I just started using this myself, seems pretty great so far!

Clearly doesn’t stop all AI crawlers, but a significantly large chunk of them.

  • lime!@feddit.nu
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    3
    ·
    1 day ago

    in the case of anubis one could argue that the goal is to save energy. if too much energy is being spent by crawlers they might be configured to auto-skip anubis-protected sites to save money.

    also, i’d say the tech behind crypto is interesting but that it should never have been used in a monetary context. proof of stake doesn’t help there, since it also facilitates consolidation of capital.

    • 𝕽𝖚𝖆𝖎𝖉𝖍𝖗𝖎𝖌𝖍@midwest.social
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      17 hours ago

      I think decentralized currency is the best part of crypto. Much of US strong-arm policy has been through leveraging control over the dollar? Remember a few years ago when OPEC were making noises about maybe tying oil prices to something other than the dollar? The US government has a collective shit fit, and although I never heard it reported how the issue was resolved, but it stopped being news and oil is still tied to the dollar. It’s probably one of the reasons why the Saudis were about to kidnap, torture, and murder of Jamal Kashogi in the US.

      I am 100% in support of a currency that is not solely controlled by one group or State. For all of its terrible contribution to global warming, Bitcoin has proven resistant to an influential minority (e.g. Segwit2x) forcing changes over the wishes of the community. I especially like anything that scares bankers, and usury scabs.

      Satoshi made two unfortunate design choices with Bitcoin: he based it on proof of work, which in hindsight was an ecological disaster; and he didn’t seize the opportunity to build in depreciation, a-la Freigeld, which addresses many problems in capitalism.

      We’re all on Lemmy because we’re advocates of decentralization. Most of Lemmy opposes authoritarianism. How does that square with being opposed to a decentralized monetary system? Why are “dollars” any more real than cryptocoins? Why does gold have such an absurdly high value?

      • lime!@feddit.nu
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        9 hours ago

        this reads like a mad rant.

        first of all, bitcoin in its original form was meant to be used as a transaction log between banks. it was never meant to be a currency on its own, which can be seen in the fact that efforts in scaling up to more than a few million users consistently fail.

        in practice, all cryptocurrencies result in a centralisation of power by default, whether they use proof of work or proof of stake, because they are built so that people with more resources outside the network can more easily get sway over the system. by either simply buying more hardware than anyone else (for pow) or pooling more of the limited resource (for pos) they can control the entire thing.

        cryptocurrencies are a libertarian solution to the problem of capitalism, which is to say, a non-solution. the actual solution is to limit the use of financial incentives. i’d wager most people on lemmy would rather abolish currency altogether than go to crypto.

        • It’s a rant, for sure

          first of all, bitcoin in its original form was meant to be used as a transaction log between banks.

          Satoshi Nakamoto, they guy who invented Bitcoin, was motivated by a desire to circumvent banks. Bitcoin is the exact opposite of what you claim:

          A purely peer-to-peer version of electronic cash would allow online payments to be sent directly from one party to another without going through a financial institution. … Commerce on the Internet has come to rely almost exclusively on financial institutions serving as trusted third parties to process electronic payments. … What is needed is an electronic payment system based on cryptographic proof instead of trust, allowing any two willing parties to transact directly with each other without the need for a trusted third party.

          https://www.bitcoin.com/satoshi-archive/whitepaper/

          My comment is a rant, because I constantly see these strongly held opinions about systems by people who not only know nothing about the topic, but who believe utterly false things.

          cryptocurrencies result in a centralisation of power by default, whether they use proof of work or proof of stake, because they are built so that people with more resources outside the network can more easily get sway over the system

          Ok, now I have to wonder if you’re just trolling.

          Bitcoin, in particular, has proven to be resilient against such takeovers. They’ve been attempted in the past several times, and successfully resisted.

          • lime!@feddit.nu
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            3 hours ago

            you are framing a fundamental issue with the system as a positive, which is confusingly common for crypto advocates.

            i’m not interested in this conversation.