Different kind of crypto nerd but still
this post was submitted on 09 May 2025
270 points (97.2% liked)
Technology
69867 readers
3115 users here now
This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.
Our Rules
- Follow the lemmy.world rules.
- Only tech related news or articles.
- Be excellent to each other!
- Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
- Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
- Politics threads may be removed.
- No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
- Only approved bots from the list below, this includes using AI responses and summaries. To ask if your bot can be added please contact a mod.
- Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed
- Accounts 7 days and younger will have their posts automatically removed.
Approved Bots
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
this reminds me of the advice for people who win the lottery
make an anonymous LLC company to accept your win, so you can stay incognito
pay a lawyer and an accountant so you can continue to stay incognito and only tell your trusted friends and family about your good fortune
so crazy assholes don't come for you or them
I guess this now applies to making it big in crypto money
NOPE. Do not tell your family and friends. Everyone should read this, just in case. Besides, it's fascinating.
https://www.reddit.com/r/AskReddit/comments/24vo34/comment/chb38xf/
Yeah that’s probably the single most useful comment in reddit history
Isn't it only useful to a handful of people?
That some messed up US thing i never understood. Here in germany you are anonymous by default when you win. at most it is published from what state the winner was.
That someone's name and even address is published is so completely unimaginably absurd to me. makes no sense whatsoever.
There's actually extremely strong logic behind publishing the winner. It's a whole hell of a lot harder to rig when your name is everywhere when you win.
It's a whole hell of a lot harder to rig when your name is everywhere when you win.
This also sounds like a uniquely US problem. Not that there aren't scammers everywhere, but it feels like it would be more prevalent in the US.
.... That's an absolute wild and hella nationalistic take. There's nothing even slightly uniquely Americans about embezzlement and theft-- Europe has been doing that for thousands of years before America even existed
I did acknowledge that it's not exclusive to the US. And I didn't say "it is", I said "it feels like".
FTX, Theranos, Fyre Festival, Enron, Bernie Madoff, Logan Paul's CrytoZoo, Charles Ponzi (the OG Ponzi scammer), etc.
While scams exist everywhere, the US seems specially suited to embolden people to run scams. At least high profile ones.
Fiduciary and accountant. Though the accountant may be redundant there. Fiduciaries are a specific type of lawyer/ financial advisor that is required to look out for your best interests, not theirs.
What knowing someone rich in an untraceable currency does to a greedy ass criminal .
If you are rich, or at least well-off, SHUT UP. Conventional currencies already cause this, imagine untraceable currencies like crypto is.
in an untraceable currency
The majority of cryptos are far from "untraceable", just harder to prove depending on how well they laundered it.
They have to be loud about it because they are crypto influencers. If they shut up after getting rich they lose it all.
As much as I dislike crypto, this is not a crypto fail story, even though the article paints it like that a few times (or at least the tone implies).
No one should have their finger servered because of other people's greediness.
These are the occasions I wish death penalty was a thing, especially for those cases where the idiots have been caught in the act - there are better things to do with my tax money than making sure they have a place to live in and some nice good meals to go with it.
Many that live deserve death. And some that die deserve life. Can you give it to them? Then do not be too eager to deal out death in judgement.
This made no sense; even if we overlook the objectification of people.
So, because I can't solve one problem, I shouldn't ever try to solve a different one? I like Gandalf as much as the next guy, but their world is very simple - evil is evil, good is good and there's no place for shades of gray.
It means death is final and you shouldn't always act rashly. Gollum was a baby eater and absolutely evil.
We need more Gandalves and less Sarumen.
The death penalty doesn't work at all because the state serves capital (among other reasons). The worst offenders are never punished.
If you want the death penalty, there are far worse crimes than this. Just look at the genocide of Palestinians. Those murderers are invited to dinner with presidents.
These are the occasions I wish death penalty was a thing, especially for those cases where the idiots have been caught in the act - there are better things to do with my tax money than making sure they have a place to live in and some nice good meals to go with it.
I do understand how you feel about that and I do kinda feel the same, BUT ... you always have to assure that every last person has rights and gets acceptable treatment, even the ones who seemingly have no soul. Because if there's ever a category of people without rights, any government would have an easy way to get rid of eveyone critizing them.
load more comments
(2 replies)
As a side note. A death penalty case actually costs more than a life sentence.
In the US where they decided to make the punitive system for-profit?
No. It's more that they have higher costs and it averages out around 20 years. So it's close to the average length of a life sentence except if they're young. It's only real cheap if you have a kangaroo court and just shoot people.
Of course.
While I do recognise the colloquial and unserious tone of your argument, I have to disagree wholeheartedly: Human right are universal.
