The problem isn’t the DNS requests. It’s the data synchronization that would have to occur if you were accessing a service hosted on Earth.

Because of course they have. All they give a shit about is getting rich on fiat gains. They don’t give a shit why crypto was actually created to begin with. But that’s a whole different rant.

Seems like the moon would be close enough for our standard IPv6 TTLs to work, but it seems more likely that we will have to abandon domain names in favor of something like IPFS, since it’s a resource locator instead of a location locator. If you were on Mars, for example, you would not want to have to contact Earth every single time you wanted to load a web page. And so you would contact Earth the first time to load it. And then it would be saved locally. And so anybody who requested that page in the future would talk to you instead of Earth.

.luna

Yes, as long as the phone physically supports the 3G frequencies, you will be able to connect to it when you leave the US. Even though the carrier is here or not broadcasting it, I do not see why the physical modems would no longer be supporting it. At least for a good while.

What carrier is this? I know for a fact that T-Mobile has shut down their 3G network and I thought AT&T and Verizon did as well, but I can’t swear to that. I know for a fact that AT&T has already shut down their 2G network though.

Anywhere where a 3G signal would be used, 2G will be used if the 3G is not available.

Yeah, that’s a good point.

subsidize 4G and 5G devices and shut off 3G and just leave 2G alone for a while. It’s not like it takes up that much bandwidth. A couple of hundred kilohertz is not going to make a difference on 5G.

You can get like 5 or 10 megahertz off of 3G, which actually would be something worth pulling off and moving to 5G. But the couple hundred kilohertz on 2G is just not going to make that much of a difference.

There’s two solutions here. You can either ramp up power, which is kind of difficult with solar to make sure you have enough power, or you could use higher frequencies, which would then make the antennas needed to transmit and receive smaller. And if you kept the same size antennas, then they would be larger wavelength and therefore have gain

What gives any currency any value other than human belief in it? After all, when fiat currencies become valueless, we as humans end up back at gold, which has been in use for millennia.

Ah, okay. See, we are exactly the opposite in that case, because I have lost all faith in governments, and therefore have lost all faith in what they call money.

Edit: Tap the Publish button before I’m into.

You could give me a bunch of government fiat, and I would take it and turn it into crypto simply to have more crypto because there are still people who desire to have government fiat currency. And I am not one of them.

Fiat currencies are money by decree of a government. If you have lost trust in your government or your government is not trustworthy to begin with, then the Fiat currency is not worth the paper it’s printed on or the digits in your bank account. Your access to your bank account can be restricted at any time for any reason with just a simple push of a button and you have extremely small or no recourse to such an action. Cash is better in that regard, but even so your government or central bank purposely says they want to devalue your cash and other currency by a set target per year. Therefore making you have to work harder or become poorer. As an example, the U.S. Federal Reserve targets a 2% inflation target per year, which means if you put a $100 bill under your mattress today, in 2035, it would only buy you $80 worth of goods. I’m not that old, and yet, when I was a young kid, a $500,000 nest egg would work extremely well for a good retirement. Now, that is absolutely not the case. Not because of the goods getting more expensive, but because of the currency depreciating in value as you work for it.

Money of course. I have been paying my bills with crypto since 2023.

To be fair I’m not a huge fan of pure proof of stake because it makes validation more difficult because you have to have code for slashing somebody’s stake if they are malicious or bad and a malicious entity could just buy up a bunch of your tokens and tank them. Admittedly, not a lot of people would do so, but I could totally see a government buying up a bunch of tokens on a network and purposely crashing the network in order to rid themselves of a nuisance and calling it justified. Proof of work makes that much more difficult. Still doable for certain, but much, much more difficult.

That’s true. And personally, I stay away from all of that mess. And anybody I introduce, I take great pains to explain why I stay away from all that mess. But if they want to make their own mistakes, then that’s on them.

My first question to you would be, how much energy does the banking sector use to run bank branches, haul physical money back and forth, bring employees to and from work, etc?

Next, not all blockchains require extreme levels of computation power for proof of work. Take Monero, for example, which deliberately makes ASIC chips impossible to use and is therefore mined only on CPUs, which are extremely common.

I’d say you’re right for 99% of it, but there is 1% that’s genuinely useful.

I warn FBI. Fuck you.

That’s a very good point. We should not be complacent just because we are not on a platform that is likely to collect all this information. We should check it ourselves to make absolutely certain.

Jesus. Lemmy ftw