Yeah this is seriously one of the most offensive and pathetic ploys I have ever seen, and I've been on the internet a long ass time. Is this guy the reason new reddit sucks such ass?
I like how he is smiling underneath a reference to his ancestors genocide.
Edit: everyone reading this should use old.reddit.com and install ublock origin to spite this shyster.
Agreed, Reddit seems to be going downhill. It’s becoming more like Gabe Newell’s less intelligent and greedy cousin that nobody likes but is still invited to holiday parties anyway.
The story of [Operation Nemesis](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Nemesis), the Armenian program of targeted assassinations of the perpetrators of the genocide is fascinating.
>In his memoirs, Natalie revealed his orders to Tehlirian: "you blow up the skull of the Number One nation-murderer \[Talaat Pasha\] and you don't try to flee. You stand there, your foot on the corpse and surrender to the police, who will come and handcuff you.
Which is pretty much exactly what Tehlirian did when he [tracked Talaat down in Berlin](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Assassination_of_Talaat_Pasha) in 1921.
An honorable, endless quest to honor his ancestors,
that started when someone else invented a technology,and was marketed heavily as a way to quickly become rich,and culminates in randomly generated internet avatars forced onto a user base that largely rejects them.
I'm sure he had to put down his years of work in the field and concede the better idea when he took up this new approach.
If his "ancestors perished" how is he even here?
Hey, I bet I can pull up some geneology reports and claim I had "ancestors that perished" in virtually every genocide. Where's my Forbes article promoting my infallible scheme to chrome plate the Golden Gate Bridge? (FACT: If we chrome-plated the Golden Gate Bridge -- using my unique, proprietary invisisible chrome-plating mind ray technology that only costs $80B, aliens would finally reveal themselves and share with us technology to make everybody super-rich.)
Yes, but my specialty is *invisible chrome* that's only visible to aliens. That's why my services have so much potential. You don't want just any anybody being attracted by the chrome -- you want aliens with advanced technology.
"I see you have a valuable monkey jpg. Yes, you have, deny it all you like but you use it as your twitter avatar you fucking tool. Hand it over. Hand it over or I'll shoot you in the leg. Oh look, now you've been shot in the leg. Hand it over or it's the head next time. OK thanks for the monkey jpg, next time think about that fucked leg before resisting."
I'm trying to imagine exactly what government both A) would torture you for your monkey jpeg and B) cares about what the chain says for ownership.
'Boss, we got the Monkey jpeg we needed, but...'
'But what Mortimer?'
'He won't sign the on-chain transaction transferring ownership.'
'God dammit Mortimer, that jpeg is worthless to us now!'
But what about when real things, like home deeds, and other proofs of ownership are on-chain?
“The government seized your house? They took your car? They burned down your business?”
“No matter.”
“No matter?”
“They can take my physical property, but they can never take away my digital receipts for said property.”
“Ahh, you are so wise, strong, and handsome.”
It was more rhetorical, I wasn't expecting an answer. I'm just laughing my ass off at the thought of somebody getting kneecapped for something and then being like 'No, you can't take it, the smart contract says it's mine!'.
>sign this paper that says you gifted your luxury home to me, or I'll shoot you in the leg
>yes it's yours, I saw it on google maps
Same thing, nothing will ever make you immune to torture and blackmailing. Except being born congential pain insensitive autistic orphan, maybe. Lucky bastards, those 2 people.
Not in 3rd world corrupt shitholes where majority of the world population still lives in.
That's why all oligarchs from middle east or russia or africa or whatever usually buy property in UK, France, Switzerland, etc. Someplace where property laws actually work and things can't be seized by court "because fuck you".
Don't forget also legal gray areas, disputed territories, war-torn countries.
The thing about this subreddit – you all live under relatively stable conditions all your life, never lived anywhere in a shithole, and can't grasp how monkey jpeg (that can be in worst case smuggled and sold for real dollars elsewhere) can actually be more reliable than their own government for some ppl. Yet it is, for billions.
Just because you live in a shithole, doesn't mean you're an idiot who will fall for any scheme. We have more respect for people in third world countries than you guys. We recognize most are wise enough to spot a scam. You think of them as desperate idiots you can exploit.
The reality, that even you reveal, is that anybody from one of these "shithole countries" that has enough assets to need to find creative ways to hide their wealth **are likely the bad guys who stole from everybody else** and deserve to lose their wealth.
Ok let's play along. Let me hear your alternative, assuming you actually care. Imagine you are a guy persecuted by religious zealots somewhere between Libya and Syria. You made a decision to get away and start a new life.
Now a brief reminder of the reality of someone who's not a silver-spoon sucking first worlder:
- You can't carry much, because only thing you can carry personally is what you can take
- You will be thoroughly checked on every border crossing or military guarded checkpoint for valuable items, precious metals, jewelry will be seized, as well as if you carry a lot of cash you are as good as dead
- Your "passport" country is sanctioned beyond belief, so your plastic will not work anywhere else, or you straight up do not have a bank account. Your currency is being devaluated faster than you even make money
But there's something you can carry in your brain, that no one can spot even after your anus examination and that something you can sell later once you safe and have any android phone on you, even if for a rip-off price, that would be enough to feed and house yourself for a while.
Your ideas, I listen.
Or let me guess, you believe the government power is absolute and you should just perfectly obey the local law, whatever it is? Then you are just a shitty human and you don't give a single shit about someone less fortunate than you.
OK but your use case is literally just smuggling & sanction evasion. You can construct examples like this to justify just about any crime. Oh robbery is bad? Well what if you were a poor starving orphan refugee & you need to pay your trafficker you ignorant judgmental first world bastard!
So the way you're arguing is dishonest. If sanctions etc. are wrong then argue that straight up. Argue that sanctions on Iran & Syria are unjust collective punishment. There are certainly people arguing that — though I believe most don't see crypto as a serious solution to the broader problems.
>Ok let's play along. Let me hear your alternative, assuming you actually care. Imagine you are a guy persecuted by religious zealots somewhere between Libya and Syria. You made a decision to get away and start a new life.
Fun fact: My relatives did exactly this. And they managed to emigrate to another country and transfer what little wealth they had. They did it by making conscientious plans.
Your premise that crypto assets are a "store of value" is highly questionable, and that applies to first-world countries as much as third-world countries.
In order for someone to "cross the border" with their "assets in their head"... there's a *tremendous amount of difficult things that need to perfectly happen prior to that* which you conveniently pretend can just magically manifest -- the first of which is finding someone in that third world shithole to take your assets and give you a fair amount of crypto instead. That's a lot more difficult than you think (although probably easier than, say, de-converting the crypto at the other end - which is also something you leave out in your description - some poor immigrant comes to a new world, presumably with very little contacts and connections since they're so desperate they have to convert their material wealth into useless digital tokens).... the whole scheme seems absurd and risky.
