This is especially true for public user generated content. Any public content should be accessible without limits, but that is not the case with web2(twitter, public Instagram, forums etc).
ofcourse, there are some server costs but the primary reason the walled-gardens do this is more business related than to reduce costs.
There is zero weight to the claim. Not only does it ignore an massive amount of improvements since the early 90's, it seems to completely ignore what Web 2.0 was about.
> Any public content should be accessible without limits,
This is not related to the discussion, even if I did agree with it.
> but that is not the case with web2(twitter, public Instagram, forums etc).
Twitter and "forums" are all completely accessible via a browser, which is literally what the original claim suggests we've "lost". You don't need to read twitter with a special twitter client, you read it with the any HATEOAS client.
> ignore an massive amount of improvements since the early 90's
That's not the point. having massive improvements since 90s does not imply that we are going to continue from the same path from here on.
> completely accessible via a browser
accessible via a browser is not the same as accessible / interoperable broadly.
> You don't need to read twitter with a special twitter client
YES, some people want to. or maybe I want to do some data analytics, maybe I want to create a localized twitter, or I want to do take public social graphs and do something with it.
web2.0 was about standardizing transport level protocols, web3 is(imo) about standardizing application level protocols using commitment guarantees.
When I use some web2 service, there is almost no commitment guarantees(you can get censored, your data might be access gated or deleted, banks can stop you from doing certain transactions).
Crypto and web3 is about fixing these issues. If Bitcoin promises to work in a certain way today, it will more likely than not work in the same way 10 years from now.
if "web3" works anything like crypto, there wouldn't be any rate limiting as long as you have control over your own node(it might be more expensive / harder to set one up though).
> Wash trading is a process whereby a trader buys and sells a security for the express purpose of feeding misleading information to the market. In some situations, wash trades are executed by a trader and a broker who are colluding with each other, and other times wash trades are executed by investors acting as both the buyer and the seller of the security. Wash trading is illegal under U.S. law, and the IRS bars taxpayers from deducting losses that result from wash trades from their taxable income. [1]
Whew, good thing it's not a security, otherwise it would 100% absolutely be a half billion dollar illegal wash trade, and that kind of stuff comes with time in the big house. IANAL, but stunts, amirite?
We can't apply 1:1 laws to crypto precisely because of this.
I can write a piece of code in a few minutes for all the collection I own, does not make it wash trading. In fact, you can very easily check it on etherscan or similar tools that this was a flash loan.
> We can't apply 1:1 laws to crypto precisely because of this.
I think in a lot of cases that's simply wishful thinking. They Howey test is actually a very good fit in the crypto space broadly, especially alongside the guidance from the SEC on how to interpret it with respect to digital assets. [1] Most tokens are just straight-up securities, what we're lacking isn't regulation but enforcement.
NFTs are likely not securities as they fail the Howey test. [2] Fractionalized NFTs, however, probably are securities.
> I can write a piece of code in a few minutes for all the collection I own, does not make it wash trading.
It's still wash trading, of course, it may not be a crime because it's not done against a security as I mentioned.
IMO it could be some other kind of fraud or civil matter already as you're enticing a purchase on the basis of intentionally misrepresenting past trades. If not, I agree, this might be a good area for some additional regulation, either here or in markets broadly (I'm looking at you, art and collectibles).
NFTs are likely not securities as they fail the Howey test.
NFTs for things that already exist are likely not securities. But NFTs for things that don't exist yet, such as as virtual land in un-implemented virtual worlds, do pass the Howey Test. You're funding the development of something, not buying something that already exists. That's an investment. At some point, probably after the first widely publicized collapse, the SEC will shut many of the future-oriented NFTs down, much as they did to the ICOs starting in 2018.
Virtual land in vaporware virtual worlds is the same scam as selling undeveloped swampland in Florida, a popular scam in the 1950s.[1] There are few new scams. It's mostly the same old ones with new shiny packaging. Most of them are listed in Extraordinary Popular Delusions and the Madness of Crowds, from 1841.
