161–170 of 321 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Ethereum is a powerful connecting force that brings trust within the internet. I've got a bridge to sell you when you're ready
Luckily I can afford the bridge having bought Ethereum years ago.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
(b) is why Bitcoin core development has stagnated[*]. And that's fine if people just want it to be like gold, however Ethereum doesn't aspire to not evolve. (c) I actually disagree with. Decentralized governance is a very interesting subject, and some cryptos like Tezos are governed quite decentralized in many ways. Right now I'm really confident in how Ethereum is governed, with the "old-fashioned" open-source devel…
> some cryptos like Tezos are governed quite decentralized in many ways. Whenever crypto enthusiasts tell me about DeFi governance, I get excited about the possibilities. Then, I actually take a look at some of the group decisions, and literally all of them are crypto/coin-related, and don’t deal with any /real/ or human problems…
A lot of comments here criticise the analogies made in the post. While the criticism might be correct, I feel this is like missing the forest because of the trees.. Etherium, and most crypto-currencies for that matter, were initially made to fix a broken financial system, where banks unjustly control too much wealth, and changes the rules so that they will always control too much wealth. Etherium does not fix this, i…
Perhaps the best thing a cryptocurrency can do is be neutral, and let society sort its own equality out. Like gold-backed currency, only global and instant.
No smart contracts, no de-fi, no staking, no miners, no new coins or coins burned on a timer. Just extremely divisible coins that can be sent completely without fees.
And there is a coin like this; Nano. Their community has the full expectation of being always fee-less. It even solved the spamming problem, at least to a point of 'good enough', without adding fees.
I'm not sure there's much reason, to my mind, to try and add more stuff on top of that. Expecting a crypto currency to be both widely adopted and solve inequality is - possibly - just too tall an order.
Miners are most definitely not the working class and they're not doing any useful work. This sounds harsh because most individual miners aren't hostile in any way - but if miners were a one entity, there would be no exaggeration at all. Collectively, paying miners is like paying the mob to not destroy the system, as they are only group with the power to do so. Without miners at all attacks would be impossible. 51% at…
Miners are not doing any useful work is incorrect, they are securing the system.
The market most efficiently determines whether [& which] to sacrifice (e.g. computation or capital lock-up) is worthwhile.
bitcoin maximalism is the worst. wealth will tend to concentrate over time anyway (parteo distribution) and a "ruling class" will emerge on bitcoin. miner's voting with hash power is not the future of cryptocurrency governance. If bitcoin does not evolve to allow this effectively it will be regulated out of common use. It's possible to experiment and build decentralized governance models directly into blockchains see…
But a Pareto distribution is kind of the default wherever people interact. So a system needs to be deliberately constructed to counteract it, if that's its goal. And saying "praise the market" won't be enough.
Everything wrong with crypto is the notion you can make a global reserve currency impervious to special interests. It’s going to be gamed by the people at the top, they will use all and any leverage to change the code to favor them more. They will extract the value from the system like they have every other system and the easiest part is that stakeholders like you and me don’t get any vote. You can’t decouple monetar…
>Everything wrong with crypto is the notion you can make a global reserve currency impervious to special interests This ain't binary. Ain't yes or no. Also.. why do you assume crypto is gunning for 'global reserve currency'? Crypto enables all types of experiments toward reducing the insider-asymmetry nature of central control control (e.g. political whim money printing, political whim monetary policy) >Fiat will alw…
Certainly our politics leads to the socialization of corporate risk, but crypto is subject to the same politics only with a much smaller pool of voters. Spending on any community at this global scale will be looked at as pork and the needs of disenfranchised will calcify further. Again, it’s code and it’s not immutable. The mechanisms of distributing crypto clients will betray the interests of the common citizen. There is no leverage for commoners, only special interests.
Inflation could be used to redistribute wealth for greater equity and the worlds wealthiest see this threat which I think is the only reason crypto has their attention.
The social class metaphor is stretched pretty thin, but it can be interested to follow such threads and see where they lead. I suppose it's endlessly interpretable, but here's my take on bringing it down to earth. - Different "classes" have different interests. (1)Miners. (2) Big, rich coin owners. (3) Rule makers and influencers. Group 2 & 3 overlap and might collaborate to screw miners. - The author is thinks funda…
My experience in crypto over the past two years has been exactly the opposite. The main issues facing the space today all have to do with governance: how do you get holders of gov tokens to vote rather than hold? how do you involve them in the evolution of your protocol? There are entire protocols being designed to allow "vote selling" to incentivize delegation for small owners.
Code is a tool to make sure laws are enforced. But the rules are increasingly being made and amended at the social/political layer.
It may not be democratic. it may not be fair. it may not be efficient. but it's a damn interesting experiment to watch evolve.
If crypto ever replaces the current monetary system, late adopters will have to fight for crumbles.
And that's OK; you support deception & violence, so you stay poor. That's cosmic justice.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Absolutely, not to mention Eth just rolled out a major update last week. This rambling, bizarre article boils down to a few very basic, extremely played out arguments. Argument 1: Proof of stake concentrates wealth more than proof of work. You can make that argument, but POS advocates have for a long time argued that proof of work mining has more economies of scale than proof of stake and therefore the opposite is ac…
I'll preface that I somewhat dislike how Ethereum has established their PoS consensus. The lack of first class support for delegated staking poses a problem IMHO as it requires handing control of your coins over to a third party considering this is the only option for people without 32ETH(102k USD) that they can tie up. I also have opinions on locking periods but until we see some extended battle tests proving where…
You should take a look at RocketPool. It is a project that will introduce decentralized staking pools allowing people with >0.01 ETH to trustlessly stake (except for smart contract risk, of course).
Miners are most definitely not the working class and they're not doing any useful work. This sounds harsh because most individual miners aren't hostile in any way - but if miners were a one entity, there would be no exaggeration at all. Collectively, paying miners is like paying the mob to not destroy the system, as they are only group with the power to do so. Without miners at all attacks would be impossible. 51% at…
Miners are not doing any useful work is incorrect, they are securing the system.
There are networks running right now that use the energy of a windmill to provide secure transactions, and more of them, processed in under a second, with no fee at all.
That's not vaporware; that's current reality. All Bitcoin miners are doing is perpetuating a system that has been very groundbreaking but is now obsolete in every way.