No mention of sanctions? It's estimated that ~50% of staked value is held by US companies. These companies are going to have to make an impossible choice. Either: 1. Sign transactions coming from the sanctioned addresses, inviting the wrath of OFAC. or: 2. Refuse to sign these transactions. 2a. If between 33% and 66% of the network refuses, the network will penalize dissenters by slashing their staked coins, until th…
The Merge
161–170 of 184 posts
Re: The Merge
#162Earlier quoted context omitted.
> 2b. If > 67% of the network refuses, transactions can be successfully censored. Similar with PoW. For both PoW and PoS, the proper response is to socially coordinate forking out the censoring block producer majority (like with the Bitcoin UASF that was threatened over much less egregious miner misbehavior). PoS improves on PoW here in two ways: 1. Non-censoring PoS block producers can have a tiny meatspace presence…
"Socially coordinating" is how fiat works. It should only be a bootstrapping mechanism towards trustless behaviors, not the mechanism to cancel each other on-chain.
Or how wearing a UASF baseball cap worked as part of a social coordination movement against power-tripping miners.
> It should only be a bootstrapping mechanism towards trustless behaviors, not the mechanism to cancel each other on-chain.
Yes
Re: The Merge
#163Earlier quoted context omitted.
Sanctions don't stem from the existence of Fiat currency (at least directly), and may still exist depending on power dynamics. The move is on the way and will continue. It will be disruptive but I'm not sure exactly how it'll go. Regular military offense and defense systems will exist but just not ones where the US say prints infinite money for war and incurs sovereign debt. Wars might be a lot smaller scale then. Ol…
How is crypto not another fiat? It is not backed by convertability into a commodity either. It's (currently typically) not issued by a state actor but otherwise just like a typical fiat currency brought into being by something akin to a (community) decree. I know from the US perspective often legal tender concepts are brought into the definition of fiat but the legal tender concept doesn't quite exist in the same way…
1) impossible to confiscate
2) fixed supply and issuance rate - can't just print it away when the fed wants
3) instant permissionless transfer so the government can't interject. If you think they can be trusted, might want to read about executive order 6102
4) not backed by another asset eg gold (say). This is great because gold is extremely hard to transfer physically and easy to confiscate. Read about how Nixon refused to allow dollar convertibility for gold for foreign nations which was the condition for Bretton woods agreement ie where all nations agreed to use dollar as a global reserve freely exchangeable for gold. Also read about how FDR outlawed private ownership of gold when the US had printed more money than their gold reserves and needed to fix their books.
Decentralized community decree is awesome. You don't have a central actor making rules that support themselves. Christine Lagarde has no way to get the euro out of the deficit hole. See this snippet from an interview: https://youtu.be/p-X-mIuDYFw. In a balanced system, the debt would be loaned from and owed to a market participant who cares about their money being returned, not this bizarre broken system where central banks print and then owe to themselves
Re: The Merge
#164Earlier quoted context omitted.
It doesn’t. It just allow for a market of digital signatures for digital art. but technical solutions to the problems you’re talking about are conceivable.
Than why did you claim that:"it is better than a standard contract because the previous method of authenticating work is hugely expensive for the artist and has immense gatekeeping.", when by your own admission NFTs play no part in authenticating art??
Doing that previously required an art gallery to certify the signature. That’s easier in NFTs.
Re: The Merge
#165Earlier quoted context omitted.
Mostly everything can be done in the traditional way - and much faster indeed. The point of blockchain is a superior social solution, not technical. I agree with you we will use blockchain where it’s necessary, but I suspect that’s a decent percentage of our future digital world.
> Mostly everything can be done in the traditional way - and much faster indeed. The point of blockchain is a superior social solution, not technical. That's highly arguable. It's a superior social solution if you buy into a very, very specific kind of "social", and are happy with systems that operate within a very limited realm. Eg, if you like the existence of things like chargebacks, then the blockchain isn't the…
Re: The Merge
#166Earlier quoted context omitted.
