You have this idea that you can achieve an absolute.. that you can eliminate corruption entirely. It seems to contradict your idea that it's useless and futile to work toward an impossible/unrealistic goal.
You say:
Do good people advocate “reforming” and “limiting” murder, theft and assault? Or do they advocate ending those things?
Ethical people are happy with either reduction or elimination of these things. Among them, realistic people work toward a the feasible outcome of minimizing evil. If you get hung up on absolutes, then you might as well choose to live in Somalia over Denmark, for example. Denmark has not eliminated corruption entirely, but there's a measurable world of difference between the two (see the corruption index.
Boycotting is something that can have a positive effect on the world. Whenever a boycott catches on and large numbers of consumers decide to participate, it carries weight, using the one power companies understand: money. Recent example: Starbucks.
Hence why I advocate for:
You realize that if you boycott intel then all crypto currency is effectively dead?
That's nonsense. Proof-of-work and proof-of-stake are possible with any turing complete machine.
Please explain to me why this would be the case. Because you really lost me there.
Because the servers that run full nodes depend on intel and other companies on the list.
We need viable alternatives before we can boycott. I couldn't really develop steem without my intel powered machines.
Perhaps arm or amd with Linux, but that is a big handicap to me and little harm to intel.
So you mean to say that boycotting intel would disproportionally harm crypto currencies? Very interesting... Would it really kill it though?
That seems like maybe too harsh words to me, but I have to admit that I certainly do not know enough to make a definite statement.
It wouldn't matter if the inflation slowing (what dan considers to be "harm") were disproportionate or not. If it's disproportionate, then the less CPU-intensive currencies (which are also more eco-responsible) would have a well-deserved edge.
If the effect were proportional, then it would be less disruptive, which is a little less than ideal from an environmental standpoint. But in either case the "falling sky" narrative is wacky, and I hope that no one seriously uses it as a basis to rationalize the unethical consumption of Intel products.
There are many flaws in this idea. You have the implied premise that:
Impossible without governments of large nation-states and other corporations joining the boycott, and still unlikely even if nation-states and corporations were to participate. Even so, if we neglect that, you're also assuming:
Even if you believe existing chips would burn out before being surpassed by other chips, your stance also implies that:
Inflation slowing is /by design/, and it's balanced by pricing of the currency. Your bitcoin will be worth more, but 1 satoshi will not be too large to spend. This whole race discussion is irrelevant anyway due to quantum computing already existing and likely to be mainstream in the next 10 years (even w/out Intel involvement).
You also effectively disregard proof-of-stake crypto-currencies, which would get better positioning in the market.
There's a difference between what someone advocates, and what he expects to achieve. Statists CONDONE the violent subjugation of their fellow man.