>>15799325

I'm against what I call shitcoin.

Because they make you dependent on electricity and electronic gadgets, that you should never TRUST and can't verify by yourself.

You can verify that the Gold you purchased is really Gold, but trusting electronics and software is just silly.

Plus everything on the internet is tracked. You can't even make sure that your computer is actually not backdoored or hacked. You simply can't, so you should always assume that everything electronic has been backdoored and breached.

No exceptions.

>>15799603

>>15799666

I can and will create scripts to download all notable'd content automatically via wget.

Will post that in notables thread.

Not sure yet about directory structure though.

Anyone got the pic w/ Putin and RED RED RED papers?

Need it, but can't find it via search engine.

Pretty pls.

>>15799695

Always keep in mind that it's very likely that bitcoin and every other *coin is fully tracked and not anonymous and they can cut access to it just like that (either through exchanges, or even sending you a court order, and if you move it to anywhere through whatever means, you are violating the court order and you get busted, you can't hide that).

If you are okay with this, go ahead, but in my opinion it's even worse than FIAT.

With FIAT paper you can at very least make a nice comfy fire. *coins are just numbers in a computer, no intrinsic value what-so-ever.

In a total collapse situation, the valuable things are:

• water

• food

• other physical things

• skills

• gold/silver (potentially) and drugs

And there may be no internet or electricity, which means even if you found someone that wants your numbers, you couldn't do give them out anyway.

>>15799733

>source code

Even if you get it, why would you trust the compiler?

The compiler can be backdoored.

The OS can be backdoored.

Firmware can be backdoored.

Chips on your electronic gadget can and probably have backdoors

You have no way of verifying any of that.

You can't even verify that the encryption is actually safe.

What about the Operating system as well? Can you verify that too?

Never believe you are more intelligent than trillion dollar agencies, because you are simply not.

That's why the only proper way is to avoid these digital things, because you can not TRUST them.

>>15799781

Yeah, good luck making your own chips.

(and let's even go that route, so you believe that you can write a safe+secure TCP/IP stack for example, you can implement proper security and a proper random number generator, and your own compiler from scratch and and and without using any other computer, which can and probably is compromised)

Let's assume all of that.

That's once again assuming that you are more intelligent than trillion dollar agencies, but let's assume and let's assume you do a perfect job at it.

Okay, so you got your own gadget.

But what about everyone else?

Why should they trust your gadget?

Others can assume that you are controlled and selling them backdoored hardware.

Or are they supposed to build their own as well?

>>15799841

>It is not difficult to build secure systems with insecure part

hahaha, you are funny.

When the hardware is compromised any software on it has to be seen as automatically compromised as well.

Software calls the operating system.

The operating system or even just a network adapter is compromised.

There is no way to make such software secure, when everything it does can be compromised.

>Don't need to do a perfect job at it – there are always bugs

It's not like your money would depend on it.

>Step 2: Manufacturing

>They should not. TNO.

If no one else is supposed to trust me or you (which is good), then manufacturing such a gadget makes no sense, because it's not TRUSTworthy.

>They can choose to have trusted suppliers or build their own devices.

There are no trusted suppliers.

Yeah, grandma will just create her own chips, top kek. You are ridiculous.

>such that their individual pieces can be validated with multiple third-part devices

You don't really know how computers work?

Even screens nowadays have firmware. There are so many ways to create backdoors, and there is simply no way to write software that somehow "checks" if firmware or OS or whatever is to be trusted. It's simply impossible, because it hooks into the OS. And when that can't be trusted, it's all pointless.

Again, you would even have to verify that the compiled compiler that you are using doesn't insert backdoors or other tricks into your compiled software.

>>15799890

Yeah, no arguments, but insults and defending electronic gadgets, even claiming you could somehow make it secure, which you simply can't.

Even when you write code using your keyboard and you see it on screen, that doesn't make sure that the computer is really doing what you think it's doing. It seems you have no in depth knowledge how computers actually work.

In theory you can do so much shit, and you can't verify any of it. Good luck even verifying the firmware of your GPU.

You want to decompile it? Good luck and why would you TRUST a disassembler?

Now check that too.

But how?

Got internet? Need to download updates?

Do you check every single one of these as well? Manually? Disassemble them?

>but but Linux

>but but open source

So you compile everything yourself and check every single source code change yourself before applying updates?

And even wrote your own compiler, so that you know that it doesn't do any kind of bullcrap?

In theory so much shit is possible, and there is no way of knowing how much shit is actually done. Always expect the worst from corrupt agencies with a trillion dollar budget or more.

>>15799930

>In the future when you see it happen

Yeah, I'm sure in the future everyone will create their own computer chips, top fucking kek and write their own encryption and Operating Systems and compilers.

You are out of your mind.

Banks and agencies want shitcoins because they are all controlled. I want cash in some way or another. Be it gold or whatever.

I neither trust you, nor would I be so arrogant assuming that I would be smarter than everyone else.

>>15799955

So you didn't say that people should create hardware themselves including chips and software and that "this would happen"?

And that SOmEHOW it would be possible to write software that checks the hardware itself, which is simply a ridiculous statement to make and it wouldn't even be really difficult.

You are a bullshitter of the highest order.

I'm actually a developer for ages now, I know tons of programming languages including assembly, including hardware access and more and I think you are full of shit.