I mean, it's hard. I'm not really against death penalty on its own, I think there are crimes which deserve exactly that. My issue with death penalty is how easy it is to misuse. So in a theoretical world where some perfect entity with no ability to make mistakes decides who gets it, I'm 100% in favour. In the real world, not so much.
As long as we have the option to separate and isolate, nobody deserves to be killed. The death penalty is nothing more than formalised murder, however one chooses to look at it.
Atonement and facing the consequences of one's actions during a long life in prison is a fate worse than death IMO. Even for a sociopath.
And it is false that the death penalty is cheaper than life sentences: https://sites.psu.edu/bleonard/2020/11/30/the-death-penalty-v-life-in-prison/
But above it all, while there are persons unjustly sentenced to death and found later Innocent, can we really keep doing this?
That's a very American context where prisons are for-profit companies (wtf USA?), that's why everything is so expensive. In a normal country death sentence wouldn't cost nearly as much.
The prisons that hold death row inmates are not private, for-profit companies. The numbers have been falling steadily and are incredibly low. Still a problem, because that number is high enough to have stupid amounts of influence, but it has nothing to do with death penalty costs. Those are all because we afford death row inmates a large amount of appeals, which costs 'lawyer money' where some prosecuting lawyer pretends he wasn't on a salary and they claim it's worth X hours x Y wage, and the defense attorney does the same but with a little more truth because he is getting paid by the hour.
Sure, you can call it that and yeah, it might make some people think more before being in favour of it just because it doesn't sound as bad.
But I disagree with the first part, plenty deserve to be killed, always had and always will.
In theory death penalty is exactly that - people justly decide that someone harms society too much and they don't want that person in society.
(again, note that I don't think it should be implemented in real world because of how easily corruptible people are)
No. Murder is murder. There is no rationalising one's way around it. There is no acceptable context for killing someone other than immediate self-defence, which is not the case when discussing things in terms of justice systems.
Killing is never justice.
There is no acceptable context for killing someone other than immediate self-defence
But you know he's gonna kill a hundred people next week. Starve ten thousands people to death over the next six months. Start world war 3, and cause the death of millions of people. Those people people have no recourse to self defence, but you could defend them, right now.
Again, this is not immediate self-defence, this is something else entirely: this type of situation demands systemic change.
As a Romanian, our Revolution ended the instant the people took back control of this nation and Ceaușescu had no more power (it was obvious, because literally nobody was taking orders from him at that point). Then they shot him. Then they shot his wife. That's the point when the Revolution just turned into mob murder.
In this case, it is the people's duty to protect their collective interests, yes, but killing still isn't justified. You remove them from authority then send them on their merry way to live out their standards alone, far from the rest of us.
Friggin' children know this already, if someone doesn't play nice, you stop playing with them. Why the hell are we still debating the ""virtues"" of murder?!
Again, this is not immediate self-defence, this is something else entirely: this type of situation demands systemic change.
I'm aware it's not immediate self defence, that's kind of the point of the question. How many people die while you work on that change? Why are ok killing to defend yourself now, but not to defend a hundred people tomorrow?
You remove them from authority then send them on their merry way to live out their standards alone, far from the rest of us.
And you hope they don't come back with more people and a plan for revenge. Napoleon was sent off on his merry way. His return cost over 50,000 lives.
Friggin’ children know this already, if someone doesn’t play nice, you stop playing with them.
And what if they won't let you stop playing with then? Children know bullies, too, and know that you can't just ignore them.
Why the hell are we still debating the ““virtues”” of murder?!
Because you are unwilling to admit that some people need killing. Not very many, in my opinion. There are usually better options. But killing someone is the only way to be 100% sure that they stop hurting people.
Yeah, it's really easy to kill someone when you're locked up all day in a double-walled room, or when you're exiled alone on an island... Good thinking...
This is why our society is going down the gutter, because people are still trying to rationalise and justify the unjustifiable...
when you’re exiled alone on an island…
50,000 corpses at Waterloo would debate this one with you.
Yep, we're totally in those times... You do realise our methods and resources have changed immensely, right? It can be done. Your way remains and shall remain unjustifiable.
Universal but also uninalienable
Death Penalty has no justification. Expand your mind past the recitivist police state mentality before you get us all killed starting with the most marginalized kthx and byyeeeee
I dont like death penalty for the people who would deserve it because it lets them off too easy. Why should they be allowed to leave this hell in easy way while we have to remain.
And what does that achieve? Nothing. It's just revenge which is useless. If it's an easy way out, so be it. It's also an easy way away from others.
Not sure about death penalty, but having access to euthanasia both inside and outside prison feels like a better solution. Outside first, you don't want people commiting crimes just to access euthanasia.
load more comments
(3 replies)
view more: next ›