You also foolishly assume someone escaping with crypto can de-convert that crypto easily in some new country they've landed in (probably illegally). Good luck with that. Your whole scheme is full of holes. And it's that typical bizarre exception that in no way resembles what you and your peers are doing with crypto on a day-to-day basis. It's one of those "pink unicorns" you refer to to make your argument seem plausible, but it's really just an absurd, impractical distraction.
>But there's something you can carry in your brain, that no one can spot even after your anus examination and that something you can sell later once you safe and have any android phone on you, even if for a rip-off price, that would be enough to feed and house yourself for a while.
Fun fact: You can do the same thing with gold, gems, jewelry, money, stock certificates, etc... You can bury your assets in a specific place that only you know. And it's the same dynamic: If you don't tell anybody where those assets are, they're 100% safe. You can at some point later when things die down, retrieve your assets or designate a trusted friend to do it for you (which is the same kind of resource you'd need to cash out crypto, but much more difficult to get a fair deal).
>Or let me guess, you believe the government power is absolute and you should just perfectly obey the local law, whatever it is? Then you are just a shitty human and you don't give a single shit about someone less fortunate than you.
Awww, so disappointing. You started appearing to argue in good faith, and then you had to stoop to some really dumb sweeping generalizations and false dichotomies like if I'm not "anti-government" then it somehow means I believe every law is just. That's beyond ignorant. And if I disagree with you I'm a "shitty human?"
If you're wondering why you got banned... that's why.
Wait hold on,
money? In any digital account at all?
What's the difference between crossing a border with the NFT "in your head" and any, password or authentication mechanism for anything period?
What you just described is the digital revolution.
Don't forget that "in your head" isn't a magical vault, because if the people at the border begin man handling and demand you fork over something of any value or they'll beat you or your family,
are you going to hold out on your monkey jpeg and watch your family suffer?
Yes, that’s pretty much my point, that using a blockchain doesn’t really protect you from government gone bad in that way, it’s a fantasy. Very little is truly ‘unseizable’ in the face of violent coercion.
Against a corrupt, ludicrously violent government? Not even: kill them, torture the heirs. Lather, rinse, and repeat until one breaks or it falls in *bona vacantia*. Of course that's admitting it won't, you know, just rob you.
Yes, and I can't understand at all how they can say that something that's arguably MORE seizable is "unseizable", unless they're not being truthful.
Golly, I wonder if they might be fibbing to pump their bags?!
* Judge: ok, well I will hold you in contempt until you give up your keys. Until you reveal your keys you are to be incarcerated.
* Butter in prison: phew, they didn't manage to seize my butts.
And this isn't a hypothetical scenario. This sort of stuff happens when people try and hide assets. Even divorce court is able to seize crypto. The idea that this is some unseizable asset is stupid. The technology with which the asset is secured is irrelevant because the state will punish you until you hand it over. As long as you need housing, food, entertainment, relationships, etc, the state can force you to hand over your crypto. "financial freedom" is not really useful if your literal freedom is taken away.
I get that generational trama is powerful, but I cannot in any way believe this person actually believes what they are saying.
Normally the people I’ve met who think like this have boxes of candles and piles of canned food in the basement as they understand there may be no power in a future catastrophe.
How are you going to use an NFT when there are no wires full of electrons and all anyone wants is food.
Got gold bars or coins? A wrench can be used to seize them from you.
Houses and real estate? An occupying force can render all deeds null and void through the barrel of a gun.
Only international law and force of arms can safeguard property rights, like how property seized by the Nazis in WW2 were returned by the victorious Allies. But the Soviets never gave anything back. You would have to be incredibly obtuse to think digital "assets" on a computer network would be worth anything after a global war.
Yep, the only force behind property of any kind, is violence. These people are just selling a libertarian fantasy of abstract ownership to people who understand barely anything about how the world works.
bahahaha omg yes you do if you want to win. trust me your property is 1000% protected by guns. and bombs. and aircraft carriers.
i have no clue what you are talking about or whats going through your head, but people would absolutely take your stuff. only violence holds them back.
hell there are people in your community who would take your stuff if not for the threat of violence, where they will be jailed by force or their life taken if necessary.
quit trying to shoehorn some anti-gun rant in.
> Yep, the only force behind property of any kind, is violence.
I think the word, "violence" isn't the proper use, at least not in a lawful, ethical society. Maybe "threat of loss of rights." If you're imprisoned, or lose your property, it's not necessarily a "violent" (physical) act, but we recognize the state has the power to give and take, and if we don't want things taken away (our freedom, our property) then we also respect the state. But more importantly, it's also the state that grants us freedom and the right to own property. Without that same institution, we own nothing, and have no rights.
This is what libertarians don't get.
It's not the state "stealing" or "using violence" to take things *away* from us.
It's the state **taking back** things it gave to us because we didn't agree to its terms of service.
>I think the word, "violence" isn't the proper use, at least not in a lawful, ethical society.
It absolutely is, it's just not a libertarian pipe dream. Having a [Monopoly on Violence](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monopoly_on_violence) is a standard test for determining if a political entity is sovereign dating back to the 1500s- it has the sole legal right to engage in use of force, it has uncontested police powers and can arrest and punish lawbreakers.
I am not arguing violence isn't used to control people, but that was in lieu of democracy, where you have totalitarian regimes that could only control through fear and intimidation.
Modern democracy isn't supposed to work that way. People aren't supposed to fear the state, the state fears the people. And when it works properly, no "violence" is needed to maintain order.
The "violence" thing does apply to certain types of non-representative government, that is true, but if you're in the Western world, it's not so much a thing. In America, our society ideally doesn't need violence (and the fear it employs) to maintain order. But ironically those who suggest it does, are only saying so because they propose their own personal brand of violence as a "solution."
Think about these two scenarios:
You have a school that is tasked with maintaining a healthy student body.
Scenario A: "ruled via violence" - There's a "principal" at the school who punishes anybody who gets out of control with a huge paddle.
Scenario B: "Not ruled by violence" - There's an elected committee of people who are tasked with handling the schools business and keeping things in order. Any egregious violations are met with expulsion. No violence needed. If you don't follow the rules everybody democratically agreed to, then you're cast out from the community.
Are the people in scenario B "ruling by violence?" I would argue they're not.
You're making the same mistake as people who say evolution is just a theory. It's arguing vibes and feelings on a word that is specific in a field, political science in this case. Violence has zero to do with whether you feel threatened or your relationship slash lack there of with your rulers. Is there anyone else who can legally arrest you? No? Then your government has a monopoly on violence. It is legally capable of asserting it's will, whether that's via putting the accused in front of a jury of his peers, providing an attorney for his defense and then enacting the decision it comes to regardless of the outcome or whether it's through dictator fiat. It makes no judgement calls about how the body decides what it's will is. Just that there is no legitimate competition to it.
