study on it.
I’m pretty sure there are no privacy guarantees for money receivers. Merchants/sellers would still be identifiable by banks and governments and such. So Taler isn’t what anyone selling heroin or doing murder for hire would want to be using as an accepted payment method. (At least not any more so than credit/debit card transactions will help the seller with keeping their doings secret.)
But Taler can keep the buyers’ identity secret. Unless you’re doing things in ways that reveal information about yourself, your bank and your government wouldn’t know you were buying fursuits even if they knew the merchant was selling fursuits.
So all that to say that no, the merchant couldn’t cash out anonymously.
What I don’t understand is whether it is like “Taler is obtained and cashed out only in a bank, but the link between two events is unknown” or if Taler can change hands during said “link”.
If the former - I really hope it gets implemented as a card replacement, but it would need to coexist with something like Monero (which is what I use now) that is more akin to cash. But I really hope that somehow non-blockchain full-on “digital cash” could one day be invented, so wonder if this could be it :)
How I understand it is:
- You go to your bank (or use a webapp or whatever) who knows who you are and get them to initiate a withdrawl from your bank account to your Taler wallet in the amount of, say $100.
- The balance in your Taler wallet goes up by $100. The bank also decrements your bank account by $100 and puts that $100 in an escrow holding intending to pay it to whatever recipient(s) can provide cryptographic proof that you gave them Taler.
- You go to a merchant and pay out of that $100 Taler balance $9 for a cheeseburger and fries.
- The merchant receives $9 in Taler from you and checks with your bank that that $9 hasn’t already been spent previously before concluding the payment process and giving you your receipt and burger.
- You now have a burger and fries and your Taler balance is $91.
- But the merchant doesn’t learn anything about your identity in the process. But they do have proof that your bank has $9 in escrow earmarked for them (the merchant) specifically.
- And your bank doesn’t know which of their customers to which they’ve ever given Taler is the one buying from the merchant in question. They just know that of the total sum of Taler they’ve issued that hasn’t been collected yet, $9 is earmarked for such-and-such merchant/burger joint.
- The merchant can settle up any time, but theoretically the bank can charge per-transaction fees. In order to minimize fees, it behooves the merchant to batch up settlements. The merchant can claim actual USD for every dollar that was used at that establishment by customers via Taler over, say, the last week or whatever in one big settlement batched transaction.
I’m leaving out some details, but that should give you a decent idea of how things work with Taler.
Now, as for this bit:
if Taler can change hands during said “link”.
That, I’m not sure of. It might be that you can transfer Taler from your wallet to someone else’s wallet (that they could then spend) without any identities being revealed, though they wouldn’t be able to get real USD or whatever without working with your bank which would generally insist on confirming their identity. But I’d think in order for the recipient in that situation to know that they actually had real Taler and not Taler that you had already spent and that wouldn’t actually work if they tried to spend it or cash it in, they’d have to make basically an API call to your bank, though unless the bank blocked all traffic from every VPN and traffic anonymizer (like Tor or I2p) in existence, I see no reason why it couldn’t be done in a way that preserved the recipient’s anonymity.
So yeah. Not sure. But even if that bit isn’t a thing, I still want Taler to take off.
Ah, so probably would not work to evade censorship/sanctions. I would REALLY love to use such a thing instead of my card though.
The only downside is that it’s not really supported anywhere at all yet. But I do hope it becomes a real thing some day.
AFAIK there are a lot of talk about making GNU Taler the basis for the ‘digital Euro’ which is curently being debated at the EU Parliment.
Scammers use the technology because it actually works and does what it says it does. And criminals and scammers and such are generally the first ones to adopt a new technology. Such as bank robbers adopting the automobile in order to get away faster.
I would rather point my finger at wall street or financial institutions not at the tools that offers a viable option to avoid these
Bitcoin is over 15 years old now, that’s not a particularly fast speedrun.
It already has a codepoint. ₿
Bitcoin is stupid, but the point of Unicode is that we have a symbol for everything that has a commonly recognized symbol or representative value, or even uncommonly recognized.
If ⅌ gets a character, or all the symbols of the Byzantine musical notation system, I’m not sure why a typically recognized symbol for a cryptocurrency shouldn’t.
The weird bit is that they put together a petition. All you really need to do is submit a proposal and show that it’s a notable symbol and not owned by anyone in particular or a brand icon.
Here’s the proposal to add “goose” to Unicode. They even added a few joke-y bits, but they made a valid argument that “goose” is a symbol that people recognize. And now… 🪿
I don’t disagree with the overall comment, but there’s a difference between character and emoji. ⅌ got a character, but so did ₿ already.
There really isn’t a difference between a character and an emoji beyond an emoji being a stylized rendering of a character, or a character whose use is intended as a pictograph.
https://www.unicode.org/reports/tr51/#Introduction
They’re all just Unicode code points, although I suppose there’s some distinction between the characters with more context specific meaning or the ones that are more apt to modification a la 🧑⚕️👩🏿⚕️. But you’ve also got 💲 and $, where “bold dollar sign” is often represented as green, but “dollar sign” tends to be represented in contextual style. Is ☣ a character or an emoji? What about the thousands of “other symbols” as defined by the Unicode spec which may or may not have special character renderings depending on your platform and font?
And yeah, I didn’t know that character existed, so now it’s doubly confusing why anyone is asking for anything. The symbol has meaning, and it’s in the big book of meaningful symbols. Not sure what more they want.
There’s no ambiguity. Emoji are characters in the emoticons code block (U+1F600…U+1F64F). Emoji are indeed a subset of characters, but anything outside that block is not an emoji.