You present a problem with Proof of Stake as an inevitable run in with the law and/or some folly of the crypto community. That's not very sound logic. I personally believe in apolitical decentralized money winning against fiat which is governed on the whims of central bankers and crony capitalism. Every system where technology brings fairness, power to all, and hard rules wins. This will not be an exception. It is th…
The power of law comes from the ability, to confiscate things, kick in doors and arrest people. Usually there is some social consensus such that most comply anyway most of the time. This is true and always and trumps whatever your software says is meaningless if there is any conflict ("you and what army" is a very valid question. Now, the law (a court) can of course allow your software and might even enforce a contra…
Re: The Merge
#167Earlier quoted context omitted.
How is crypto not another fiat? It is not backed by convertability into a commodity either. It's (currently typically) not issued by a state actor but otherwise just like a typical fiat currency brought into being by something akin to a (community) decree. I know from the US perspective often legal tender concepts are brought into the definition of fiat but the legal tender concept doesn't quite exist in the same way…
It's true that it's not backed, and that's a pro (we'll get to that), but Bitcoin is better than Fiat for many reasons: 1) impossible to confiscate 2) fixed supply and issuance rate - can't just print it away when the fed wants 3) instant permissionless transfer so the government can't interject. If you think they can be trusted, might want to read about executive order 6102 4) not backed by another asset eg gold (sa…
Re: The Merge
#168Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Eventually the computational capacity will reach the levels that virtually any app can be replicated inside of it This only makes sense if blockchains can catch up to traditional methods, because applications in the real world will just continue to get more complex as compute power allows. A defining feature of blockchain computation models is that the same calculation must be run many, many times to verify it. Giv…
> A defining feature of blockchain computation models is that the same calculation must be run many, many times to verify it. Given that each individual one must run on the hardware that blockchain is competing with direct usage of, there's no plausible story for blockchain to close the gap. This is not true - zero knowledge proofs allow you to verify work much more cheaply than the original computation, and they're…
Re: The Merge
#169Earlier quoted context omitted.
It's true that it's not backed, and that's a pro (we'll get to that), but Bitcoin is better than Fiat for many reasons: 1) impossible to confiscate 2) fixed supply and issuance rate - can't just print it away when the fed wants 3) instant permissionless transfer so the government can't interject. If you think they can be trusted, might want to read about executive order 6102 4) not backed by another asset eg gold (sa…
We'll find out if these things are seen as advantageous by enough or not. I don't necessarily agree that the points are all just pros, but I am open to democratic changes of monetary systems.
Re: The Merge
#170Earlier quoted context omitted.
This wasn't supposed to be an argument about the relative exploitability of the attack-surfaces presented by implementations of the technologies of PoW and PoS consensus systems, though; but rather about the economics inherent in "cornering the market" in PoW vs PoS. PoW and PoS both allow a single party to unilaterally control the network when they're working exactly as intended — just under conditions that are impr…
The hardness works both ways - these with stake can decline to process what they deem ungood and there's nothing one can do about it. You see "hardness of Sybil attack", I see "rule of unelected comittee". The very fact that GPUs are not pie, that GPUs are minted, gives an opportunity for a change if things do not go well for actual majority of users-as-persons.
And PoW, more GPUs is a quality bound to physical mechanics. In order to build more GPUs, you need more fabs capable of doing so. You need a more educated populace capable of building and improving GPUs. You also need better energy generation to not destroy the planet and provide energy for an increasingly more energy hungry society. This leads to improvements via physical conditions of survival, resulting in better macrosocial outcomes.
PoS says “you have money so you make money for no reason and you get resource allocation privileges absent binding to physical properties”. In other words, one receives all benefit without any effort. Yet effort is implicit. Which means it become abstracted and convoluted, allowing one to offset effort to no-stakers.
In other words, decision making rights lacking any consequence. Also known as a caste system. Also freezing the castes making advancement highly improbable, and deeply / forever embedding dynasty algorithmically.
There then exists no forces within the body of the mechanism to improve compute capacity nor energy gen efficiency. This, taken to the limit, is a highly undesirable outcome for advancement to the next stage of existence. In fact, it sets us back by a potentially significant margin.
The result is nothing short of digital aristocracy.
Sure, in the short term it will be a secure global compute that can operate more “efficiently” for some time. But look around you. Look at what happens when you let people make decisions without earning it / understanding the full impact of their decisions.