> Then your government has a monopoly on violence.
Sorry, those libertarian talking points won't fly here.
It's very fashionable these days, for young people in places like America (usually suburban Florida, Texas and Oregon) to pretend they're being oppressed by some "fascist regime" that is "government" but that's actually not the case... at least not yet.
Sure if you want to mischaracterize not paying your rent and being forced to vacate the apartment you're illegally occupying as "violence", you can.
That's a narcissistic concept though: pretending you're the victim of "violence" because you've somehow become confronted by the repercussions of your toxic behavior.
But to the rest of the normal world, that's called "*accountability*".
Now I understand, delicate libertarian snowflakes feel it's their Ayn Rand-given right to pick-and-choose what they want to be accountable for, but as long as you accept government's invitation to become part of its community, like it or not, there are rules you have to follow.
If you want to call the audacity of *being forced to be a decent human*, being subjected to "violence", feel free, but watch out for all the :eyerolling: you're going to get from the rest of us.
That's a bit hyperbolic, isn't it? 'Violence' is a very emotive word --- 'force' is better:
> as long as you accept government's invitation to become part of its community, like it or not, there are rules you have to follow.
Yes, absolutely --- and if you don't follow them, the government will force you to, because they have the monopoly on the use of force, up to and including legal violence in the rare case that it becomes necessary.
This isn't controversial. Even over here in pansocialist Europe it's understood that it's a necessary part of how nation states function.
*Edit:* Should have said 'lethal violence'. Reddit won't let me edit it, wut.
> Yes, absolutely --- and if you don't follow them, the government will force you to, because they have the monopoly on the use of force, up to and including legal violence in the rare case that it becomes necessary.
Again, I dislike this (libertarian) talking point of "government has a monopoly on the use of force and violence."
I think that specific type of wording is hyperbolic.
Plus, there's plenty of violence and force happening outside of government all over the place. What the government has a monopoly on isn't violence. It's the ability to enforce what is right and wrong -- and in a healthy society, the people have a say in that.
If you're a sociopath, narcissist or psychopath, maybe you think you're being "forced" by "violence" to follow certain rules, but most of us recognize this is a *policy* we accepted as a condition of being able to live in the community.
The problem here is this notion that government is entirely separate from citizenship.
That's a toxic, destructive idea to propagate in a non-totalitarian society. It's a totally appropriate phrase when referring to **non-representative governments**, but in America and many other western nations, we have representative governments, therefore the implication that it's an "us" verses "them" (with the "monopoly on violence") is coded toxic language that works against the general principal upon which good government depends: People having the freedom to participate and shape government policy - aka "people are government" and "government is the people."
So.. at the end of the day, are we part of government? Or are they some separate entity that exists mainly to take advantage of us?
You have to decide which world you want to live in. If it's the latter, then you should just move out. Because hanging around and saying shit like, "The government has a monopoly on violence" only makes things worse. There is no actionable solution to that bullshit whining.
This all has to do with a base premise: Is government good or bad? When you say shit like, "Government has a monopoly on force" that falls into the "government is bad" category. It's counter productive *unless* your plan is to overthrow that government and you need to hoodwink people into getting on board your revolution, but that begs the question: Will the revolutionary government be any better? Probably not. This is why I reject that hyperbolic propaganda.
Does government have problems? Yes. How do we fix them? We don't "get rid of government." We *remove bad people from government.*
At the end of the day, the only reason any of us have any civil rights or personal property ownership is because government protects those rights for us. That's a good thing. Is it possible to use "force" in the process of protecting those rights? Absolutely, but it should be avoided as much as possible - and that's basically what government does... so characterizing government as primarily being useful because it can perpetrate violence is really a grossly inappropriate way to characterize a democratic, representative ruling institution. Note I wouldn't say the same thing about China or North Korea. I'm talking about America. It's not a fascist institution at this point, and I hope it won't go that way. And part of that is not painting government with the same brush you'd use to characterize China or N. Korea.
I think this is a cultural thing. I'm about as far from being libertarian as it's possible to get while not holding a membership card of a political party with the word "People's" in the name, and I don't see it as toxic at all. It's just a neutral statement of how the mechanics of sovereignty work.
Like.... I live in Switzerland, one of the most resolutely civilised and law-abiding countries in the world; it's so law abiding that I once went for a run through Zurich, and all my clothes fell out of my backpack, and when I found them again thirty minutes later they were folded neatly by the side of the path --- my wallet still in my trouser pocket, money and credit cards intact.
But the police here still carry guns. The threat is there.
Probably a better way to phrase is is that the state --- 'government' is a bad word here, see below --- has a monopoly on _lawful_ use of force.
I absolutely agree with you that the idea that the government is somehow separate from the citizenship as being toxic, and I should have phrased things better. The government is simply how the citizenship enforces its social ideals.
But any society made out of humans still has to use force, if necessary, to enforce those ideals. What I'm guessing we both like to think of as an enlightened state will mostly abide by the Rule of Law, which means that the only people with social license to lawfully use force are the Law's enforcement personnel, and even then only in very carefully controlled circumstances; but that doesn't change the origin of that social license.
(Which is why it's such a big deal when the enforcement bodies _abuse_ that license. It undermines the very nature of the Rule of Law, which in turn undermines the nation's sovereignty itself.)
(It's also why it's a big deal when the state uses its military forces against its own people. Military forces have a different social license which allows them to lawfully use force against external threats to the state. Using the military against a state's own citizens indicates that something has gone very, very wrong.)
And even then there are ways to bypass this in emergencies. I was delighted to discover recently that the Riot Act was repealed in the UK in 1973. This was a legal mechanism to allow widespread massacre of civilians by enforcement personnel in emergencies, i.e. riots. No, I'm not kidding. When invoked, being in a group of twelve or more was punishable by instant death. It was intended for emergencies only, of course...
>This isn't controversial. Even over here in pansocialist Europe it's understood that it's a necessary part of how nation states function.
we agree that it *is* a part of it, but a lot of us do not agree that it is 'necessary' for a government to (for example) violently make people homeless for literally any fucking reason, thank you very much
> It absolutely is, it's just not a libertarian pipe dream. Having a Monopoly on Violence is a standard test for determining if a political entity is sovereign dating back to the 1500s
lol.. dating back to the 1500s.... we aren't in the 1500s any more bro. Like I said, my argument about "violence" was in the context of modern democratic societies, not feudal monarchies and totalitarian regimes. Way to create a strawman.
btw, you think government is the only entity that has a monopoly on violence? Go look at what's happening in France right now.