Gotcha, so ⌚(U+231A, miscellaneous technical block) isn’t an emoji, despite it clearly being a pictograph, and there are only 80 emoji?
I feel like this definition isn’t in line with either the lay definition of emoji, nor the technical definition
Emoji are pictographs (pictorial symbols) that are typically presented in a colorful cartoon form and used inline in text. They represent things such as faces, weather, vehicles and buildings, food and drink, animals and plants, or icons that represent emotions, feelings, or activities.
People often ask how many emoji are in the Unicode Standard. This question does not have a simple answer, because there is no clear line separating which pictographic characters should be displayed with a typical emoji style.
Emoji are seriously just Unicode characters that sometimes get rendered as a fancy image. That’s it. There’s an entire bit about how different characters have different conventional presentations and a codified system of “default” for image or “text”.
The presentation of a given emoji character depends on the environment, whether or not there is an emoji or text presentation selector, and the default presentation style (emoji versus text). In informal environments like texting and chats, it is more appropriate for most emoji characters to appear with a colorful emoji presentation, and only get a text presentation with a text presentation selector. Conversely, in formal environments such as word processing, it is generally better for emoji characters to appear with a text presentation, and only get the colorful emoji presentation with the emoji presentation selector.
That’s why there’s things like ☣️ and ☣. Same codepoint, but different presentation hints. (I’m assuming that our various systems will do the right thing and capture the presentation hints, otherwise I’m going to look very odd putting the same symbol over and over :-) )
I rushed to just grab that codeblock from Wikipedia. But the selection of which characters are considered emoji is not arbitrary. The Unicode Consortium (their Unicode Emoji Standard and Research Working Group to be exact) publishes those list and guidelines on how they should be rendered. I believe the most recent version of the standard is Emoji 15.1.
Edit: I realized I’m going off track here by just reacting to comments and forgetting my initial point. The difference I was initially alluding to is in selection criteria. The emoji. for assigning a character a Unicode codepoint is very different from the criteria for creating a new emoji. Bitcoin has a unique symbol and there is a real need to use that symbol in written material. Having a unicode character for it solves that problem, and indeed one was added. The Emoji working group has other selection criteria (which is why you have emoji for eggplant and flying money, and other things that are not otherwise characters. So the fact that a certain character exists, despite its very limited use, has no bearing on whether something else should have an emoji to represent it.
Maybe we don’t need a Bitcoin emoji, but we absolutely need a Doge emoji.
Lol, doge
🐶 there’s already one
Fuck Emojis
I think I should post a 1000 word essay about why I dislike the merman emoji.
If we’re not getting an asshole emoji this will suffice.
It’ll make it easier to filter out spam. If it contains this emoji, delete it.
fighting for bitcoin to get an emoji is stupid, but fighting against it might be even stupider. surely there are more important things to spend your time and energy on. it’s a fucking emoji. who cares?
It would create legitimation and that could further increase its popularity
millions of people who use emojis would constantly see it. It would slowly start to feel more familiar to them and increase its acceptance. If that works, others would try to do the same and we would have every and any company put their logos in. If it doesnt then it doesnt matter that much, but i dont want to risk yet another avenue for corporations to worm into peoples minds.
Personally i dont care about emojis at all but i do care about general mentalspace.
normalizing scams, by laundering their image via standards organizations, pollutes our communications environment. Both an emoji and a petition are symbolic - and our symbols are in fact important.
Bitcoin isn’t a scam. All non-bitcoin cryptocurrencies are scams.
People often hear about stuff like coins that are pre-mined, or proof-of-stake and the schemes and scans that come out of those, and immediately associate Bitcoin with the same thing.
Of course bitcoin is a scam. It’s a “currency” you can’t spend anywhere. It’s only purpose is a pump and dump scheme for early adopters.
It’s a “currency” you can’t spend anywhere
Lol
It’s only purpose is a pump and dump scheme for early adopters.
This is exactly what many alt-coins are but Bitcoin is decidedly not.
You’re confusing “easy to mine” with “early adopter scam”.
It’s a “currency” you can’t spend anywhere.
You could’ve at least pretended to have done some basic research…
That is also not 100% true. There are several altcoins with fantastic utility. Monero and Ethereum come to mind.
Exactly. Most cryptocurrencies are scams, but a handful are fantastic. Ethereum is cool for being proof-of-stake (so no high-energy mining), and Monero is cool for being super privacy-oriented. There are a handful more, but honestly, if you stick with Bitcoin, Ethereum, and Monero, you’ll be fine.
That’s pretty much exactly my thought. I hold a very very small amount in Polygon, but only in order to pay the gas fees for the Polygon network. So I never have more than a few US dollars worth in it at a time.
Yeah, I basically just do Monero, and I use it as a spend account and use it anywhere it’s accepted. I don’t invest in any cryptocurrencies because I don’t think cryptocurrencies have positive expected return (it’s all hype), so I keep the amount of crypto I have small.
I wouldn’t argue with that. I was mostly generalizing.
Ethereum has scam characteristics though. The creator Vitalik gave himself time to mine it alone before giving public access. He secured for himself quite a nice stash
That’s true. I suspect the application programming is the only reason that it actually took off.
If boobs don’t have their emoji, bitcoin doesn’t deserve to it either!
We have an established tradition to represent sexual characteristics with fruit. 🍆, 🍑, 🍈 🍈.
To be fair, I whenever I go to market and see the eggplants, I feel inadequate. Also in the last decade many of the more classical substitutes have emerged in the emoji library. 🌶️, 🥒, 🥚🥚, 🌮, 🍪, 🎂, 🎃🎃
what’s the cookie supposed to mean?
Should just be a generic crypto currency symbol with a rub being pulled from under it.
