News for hackers. Stuff that matters.
Re:Telegram Isn't for Sale by thriftwy on Tuesday December 12, 2017 @11:19AM (#15906709)
Maybe they do benefit from this. I fail to see how it converts into an obligation for me.

I care about X. X would like to recieve money backed by my payments. Does that mean I owe them those payments?

How well do Ponzi schemes play out in practice?

Re:Telegram Isn't for Sale by Vinnl on Wednesday December 13, 2017 @03:23AM (#15912860)
There is no inherent obligation. Where I'm from, though, we've voted for governments that make it one.
Re:Telegram Isn't for Sale by thriftwy on Wednesday December 13, 2017 @01:58PM (#15916520)
So you thrown bad money towards Ponzi scheme. Can I now stop throwing good money towards it?

Note that "we voted to confiscate your assets" is NOT a valid vote. "No taxation without representation" fails where we have no hope to recover what we've wasted here.

Or, as you seem to be suggesting, we're just waiting for a big crash while making sure it will be real big, while crunching in process.

Re:Telegram Isn't for Sale by Vinnl on Wednesday December 13, 2017 @04:26PM (#15917830)
Not if you're from my country, because it's the law for you to throw money to it.

But yes, it appears we're waiting for a big crash, which is likely the result of those who __are__ likely to profit from it represent a substantive portion of the electorate, resulting in our leaders being reluctant in finding other/better systems.