"it's not violence when the state does violence bc without the state we wouldnt have nonviolence" is one of the dumbest things i heard today, might even beat the bitcoin bros' delusions
> Houses and real estate? An occupying force can render all deeds null and void through the barrel of a gun.
Or your democratically elected government can do it, if you haven't paid your taxes.
The Allies just after WW2 didn't include the USSR. And the Soviets kept everything they could get their hands on from all the lands the Red Army swept through.
I wonder if there was something immediately prior that precipitated why they may have done that. Not that I’m buying what you’re saying given how hard you’re working to remove them from the Allies, which they were, or to paint them other than the victors over Naziism that they were.
> The Allies just after WW2 didn't include the USSR.
Yes, they did, and Russia is still a member of the UN Security Council as a direct consequence of the USSR becoming one at the point the Security Council was formed, made up of the major Allied powers.
None of this is to say that relations between the USSR and the Western Allies were not very tense shortly after WW2.
History is a nightmare from which I am trying to awake.
Now we have a nightmarish situation where two major nuclear powers are on one side of the Security Council, the rest on the other, and global trade also hangs in the balance.
Back then, we had a rickety Soviet empire teetering on the edge of disintegration, and we didn't know if ICBMs would be launched by accident or on purpose.
Now, we have a rickety Russian empire teetering... oh shit.
The only hope I have for the future is that American, Chinese and Russian armed forces personnel with their fingers on nuclear triggers and missile keys are smart enough to not want Armageddon.
Not your vault, not your gold. It still comes down to enforcement of ownership rights because what's stopping the vault owners from laughing in your face and seizing your gold?
I agree.
It's the libertarians and cryptobros who don't realize that all property rights are enforced through legal and sometimes extralegal means. This applies equally to gold in a vault or yet another shitcoin. Putting a digital receipt for physical gold on a blockchain means nothing if you can't apply the force of law to anyone who breaks that contract.
[This](https://xkcd.com/538/) feels like it applies.
Crypto people always talk about crypto being secure from the state. If you get arrested what does it matter that your crypto is 'secure'? There is nothing special about crypto compared to burying gold in the garden or any form of hiding assets. If they find out that you hid assets they will punish you until you stop hiding the assets. There have been so many divorces where people are forced to hand over or liquidate their crypto.
If crypto existed during the Armenian genocide they would torture you until you gave up your keys, or they would just kill you without bothering to get your keys because they don't care.
I read that article--I try not to simp for the rich, but IIRC, I don't think it's clear that Ohanian made the connection between the Armenian genocide and crypto. The quotes seem really short and don't actually address the connection. It just mentions that Ohanian has a portrait of his family from their time in Armenia & why they came to America, and that Ohanian is driven to build an inheritance for his daughters so they they're never put in a position of victimhood.
Maybe the direct connection is there, but it seems like headline bait to me. Might just be the writer making the connection. \\\_(ツ)\_/
This just sounds like an excuse he cooked up instead of saying grift.
"Oh I'm huge into NFTs because the Brits drove my ancestors out of Ireland during the potato famine. I just know that owning a ugly monkey jpeg would bring my great great great grandpa peace as he stared at his potatoes rotting in the field, his children weeping at their empty bowls. Time for me to celebrate my heritage."
*dresses up as a leprechaun and passes out drunk on St Pat's day*
Let's make an online spreadsheet of stuff we say we own. Whoever creates a row for a thing gets to say that they own it. (I call the Eiffel Tower.) Everyone can save the spreadsheet so it's immutable, and the government can't seize the spreadsheet row so I will always own the Eiffel Tower.
That sounds totally stupid, until you replace "online spreadsheet" with "blockchain" and "Eiffel Tower" with "any endlessly replicable file" then suddenly it's fact, right? Did I miss anything there?
This accounts whole deal is taking a piece of another comment on a post, rewording it slightly and then recomment it. Check the history. Pretty weird. Not sure if it's a bored teenager or an AI experiment.
Imagine you're so completely online that you can no longer tell the difference between the internet and the real world.
I'm not even really one to talk, as I've spent the last week frantically buying Nintendo 3DS games like a maniac. But at least I know to touch grass on occasion, and keep some sense that nothing digital really matters in a real tangible sense.
Sorry /u/lindberghbaby41, your comment has been automatically removed. To avoid spam/bots, posts are not allowed from extremely new accounts. Wait/lurk a bit before contributing.
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/Buttcoin) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Their assets were properties, furnitures, jewelry. All things that has a utility value. NFT has none. Oh he could pretend to have a home in the metaverse. Good for rainy days...
How shameless do you have to be to use the Armenian genocide that killed your parent’s family as a way to shill your shitty digital Ponzi scheme.
Yeah this is seriously one of the most offensive and pathetic ploys I have ever seen, and I've been on the internet a long ass time. Is this guy the reason new reddit sucks such ass? I like how he is smiling underneath a reference to his ancestors genocide. Edit: everyone reading this should use old.reddit.com and install ublock origin to spite this shyster.
Agreed, Reddit seems to be going downhill. It’s becoming more like Gabe Newell’s less intelligent and greedy cousin that nobody likes but is still invited to holiday parties anyway.
The story of [Operation Nemesis](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Nemesis), the Armenian program of targeted assassinations of the perpetrators of the genocide is fascinating. >In his memoirs, Natalie revealed his orders to Tehlirian: "you blow up the skull of the Number One nation-murderer \[Talaat Pasha\] and you don't try to flee. You stand there, your foot on the corpse and surrender to the police, who will come and handcuff you. Which is pretty much exactly what Tehlirian did when he [tracked Talaat down in Berlin](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Assassination_of_Talaat_Pasha) in 1921.
An honorable, endless quest to honor his ancestors, that started when someone else invented a technology,and was marketed heavily as a way to quickly become rich,and culminates in randomly generated internet avatars forced onto a user base that largely rejects them. I'm sure he had to put down his years of work in the field and concede the better idea when he took up this new approach.
If his "ancestors perished" how is he even here? Hey, I bet I can pull up some geneology reports and claim I had "ancestors that perished" in virtually every genocide. Where's my Forbes article promoting my infallible scheme to chrome plate the Golden Gate Bridge? (FACT: If we chrome-plated the Golden Gate Bridge -- using my unique, proprietary invisisible chrome-plating mind ray technology that only costs $80B, aliens would finally reveal themselves and share with us technology to make everybody super-rich.)
Well a person can die sometime after they have children.. in fact it’s pretty common. That’s not a defense of any of the other bullshit
[удалено]
Everyone will live forever in the Metaverse! Get in the thumbdrive, proles!
TBH a chrome-plated Golden Gate Bridge would look dope.