So to be clear the community is encouraging criminality and attempting to brow-beat folks suggesting compliance with the law into accepting said criminality? Sounds healthy, and definitely not like a cult.
It’s not a good look to be on the receiving end of government benefits and services, gloating about your lack of contribution and encouraging others not to. This may look good in crypto circles but here in the real world it makes you look pretty bad, not gonna lie.
I've always wondered how those Bond villains accrued an army of employees on their remote militarized outposts helping them do crime, though I'm beginning to suspect they just slippery-sloped their way into it.
So to be clear, no, that's not what the meme is about. Is your essay from GPT-3?
It's about not offering anything to a discussion as they also don't even know about what tax is relevant. This person follows that rubric exactly, as they "suspect" a tax is involved, when a flash loan wash sale would just as easily not cause any tax at all and they offer no introspection into the nature of the transaction and what questions remain about how it conforms with the tax code. A person borrows money to pretend to transfer an asset to themselves and returns the money. Neither borrowing money or moving the asset to your other account are tax events. The tax remindoooooooor comes to the discussion way after the party, clueless, and says something clueless. Its predictable, its meme worthy. Pretty much everyone in crypto runs into people like them so the memes are made.
I mean one could begin by looking at when taxes are due at the transaction of an art piece, and ask an attorney, instead of just assuming no taxes are due and wandering off could one not? The burden is on them. And then when someone suggests doing the bare minimum due diligence on a half billion dollar transaction replying "the tax remindooooooor."
You can see why pretending no taxes are due because "blonkchain" and making fun of someone who suggests that doing some due diligence on a half billion dollar transaction isn't a good look, can't you?
Do you really think it's unreasonable to assume a half billion dollar capital gain isn't a taxable event?
> "... when a flash loan wash sale would just as easily not cause any tax at all"
What's your basis for this guess? Is it because a tax wouldn't be due on the sale of stock you repurchased within 30 days? That's called the wash-sale rule and it only applies to securities. It doesn't even apply to commodities or futures - or crypto. So either it's a security, in which case this is a federal crime, or it's not a security, and the wash trader has to pay taxes on the first transaction - and a hypothetical second transaction would have to be made to generate a loss to cover.
Y'all need to get over yourselves, the toxic community is easily the worst thing about crypto - and that's after figuring in the ruining the world with your emissions so you can gamble bit.
Both my tax lawyer and CPA said no tax event, and that the circumstances about why its a no have nothing to do with the crypto/blockchain component. Because it didn't move between parties. The blockchain just lets that conclusion be made faster because everyone can see the transaction, except the people who wouldnt bother to look (because blockchain) and wouldnt understand if they did look (because blockchain).
You are the only one shoehorning your preexisting notions into a benign comment. There are so many better ways you could apply your energy. Many blockchain skeptics wind up defending the technology more often because their other skeptical friends are saying procedurally generated non-sequiturs. So they wind up in an educational role as their criticisms become more valid, and the education winds up strengthening the space by fixing the criticisms. Right now you’ve been stuck on less valid criticisms, for years. Its not going away so why not help make it better when you learn valid criticisms.
> Many blockchain skeptics wind up defending the technology more often because their other skeptical friends are saying procedurally generated non-sequiturs.
I wrote my perspectives, and you are once again just being toxic. This isn't reddit.
My comment about the toxic community you once again exemplified perfectly. You knew the answer to this question and instead of letting the poster know, and teaching them something interesting, you instead chose to make fun of them. And when I pointed out your toxic behavior you chose to mock me. Nice.
I will mock your procedurally generated non-sequiturs on any topic. From my perspective, I say enough to promote introspection on its own. But you do have a point, as you mentioned that it wasnt enough for you to perceive what the meme was about as you instead wrote totally mockable copypasta. So I’ll try to keep it in mind and just lead with the answer so that you think its less toxic.
They got the joke wrong and imagined something completely different, that is completely fair game to be made fun of. Is that really whats considered toxic right now? I’m genuinely curious.
