101–110 of 137 posts
"ultrasound" money is not money where the issuance and protocol rules can/do change at the direction of a core group of developers like they do in Ethereum
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Staking ETH pays interest, so buying ETH is buying an interest-bearing asset (i.e. a security). Some of the biggest players in staking will be exchanges who will likely give some (most) of the interest they earn to their depositors. Those exchanges are then a ripe target for existing securities regulation, and they'll also be the biggest validators on the network, so risk for them is risk for the whole network.
> Staking ETH pays interest, so buying ETH is buying an interest-bearing asset Buying Eth will be the same as before. What you could say, is staking Eth is what makes it an interest-bearing asset, not just buying Eth.
This deserves to be the top spot on HN right now. Years of countless replies and mockery here across N accounts telling me this day would _never_ happen. Yet here we are, we're finally about to break away from the shackles of PoW and the crypto skeptics are silent. EDIT: I'm rate limited/soft banned so I can't reply to most of you/anyone until tomorrow. While I can still edit: -Cash is the ultimate scammer currency,…
> we're finally about to break away from the shackles of PoW and the crypto skeptics are silent. One very popular cryptocurrency is making the switch. That still leaves Bitcoin, with double the trading volume, and most of the other popular cryptocurrencies. More importantly it doesn't change the fundamental problem with crypto: it's deliberately difficult to regulate, which means that it's still a scammer's paradise.…
Untrue. Check e.g. top 10, 20 or 50 on Coinmarketcap. Most are PoS. Further, with Ethereum being PoS the mining behind everything except Bitcoin is a rounding error.
>And Ethereum's price can still fluctuate wildly on any given day, making it unsuitable for most real-world transactions.
You might want to look into stablecoins or more generally into Ethereum if you think using it for daily transactions is the main usecase.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Staking ETH pays interest, so buying ETH is buying an interest-bearing asset Buying Eth will be the same as before. What you could say, is staking Eth is what makes it an interest-bearing asset, not just buying Eth.
As far as I understand, without any work (energy consumption) that is directly tied to the value of the asset, there's no argument left for it to be a currency, i.e. it can only be categorised as a security asset.
Staking Eth: Investment in common enterprise, expectation of profit and profit derived from others. Looks and quacks like a security.
Buying and holding Eth without staking it shouldn't be considered a security, while staking said Eth should be considered a security. At least if we're still following the "Howey Test".
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Not 100% of users will accept the new software so after this event called "The Merge" there will be 2 competing Ethereum networks (actually 3 because there's already "ethereum classic" from the last time Ethereum forked). It's not actually that simple. After the merge, non-upgraded PoW nodes will automatically wind down and self-destruct according to the built-in difficulty bomb curve which is part of PoW. For PoW…
> Bitcoin has a difficulty bomb too, so Bitcoin will eventually self-destruct, if nobody steps up to coordinate a new fork of Bitcoin and a majority of users accept the new fork. What bullshit is this? bitcoin doesn't have a difficulty bomb
https://www.cnbctv18.com/cryptocurrency/what-happens-after-a...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> "It's not a made up number any more than a stock's market cap." This is a common crypto talking point but it makes no sense. Companies are regularly acquired at a premium to their market cap, often in cash. For instance, Elon Musk signed an agreement to pay $44 billion to take Twitter private. Assuming the deal goes through, every single shareholder of Twitter is going to receive cash in exchange for their shares.…
Not necessarily — commodities like gold have similar properties and they are also generally given a market cap.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
there’s been much discussion here about how PoS does little to provide a decentralized monetary system since it appears to be built with the idea those with the most money should determine what the “truth” is
PoW is those with the most wealth can determine what the truth is.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> "It's not a made up number any more than a stock's market cap." This is a common crypto talking point but it makes no sense. Companies are regularly acquired at a premium to their market cap, often in cash. For instance, Elon Musk signed an agreement to pay $44 billion to take Twitter private. Assuming the deal goes through, every single shareholder of Twitter is going to receive cash in exchange for their shares.…
> There's no such process for cryptocurrencies. It wouldn't make any sense for someone to acquire every instance of a coin. Coins don't pay dividends. They don't represent any kind of underlying assets. It's just weird to pretend that they have a market cap in the same sense as stocks. Feel free to come back to these comments in 10-20 years, but one of the moonshot goals is to make blockchain networks base layers for…
That's just moving the goalposts because we were talking about market cap of stocks specifically.
I'm happy to check back in 10-20 years. I made an Ethereum wallet in 2017 and still haven't used it for anything meaningful. Anecdotally, the same seems to apply to everyone I know. I honestly don't think that will have changed by 2032. I don't think my stock portfolio will be on Ethereum then.