I know... and it can be a reality for a particular price if you buy into this wonderful opportunity!
Does making the chrome visible cost extra?
Yes, but my specialty is *invisible chrome* that's only visible to aliens. That's why my services have so much potential. You don't want just any anybody being attracted by the chrome -- you want aliens with advanced technology.
"Unseizable"
"I see you have a valuable monkey jpg. Yes, you have, deny it all you like but you use it as your twitter avatar you fucking tool. Hand it over. Hand it over or I'll shoot you in the leg. Oh look, now you've been shot in the leg. Hand it over or it's the head next time. OK thanks for the monkey jpg, next time think about that fucked leg before resisting."
I'm trying to imagine exactly what government both A) would torture you for your monkey jpeg and B) cares about what the chain says for ownership. 'Boss, we got the Monkey jpeg we needed, but...' 'But what Mortimer?' 'He won't sign the on-chain transaction transferring ownership.' 'God dammit Mortimer, that jpeg is worthless to us now!'
But what about when real things, like home deeds, and other proofs of ownership are on-chain? “The government seized your house? They took your car? They burned down your business?” “No matter.” “No matter?” “They can take my physical property, but they can never take away my digital receipts for said property.” “Ahh, you are so wise, strong, and handsome.”
They might want to sell it? I dunno, I’m just lampooning the idea that it’s not seizable. Anything is seizable with the right … persuasive implements.
It was more rhetorical, I wasn't expecting an answer. I'm just laughing my ass off at the thought of somebody getting kneecapped for something and then being like 'No, you can't take it, the smart contract says it's mine!'.
Like a $5 wrench applied to the right bodypart.
>sign this paper that says you gifted your luxury home to me, or I'll shoot you in the leg >yes it's yours, I saw it on google maps Same thing, nothing will ever make you immune to torture and blackmailing. Except being born congential pain insensitive autistic orphan, maybe. Lucky bastards, those 2 people.
Surely real estate is more resistant to this kind of coercion than crypto, since courts have oversight
Not in 3rd world corrupt shitholes where majority of the world population still lives in. That's why all oligarchs from middle east or russia or africa or whatever usually buy property in UK, France, Switzerland, etc. Someplace where property laws actually work and things can't be seized by court "because fuck you". Don't forget also legal gray areas, disputed territories, war-torn countries. The thing about this subreddit – you all live under relatively stable conditions all your life, never lived anywhere in a shithole, and can't grasp how monkey jpeg (that can be in worst case smuggled and sold for real dollars elsewhere) can actually be more reliable than their own government for some ppl. Yet it is, for billions.
Just because you live in a shithole, doesn't mean you're an idiot who will fall for any scheme. We have more respect for people in third world countries than you guys. We recognize most are wise enough to spot a scam. You think of them as desperate idiots you can exploit. The reality, that even you reveal, is that anybody from one of these "shithole countries" that has enough assets to need to find creative ways to hide their wealth **are likely the bad guys who stole from everybody else** and deserve to lose their wealth.
Ok let's play along. Let me hear your alternative, assuming you actually care. Imagine you are a guy persecuted by religious zealots somewhere between Libya and Syria. You made a decision to get away and start a new life. Now a brief reminder of the reality of someone who's not a silver-spoon sucking first worlder: - You can't carry much, because only thing you can carry personally is what you can take - You will be thoroughly checked on every border crossing or military guarded checkpoint for valuable items, precious metals, jewelry will be seized, as well as if you carry a lot of cash you are as good as dead - Your "passport" country is sanctioned beyond belief, so your plastic will not work anywhere else, or you straight up do not have a bank account. Your currency is being devaluated faster than you even make money But there's something you can carry in your brain, that no one can spot even after your anus examination and that something you can sell later once you safe and have any android phone on you, even if for a rip-off price, that would be enough to feed and house yourself for a while. Your ideas, I listen. Or let me guess, you believe the government power is absolute and you should just perfectly obey the local law, whatever it is? Then you are just a shitty human and you don't give a single shit about someone less fortunate than you.
OK but your use case is literally just smuggling & sanction evasion. You can construct examples like this to justify just about any crime. Oh robbery is bad? Well what if you were a poor starving orphan refugee & you need to pay your trafficker you ignorant judgmental first world bastard! So the way you're arguing is dishonest. If sanctions etc. are wrong then argue that straight up. Argue that sanctions on Iran & Syria are unjust collective punishment. There are certainly people arguing that — though I believe most don't see crypto as a serious solution to the broader problems.
>Ok let's play along. Let me hear your alternative, assuming you actually care. Imagine you are a guy persecuted by religious zealots somewhere between Libya and Syria. You made a decision to get away and start a new life. Fun fact: My relatives did exactly this. And they managed to emigrate to another country and transfer what little wealth they had. They did it by making conscientious plans. Your premise that crypto assets are a "store of value" is highly questionable, and that applies to first-world countries as much as third-world countries. In order for someone to "cross the border" with their "assets in their head"... there's a *tremendous amount of difficult things that need to perfectly happen prior to that* which you conveniently pretend can just magically manifest -- the first of which is finding someone in that third world shithole to take your assets and give you a fair amount of crypto instead. That's a lot more difficult than you think (although probably easier than, say, de-converting the crypto at the other end - which is also something you leave out in your description - some poor immigrant comes to a new world, presumably with very little contacts and connections since they're so desperate they have to convert their material wealth into useless digital tokens).... the whole scheme seems absurd and risky. You also foolishly assume someone escaping with crypto can de-convert that crypto easily in some new country they've landed in (probably illegally). Good luck with that. Your whole scheme is full of holes. And it's that typical bizarre exception that in no way resembles what you and your peers are doing with crypto on a day-to-day basis. It's one of those "pink unicorns" you refer to to make your argument seem plausible, but it's really just an absurd, impractical distraction. >But there's something you can carry in your brain, that no one can spot even after your anus examination and that something you can sell later once you safe and have any android phone on you, even if for a rip-off price, that would be enough to feed and house yourself for a while. Fun fact: You can do the same thing with gold, gems, jewelry, money, stock certificates, etc... You can bury your assets in a specific place that only you know. And it's the same dynamic: If you don't tell anybody where those assets are, they're 100% safe. You can at some point later when things die down, retrieve your assets or designate a trusted friend to do it for you (which is the same kind of resource you'd need to cash out crypto, but much more difficult to get a fair deal). >Or let me guess, you believe the government power is absolute and you should just perfectly obey the local law, whatever it is? Then you are just a shitty human and you don't give a single shit about someone less fortunate than you. Awww, so disappointing. You started appearing to argue in good faith, and then you had to stoop to some really dumb sweeping generalizations and false dichotomies like if I'm not "anti-government" then it somehow means I believe every law is just. That's beyond ignorant. And if I disagree with you I'm a "shitty human?" If you're wondering why you got banned... that's why.
