241–250 of 260 posts
It's in it's infancy. In two decades we will know what it means to us as mankind. Cars were also dangerous, unregulated, expensive and excessively polluting. It got a lot better on all these points, and not all due to the cars: some of it was a mind shift that mankind had to make. Same will hold true for cryptocurrency.
Mostly it was due to regulation.
It's in it's infancy. In two decades we will know what it means to us as mankind. Cars were also dangerous, unregulated, expensive and excessively polluting. It got a lot better on all these points, and not all due to the cars: some of it was a mind shift that mankind had to make. Same will hold true for cryptocurrency.
But cars had value. They have value. They had value from day 1. Cryptocurrencies just don't. It's all smoke and mirrors, where everything would be better without the blockchain. Without irreversibility. Without everything about it. There are whole books about how terrible and useless it is. And please do what the article said: How much of your own money is dependent on you selling the lie of cryptocurrency or smart c…
You dont get to decide what has value. The market does. Crypto apparently has value.
> By this logic you could start kicking puppies, because "eventually something good will come out of kicking puppies", and just as baseless reasoning.
Worst argument I've read all month.
If you dont see potential in crypto: feel free to do without. Others do. Thankfully we have some freedom.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I'm not a crypto supporter, but I'd say that he is right there. If _you_ found private key to a wallet with 1 BTC somewhere, would you leave it be? Even if you can't buy a coffee with it, the exchangability for USD is real.
Ok, fair. But I prefer a value backed by the whole world and the biggest military in the world.
And then you are fine with it.
Good luck with the ignorance.
Cryptocurrency is not an abject disaster. Drew is right that proof of work mining is expensive and has serious negative externalities. Drew is also right that cryptocurrency, via its growth, hype, and decentralized and self-sovereign nature, is often an ideal vehicle for certain kinds of criminal activity, including pump-and-dump fraud or ransomware. Drew is right (perhaps indirectly) that many or most well-meaning c…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Ok, fair. But I prefer a value backed by the whole world and the biggest military in the world.
So kicking puppies hypothetically in case of crypto is replaced by actual military deployment to every nation thats a thread to the petro-dollar. And then you are fine with it. Good luck with the ignorance.
It was obvious to me from the very start. I hope one day it will be a crime and those "miners" would get what they deserve: the prison.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I've heard a lot about proof-of-stake as being a lesser drain on energy per unit of mining, but I'm still very unclear on—well, many things about PoS, actually, but one in particular stands out: How would eliminating all Proof-of-Work cryptocurrencies and shifting entirely to Proof-of-Stake eliminate the incentive for miners to monopolize every last bit of computing resources they can? My understanding of cryptocurre…
> How would eliminating all Proof-of-Work cryptocurrencies and shifting entirely to Proof-of-Stake eliminate the incentive for miners to monopolize every last bit of computing resources they can? It absolutely wouldn't - as we see from Proof-of-Space trashing the hard disk market recently.
Also Proof-of-Space != Proof-of-Storage (seems a lot of people are conflating the two in this thread as well).
Earlier quoted context omitted.
>How would eliminating all Proof-of-Work cryptocurrencies and shifting entirely to Proof-of-Stake eliminate the incentive for miners to monopolize every last bit of computing resources they can? I guess the point here is that you could effectively stake on a Raspberry Pi with a 256GB SD card for the next 5 years or so, and you don't need more Raspberry Pis or SD cards to stake higher amounts. The main limiting factor…
...Can you expand on that a little further? I don't really understand what it means "to stake" in this context, or why more RPis (or other compute resources) wouldn't let you mine more/faster. Or if you have a link to a good resource for explaining how proof-of-stake works in a way that would clarify this, that would also be fantastic.
Essentially, because there is no computationally intensive work being done. Proof-of-Stake is kind of like saying:
"I have 100 of these coins staked in the network that I can't spend, because of my faith in the network, I'd like to validate this other transaction of 10 coins, the network should award me with 1 coin for validating this transaction because I'm being a good validator.".
Another validator has an incentive to prove that those validations are invalid, because if they do, they get the reward instead, and usually an additional fee.
"Not so fast, I have a copy of this ledger as well, and I can see that this transaction could not be possible. I also have 1000 coins staked, so the network should trust me even more than it trusts you! Not only should I get the reward instead, but we should all agree that you'll get no more rewards in future until you clean up your act."
The rest of the validators, along with their stake, then essentially vote on who wins the dispute. All of this is not computationally expensive. The person staking 1000 coins and the person staking 100 coins can do so both on the same hardware, but yet one of them has more "voting" power on the network, and can net more rewards by having more validation throughput.
That's all very over-simplified, but I think it covers the basics.
So it seems Drew is biased here, he is biased because his service is being used by thieves to make money. My tainted opinion: I think the criticisms of Proof-of-Work are totally justified here. There are perverse incentives for "miners" to execute work in the cheapest way they can, whether that is JS miners, bot farms, abuse of free services, hacked AWS accounts, abusing favorable tenancy conditions etc. and even if…
> I always expected that the price of these coins would naturally level out because you'd have to remain competitive with the likes of Backblaze or S3. Backblaze and S3 cannot conjure storage space out of thin air. If proof-of-storage coins make hard drives more expensive, that also increases the capex for those services and thus their prices. In the end, they're just shitting on everyone's lawn, no matter if you're…
The same goes for Proof-of-Storage miners, right? Whoever has the most buying power wins.