201–210 of 256 posts
>Ethereum is a decentralized platform that runs smart contracts: applications that run exactly as programmed without any possibility of downtime, censorship, fraud or third party interference. Except that ethereum is lying when they say this. The DAO contract was nullified and censored. The Ethereum Foundation and the DAO team were bailed out and had preferential treatment.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Bitcoin proved that global cryptocurrency is absolutely sustainable It has not. * Transactions don't scale: they're are expensive, and not instant. * There are practically no ways to spend Bitcoins in the physical world. * The electricity costs of mining are not sustainable by mankind. Although some people in China want you to believe otherwise.
> Transactions don't scale: they're are expensive, and not instant blockchain has limited scalability, second layer doesn't. also blockchain transactions were never supposed to be instant. in fact nothing is instant, check this thing called physics. > practically no ways to spend Bitcoins in the physical world there are plenty > electricity costs of mining are not sustainable by mankind bitcoin is not even a blip in…
> blockchain has limited scalability, second layer doesn't. also blockchain transactions were never supposed to be instant.
Of course it wasn't supposed to be instant. That's why its a shit system to use as currency just like gold bars are a shit currency cause one has to drag them from the mine to the bank to the store. This Bitcoin thing was meant to be a currency, right?
I guess you're talking about Lightning Network though which Bitcoin evangelists appear to market as the Second Coming of Christ. Well, it isn't active yet, and it isn't part of Bitcoin ie. it isn't "Bitcoin". So... I was right.
> there are plenty
Not really. Many have been removed lately. There were Bitcoin debit cards. Well, they got revoked. Steam? Doesn't accept Bitcoins anymore due to high transaction costs. And those are just a few examples.
> in fact nothing is instant, check this thing called physics.
That's odd. I just put money on my debit card from my bank and it took like a minute. And I consider that slow! If I buy something from a store, which I did today, its instant enough that I can put my bank card in my wallet and move on. That's why I call it instant. The fact it isn't instant, is true, but it is nowhere near the latency of Bitcoin. And Bitcoin's latency is nowhere near my bank to debit card transaction. My statements regarding slow (and expensive) transactions were true.
> bitcoin is not even a blip in total world energy spending and less than that in total world energy production.
Yes, when it consumes more energy than my entire country, it is. Plus, when it is thin air we're discussing, it is.
> also if you check the dictionary for word sustainable:
How about you look up the word in your dictionary, called environment?
> bitcoin is sustainable by design.
Circulus in probando.
Wake me up when I can pay BTC at the same places where I can pay with EUR. I'll even do a concession! Wake me up when a United States resident can pay BTC at the same places they can pay with USD.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> why not just use BTC? By the very nature of your argument if a Turing-complete blockchain isn't inherently worth something than a stack-based language which isn't Turing complete is certainly worthless. I feel like your arguing with me for the sake of arguing? What's your point ETH isn't perfect, so what, it's relatively new tech which is exploring an interesting problem. The fact it's valued X _may be_ a fair eval…
"that can be used for anything essentially" is a pretty wild claim to make if you can't actually back it up with useful algorithms to run on the network. This doesn't mean it's useless (you can probably run interesting contracts and stuff on the network), but stop trying to make Ethereum into something it's not.
If you want to build a better language for interfacing with the VM your free to do so.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
If you can convince 51% of the network, then yes.
yeah, the fact that ethereum community was convinced is already a death sentence, because it shows that no principle is sacred. go ahead and try convincing bitcoin community to reverse a transaction, that'll be fun to watch.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Can imagine a protocol for generating randomness to some arbitrary security level (at the expense of locking up security deposits): (1) Anyone can decide to become a 'randomness provider' by putting up a large security depsoit (2) Every epoch (some number of blocks), each provider chooses a private random number and commits to it by publishing its hash (3) During the next epoch but, each provider publishes the random…
I don't see any incentive to actually publish random values - wouldn't it be easier to just commit to and publish zero every time?
IT's capitalism in its purest form. The work done is work n the physical sense of production, but from a labor perspective it ends up as a constant rote of attrition and self negation - people gt interested in coins to make a quick buck and take it easy, but either drop or spend all their time, energy, and money racing for a slice of the pie while producing little of value - in this case, trust tokens which may or ma…
> a medium of exchange that doesn't use absolute units, but is a function of your ability to pay. This is already implemented in many areas of modern life, especially by governments (Obamacare, progressive taxation, social security, etc), and it has a major negative side effect of incentivizing poverty: either real (by encouraging the young to work as little as possible) or faked (by encouraging those with accumulate…
My own personal view is that using starvation to incent work is acceptable only if society is unable to produce enough food for everyone; in that case, those few points to the GDP have real impact. I personally don't feel that it's okay to use starvation to incent work when that work largely produces luxuries, but that's just me, and everyone has an opinion on this one.
[1]Interestingly, historically this aphorism has been a leftist saying... that is, the rich should have to work, too. Leaving aside my controversial views of the bible, in more recent history, John Smith used it to this meaning in Jamestown, and then in the early 20th century, Lenin argued that it was a fundamental principle necessary for socialism to work. Both were talking about situations were people were starving (the early days of Jamestown and the early days of the Russian revolution, respectively) More recently, it's used as a rightest saying, arguing that the poor ought to work or starve, something that was the assumed truth in earlier ages.
Miners are surely not gamers’ friends. All high end cards have been sold out for weeks. They are now completely overpriced ($1300 for a GTX 1080 Ti).
Are people now moving on to nvidia cards for mining? I haven't followed closely for several years, but back in the day, it was all about AMD because nVidia's chips were much less efficient at this type of work. If nvidia is now in demand for mining, are people going for that because AMD is nowhere to be found and they're just going for the next-best thing, or has nvidia gotten better at this?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Not quite. The richest actually do the work to keep the system running. They need to stake their claim to the system to validate everyone else's trx. If is in their best interest not to mess up, otherwise they lose their stake in the system.
Cool. So it’s a centralised system ran by the rich (which I don’t necessarily have a problem with). Again, what is it that ETH provides society that's new and useful?
If you want to throw up your hands and declare this all a waste of time, feel free. You'll have lots of company, and for good reason, but setting some arbitrarily high goal such as "providing something new and useful to society" just makes it sound like you've got an axe to grind.
There's plenty of things about Ethereum (and blockchain exchanges and how they are used and hyped) to criticize legitimately, but this doesn't seem to be one of them.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Does Ethereum's existence hinge on Solidity? Isn't Solidity just a language that one can compile to the lower-level language actually built into Ethereum?
Even EVM has complex semantics surrounding critical features like time, dispatch, and exceptions. The whole ecosystem is amateur.
>Ethereum is a decentralized platform that runs smart contracts: applications that run exactly as programmed without any possibility of downtime, censorship, fraud or third party interference. Except that ethereum is lying when they say this. The DAO contract was nullified and censored. The Ethereum Foundation and the DAO team were bailed out and had preferential treatment.
And how was the contract nullified exactly?