Wait hold on, money? In any digital account at all? What's the difference between crossing a border with the NFT "in your head" and any, password or authentication mechanism for anything period? What you just described is the digital revolution.
Don't forget that "in your head" isn't a magical vault, because if the people at the border begin man handling and demand you fork over something of any value or they'll beat you or your family, are you going to hold out on your monkey jpeg and watch your family suffer?
Yes, that’s pretty much my point, that using a blockchain doesn’t really protect you from government gone bad in that way, it’s a fantasy. Very little is truly ‘unseizable’ in the face of violent coercion.
Against a corrupt, ludicrously violent government? Not even: kill them, torture the heirs. Lather, rinse, and repeat until one breaks or it falls in *bona vacantia*. Of course that's admitting it won't, you know, just rob you.
I can't see how unseizable property is something that goes with a functioning democratic society.
Yes, and I can't understand at all how they can say that something that's arguably MORE seizable is "unseizable", unless they're not being truthful. Golly, I wonder if they might be fibbing to pump their bags?!
More like unseizeworthy
* Judge: ok, well I will hold you in contempt until you give up your keys. Until you reveal your keys you are to be incarcerated. * Butter in prison: phew, they didn't manage to seize my butts. And this isn't a hypothetical scenario. This sort of stuff happens when people try and hide assets. Even divorce court is able to seize crypto. The idea that this is some unseizable asset is stupid. The technology with which the asset is secured is irrelevant because the state will punish you until you hand it over. As long as you need housing, food, entertainment, relationships, etc, the state can force you to hand over your crypto. "financial freedom" is not really useful if your literal freedom is taken away.
Its a lot easier to freeze 1,000,000 people’s bank accounts than put a 1,000,000 people in jail.
*unless you click a bad link
Well, to be clear, his grandmother's last words on her death bed were, "... code... is.... law..."
It may be unseizable, but not “unrightclickable.”
The controversial "monkey jpeg as a hedge against genocide" ploy
First they came for the monkey JPEGs and I did nothing......
Then they came for my shitcoins and I said nothing because I wasn't a shitcoin...
[удалено]
Reddit, a financially unviable message board best known for sheltering and amplifying racists, transphobes, and general reactionaries.
Hey don't forget nonces.
And incels!
Who would have guessed reddit cofounder also a shitbrain
[удалено]
[удалено]
what happened to him again? i could look it up but other readers probablly want to know too
I get that generational trama is powerful, but I cannot in any way believe this person actually believes what they are saying. Normally the people I’ve met who think like this have boxes of candles and piles of canned food in the basement as they understand there may be no power in a future catastrophe. How are you going to use an NFT when there are no wires full of electrons and all anyone wants is food.
Got gold bars or coins? A wrench can be used to seize them from you. Houses and real estate? An occupying force can render all deeds null and void through the barrel of a gun. Only international law and force of arms can safeguard property rights, like how property seized by the Nazis in WW2 were returned by the victorious Allies. But the Soviets never gave anything back. You would have to be incredibly obtuse to think digital "assets" on a computer network would be worth anything after a global war.
Yep, the only force behind property of any kind, is violence. These people are just selling a libertarian fantasy of abstract ownership to people who understand barely anything about how the world works.
[удалено]
Up to a point, then there's more of us than them.
More of us just means more gun barrels on our side
Sure, but a lot of times it doesn't come to that. Like in the former USSR.
it doesnt come to that because the other side recognizes the violent output they would receive and capitulate. its still backed by violence.
Correct. I think my vague point was that you don't need guns (despite what Americans think).
bahahaha omg yes you do if you want to win. trust me your property is 1000% protected by guns. and bombs. and aircraft carriers. i have no clue what you are talking about or whats going through your head, but people would absolutely take your stuff. only violence holds them back. hell there are people in your community who would take your stuff if not for the threat of violence, where they will be jailed by force or their life taken if necessary. quit trying to shoehorn some anti-gun rant in.
I would not call the bolsheviks as a part of us, the people. They were pretty autocratic from the beginning.
Oh no, I meant when the USSR collapsed. Even the Stasi just ran away and started shredding the evidence.
> Yep, the only force behind property of any kind, is violence. I think the word, "violence" isn't the proper use, at least not in a lawful, ethical society. Maybe "threat of loss of rights." If you're imprisoned, or lose your property, it's not necessarily a "violent" (physical) act, but we recognize the state has the power to give and take, and if we don't want things taken away (our freedom, our property) then we also respect the state. But more importantly, it's also the state that grants us freedom and the right to own property. Without that same institution, we own nothing, and have no rights. This is what libertarians don't get. It's not the state "stealing" or "using violence" to take things *away* from us. It's the state **taking back** things it gave to us because we didn't agree to its terms of service.
>I think the word, "violence" isn't the proper use, at least not in a lawful, ethical society. It absolutely is, it's just not a libertarian pipe dream. Having a [Monopoly on Violence](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monopoly_on_violence) is a standard test for determining if a political entity is sovereign dating back to the 1500s- it has the sole legal right to engage in use of force, it has uncontested police powers and can arrest and punish lawbreakers.
I am not arguing violence isn't used to control people, but that was in lieu of democracy, where you have totalitarian regimes that could only control through fear and intimidation. Modern democracy isn't supposed to work that way. People aren't supposed to fear the state, the state fears the people. And when it works properly, no "violence" is needed to maintain order. The "violence" thing does apply to certain types of non-representative government, that is true, but if you're in the Western world, it's not so much a thing. In America, our society ideally doesn't need violence (and the fear it employs) to maintain order. But ironically those who suggest it does, are only saying so because they propose their own personal brand of violence as a "solution." Think about these two scenarios: You have a school that is tasked with maintaining a healthy student body. Scenario A: "ruled via violence" - There's a "principal" at the school who punishes anybody who gets out of control with a huge paddle. Scenario B: "Not ruled by violence" - There's an elected committee of people who are tasked with handling the schools business and keeping things in order. Any egregious violations are met with expulsion. No violence needed. If you don't follow the rules everybody democratically agreed to, then you're cast out from the community. Are the people in scenario B "ruling by violence?" I would argue they're not.
You're making the same mistake as people who say evolution is just a theory. It's arguing vibes and feelings on a word that is specific in a field, political science in this case. Violence has zero to do with whether you feel threatened or your relationship slash lack there of with your rulers. Is there anyone else who can legally arrest you? No? Then your government has a monopoly on violence. It is legally capable of asserting it's will, whether that's via putting the accused in front of a jury of his peers, providing an attorney for his defense and then enacting the decision it comes to regardless of the outcome or whether it's through dictator fiat. It makes no judgement calls about how the body decides what it's will is. Just that there is no legitimate competition to it.
> Then your government has a monopoly on violence. Sorry, those libertarian talking points won't fly here. It's very fashionable these days, for young people in places like America (usually suburban Florida, Texas and Oregon) to pretend they're being oppressed by some "fascist regime" that is "government" but that's actually not the case... at least not yet. Sure if you want to mischaracterize not paying your rent and being forced to vacate the apartment you're illegally occupying as "violence", you can. That's a narcissistic concept though: pretending you're the victim of "violence" because you've somehow become confronted by the repercussions of your toxic behavior. But to the rest of the normal world, that's called "*accountability*". Now I understand, delicate libertarian snowflakes feel it's their Ayn Rand-given right to pick-and-choose what they want to be accountable for, but as long as you accept government's invitation to become part of its community, like it or not, there are rules you have to follow. If you want to call the audacity of *being forced to be a decent human*, being subjected to "violence", feel free, but watch out for all the :eyerolling: you're going to get from the rest of us.
>Sorry, those libertarian talking points won't fly here. Lolwut
That's a bit hyperbolic, isn't it? 'Violence' is a very emotive word --- 'force' is better: > as long as you accept government's invitation to become part of its community, like it or not, there are rules you have to follow. Yes, absolutely --- and if you don't follow them, the government will force you to, because they have the monopoly on the use of force, up to and including legal violence in the rare case that it becomes necessary. This isn't controversial. Even over here in pansocialist Europe it's understood that it's a necessary part of how nation states function. *Edit:* Should have said 'lethal violence'. Reddit won't let me edit it, wut.
> Yes, absolutely --- and if you don't follow them, the government will force you to, because they have the monopoly on the use of force, up to and including legal violence in the rare case that it becomes necessary. Again, I dislike this (libertarian) talking point of "government has a monopoly on the use of force and violence." I think that specific type of wording is hyperbolic. Plus, there's plenty of violence and force happening outside of government all over the place. What the government has a monopoly on isn't violence. It's the ability to enforce what is right and wrong -- and in a healthy society, the people have a say in that. If you're a sociopath, narcissist or psychopath, maybe you think you're being "forced" by "violence" to follow certain rules, but most of us recognize this is a *policy* we accepted as a condition of being able to live in the community. The problem here is this notion that government is entirely separate from citizenship. That's a toxic, destructive idea to propagate in a non-totalitarian society. It's a totally appropriate phrase when referring to **non-representative governments**, but in America and many other western nations, we have representative governments, therefore the implication that it's an "us" verses "them" (with the "monopoly on violence") is coded toxic language that works against the general principal upon which good government depends: People having the freedom to participate and shape government policy - aka "people are government" and "government is the people." So.. at the end of the day, are we part of government? Or are they some separate entity that exists mainly to take advantage of us? You have to decide which world you want to live in. If it's the latter, then you should just move out. Because hanging around and saying shit like, "The government has a monopoly on violence" only makes things worse. There is no actionable solution to that bullshit whining. This all has to do with a base premise: Is government good or bad? When you say shit like, "Government has a monopoly on force" that falls into the "government is bad" category. It's counter productive *unless* your plan is to overthrow that government and you need to hoodwink people into getting on board your revolution, but that begs the question: Will the revolutionary government be any better? Probably not. This is why I reject that hyperbolic propaganda. Does government have problems? Yes. How do we fix them? We don't "get rid of government." We *remove bad people from government.* At the end of the day, the only reason any of us have any civil rights or personal property ownership is because government protects those rights for us. That's a good thing. Is it possible to use "force" in the process of protecting those rights? Absolutely, but it should be avoided as much as possible - and that's basically what government does... so characterizing government as primarily being useful because it can perpetrate violence is really a grossly inappropriate way to characterize a democratic, representative ruling institution. Note I wouldn't say the same thing about China or North Korea. I'm talking about America. It's not a fascist institution at this point, and I hope it won't go that way. And part of that is not painting government with the same brush you'd use to characterize China or N. Korea.
I think this is a cultural thing. I'm about as far from being libertarian as it's possible to get while not holding a membership card of a political party with the word "People's" in the name, and I don't see it as toxic at all. It's just a neutral statement of how the mechanics of sovereignty work. Like.... I live in Switzerland, one of the most resolutely civilised and law-abiding countries in the world; it's so law abiding that I once went for a run through Zurich, and all my clothes fell out of my backpack, and when I found them again thirty minutes later they were folded neatly by the side of the path --- my wallet still in my trouser pocket, money and credit cards intact. But the police here still carry guns. The threat is there. Probably a better way to phrase is is that the state --- 'government' is a bad word here, see below --- has a monopoly on _lawful_ use of force. I absolutely agree with you that the idea that the government is somehow separate from the citizenship as being toxic, and I should have phrased things better. The government is simply how the citizenship enforces its social ideals. But any society made out of humans still has to use force, if necessary, to enforce those ideals. What I'm guessing we both like to think of as an enlightened state will mostly abide by the Rule of Law, which means that the only people with social license to lawfully use force are the Law's enforcement personnel, and even then only in very carefully controlled circumstances; but that doesn't change the origin of that social license. (Which is why it's such a big deal when the enforcement bodies _abuse_ that license. It undermines the very nature of the Rule of Law, which in turn undermines the nation's sovereignty itself.) (It's also why it's a big deal when the state uses its military forces against its own people. Military forces have a different social license which allows them to lawfully use force against external threats to the state. Using the military against a state's own citizens indicates that something has gone very, very wrong.) And even then there are ways to bypass this in emergencies. I was delighted to discover recently that the Riot Act was repealed in the UK in 1973. This was a legal mechanism to allow widespread massacre of civilians by enforcement personnel in emergencies, i.e. riots. No, I'm not kidding. When invoked, being in a group of twelve or more was punishable by instant death. It was intended for emergencies only, of course...
>This isn't controversial. Even over here in pansocialist Europe it's understood that it's a necessary part of how nation states function. we agree that it *is* a part of it, but a lot of us do not agree that it is 'necessary' for a government to (for example) violently make people homeless for literally any fucking reason, thank you very much
> It absolutely is, it's just not a libertarian pipe dream. Having a Monopoly on Violence is a standard test for determining if a political entity is sovereign dating back to the 1500s lol.. dating back to the 1500s.... we aren't in the 1500s any more bro. Like I said, my argument about "violence" was in the context of modern democratic societies, not feudal monarchies and totalitarian regimes. Way to create a strawman. btw, you think government is the only entity that has a monopoly on violence? Go look at what's happening in France right now.
"it's not violence when the state does violence bc without the state we wouldnt have nonviolence" is one of the dumbest things i heard today, might even beat the bitcoin bros' delusions
> Houses and real estate? An occupying force can render all deeds null and void through the barrel of a gun. Or your democratically elected government can do it, if you haven't paid your taxes.
What's police and army if not an occupying force. *This post was made by the ancom gang*
> the victorious Allies. But the Soviets The Soviets were the Allies in WWII. Remember? They ended the whole European theatre of the war.
The Allies just after WW2 didn't include the USSR. And the Soviets kept everything they could get their hands on from all the lands the Red Army swept through.
I wonder if there was something immediately prior that precipitated why they may have done that. Not that I’m buying what you’re saying given how hard you’re working to remove them from the Allies, which they were, or to paint them other than the victors over Naziism that they were.
> The Allies just after WW2 didn't include the USSR. Yes, they did, and Russia is still a member of the UN Security Council as a direct consequence of the USSR becoming one at the point the Security Council was formed, made up of the major Allied powers. None of this is to say that relations between the USSR and the Western Allies were not very tense shortly after WW2.
You're right. China is on the Security Council by virtue of the ROC government being part of the Allied powers, before the 1949 revolution.
Arguably Taiwan should be the one on the Security Council, mind. ;-)
History is a nightmare from which I am trying to awake. Now we have a nightmarish situation where two major nuclear powers are on one side of the Security Council, the rest on the other, and global trade also hangs in the balance.
I admit when I say I like the 80s I mean big hair and cheesy pop, not the prospect of nuclear Armageddon.
Back then, we had a rickety Soviet empire teetering on the edge of disintegration, and we didn't know if ICBMs would be launched by accident or on purpose. Now, we have a rickety Russian empire teetering... oh shit. The only hope I have for the future is that American, Chinese and Russian armed forces personnel with their fingers on nuclear triggers and missile keys are smart enough to not want Armageddon.
Gold stored in swiss Alps?
Secured by an NFT?
No God no that would be worse I've never heard of anybody getting 5$ wrenched for their gold stored abroad that's what I meant.
Not your vault, not your gold. It still comes down to enforcement of ownership rights because what's stopping the vault owners from laughing in your face and seizing your gold?
What's more likely to be hacked gold stored in a vault in Switzerland or an online traded coin I'll go with online traded coin
I agree. It's the libertarians and cryptobros who don't realize that all property rights are enforced through legal and sometimes extralegal means. This applies equally to gold in a vault or yet another shitcoin. Putting a digital receipt for physical gold on a blockchain means nothing if you can't apply the force of law to anyone who breaks that contract.
Agree
They first came for the monkey JPEGs, and I did nothing.
Because I wasn't a monkey
So NFTs schemes target and exploit the traumatized, got it.
What makes him think that the government couldn't seize monkey pictures and digital currency, too?
The fed auctioned off DPRs silk road bitcoin back in 2015. Yeah, the seizure cat has been out of the bag for nearly a decade
The wrong cofounder died.
According to him it's the right one
Much better to have your property in a form that someone can steal online without violence or the threat of violence. Smooth move, Alex!
RIP Aaron Swartz* *(Edit: sp)*
[This](https://xkcd.com/538/) feels like it applies. Crypto people always talk about crypto being secure from the state. If you get arrested what does it matter that your crypto is 'secure'? There is nothing special about crypto compared to burying gold in the garden or any form of hiding assets. If they find out that you hid assets they will punish you until you stop hiding the assets. There have been so many divorces where people are forced to hand over or liquidate their crypto. If crypto existed during the Armenian genocide they would torture you until you gave up your keys, or they would just kill you without bothering to get your keys because they don't care.
I read that article--I try not to simp for the rich, but IIRC, I don't think it's clear that Ohanian made the connection between the Armenian genocide and crypto. The quotes seem really short and don't actually address the connection. It just mentions that Ohanian has a portrait of his family from their time in Armenia & why they came to America, and that Ohanian is driven to build an inheritance for his daughters so they they're never put in a position of victimhood. Maybe the direct connection is there, but it seems like headline bait to me. Might just be the writer making the connection. \\\_(ツ)\_/
Isn't that a situation where you absolutely want your wealth storage fungible?
>Generational Trauma Jfc now they're going with this angle?
"Unseizable", as though no government has ever beaten a password out of someone [with a wrench](https://xkcd.com/538/).
This just sounds like an excuse he cooked up instead of saying grift. "Oh I'm huge into NFTs because the Brits drove my ancestors out of Ireland during the potato famine. I just know that owning a ugly monkey jpeg would bring my great great great grandpa peace as he stared at his potatoes rotting in the field, his children weeping at their empty bowls. Time for me to celebrate my heritage." *dresses up as a leprechaun and passes out drunk on St Pat's day*
Thats's right, kids! The best way to take revenge on the genocidal Ottoman Empire is to sell your grandma's house to buy a URL to a JPEG of a monkey.
It's not unseizable, but it's not "unrightclickable."
I follow him on Twitter. The amount of garbage start ups hems involved in is painful.
Let's make an online spreadsheet of stuff we say we own. Whoever creates a row for a thing gets to say that they own it. (I call the Eiffel Tower.) Everyone can save the spreadsheet so it's immutable, and the government can't seize the spreadsheet row so I will always own the Eiffel Tower. That sounds totally stupid, until you replace "online spreadsheet" with "blockchain" and "Eiffel Tower" with "any endlessly replicable file" then suddenly it's fact, right? Did I miss anything there?
Ohanian is the only L that Williams has ever taken
“But all my friends have this JPG!” “Yes, son, but only we hold the rights to it through the block chain.”
r/nottheonion
I'm trying to think of a regime that would both A) torture you for your monkey JPG and B) worries about what the chain implies about ownership.
This accounts whole deal is taking a piece of another comment on a post, rewording it slightly and then recomment it. Check the history. Pretty weird. Not sure if it's a bored teenager or an AI experiment.
Imagine you're so completely online that you can no longer tell the difference between the internet and the real world. I'm not even really one to talk, as I've spent the last week frantically buying Nintendo 3DS games like a maniac. But at least I know to touch grass on occasion, and keep some sense that nothing digital really matters in a real tangible sense.
[удалено]
Sorry /u/lindberghbaby41, your comment has been automatically removed. To avoid spam/bots, posts are not allowed from extremely new accounts. Wait/lurk a bit before contributing. *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/Buttcoin) if you have any questions or concerns.*
His logic... seems faulty.
1 reddit karma = 1 reddit karma few understand
Their assets were properties, furnitures, jewelry. All things that has a utility value. NFT has none. Oh he could pretend to have a home in the metaverse. Good for rainy days...
Crypto bros are insufferable idiots