Any level-headed anons who don't have a stake in the crypto game could tell me whether the 'technology' behind bitcoin and blockchain is as promising and pioneering as the average IQfy bagholder makes it out to be, or is it merely fancy jargon to lure retail investors into a scam?
 |
 Shopping Cart Returner Shirt $21.68 |
|
The argument for a long time stopped being "actually solves a problem" and became "I made money so it's obviously not a scam", or some variation of "have fun staying poor".
It had value as a way of buying drugs online. That's basically it. The recent 'NFTs in gaming" has been the biggest craze lately and it's easy to see through. People pretend Fortnite skins weren't things you could buy before NFTs happened. Or that selling a weapon in Diablo on the RMAH was not only a thing, but something gamers didn't actually want.
There are other coins than Bitcoin, so it's not necessarily true for all of them, but if in doubt assume it's like Bitcoin. Let's see:
Anonymous: False, once I track get a transaction from you, I can track all transactions from the same wallet, which is significantly more transparent that even Visa or Mastercard.
Works as currency: There's a limited BTC total by design, this makes it deflationary. No monetary controls. Transactions slow and expensive.
Works as an asset: The price crash shows why this is a bad idea.
Can be mined: Essentially false, 90%+ of BTC has already has been mined, mining gets exponentially more difficult, most of the coins have already been mined with trivial hardware before the world has even heard about it. Classic pyramid scheme.
I'm not a money guy, there might be some utility for it in financial wizardry, but it has certainly very little general utility.
If you think NFTs are worthless do go on and explain how comedy gold like picrel could happen without them?
It's the fine art market without the art being 'fine'
It's essentially bogus transactions for money laundering, simple as.
It's the largest and most secure trustless decentralized ledger in history. It might become valuable as a currency in the future if the price stabilizes but otherwise it's the only "real" value of Bitcoin.
>Anonymous: False, once I track get a transaction from you, I can track all transactions from the same wallet, which is significantly more transparent that even Visa or Mastercard.
Bitcoin has no wallets.
>Transactions slow and expensive.
10 minutes on average with a reasonable fee (30-50¢), up to couple hours during busy hours for a couple cents. And that's just on-chain, you can transact faster and cheaper with Lightning.
>Works as an asset: The price crash shows why this is a bad idea.
Doesn't matter if you hold it for years instead of months.
>Can be mined: Essentially false
But literally true.
>most of the coins have already been mined with trivial hardware before the world has even heard about it
There were may be five million coins mined by the time of the first major hike and crash and by that time silk road was already relatively big.
Lightning is fricking TRASH lmao
>if the price stabilizes
The price will never stabilize, because that would require centralization and it defeats the whole purpose.
> up to couple hours during busy hours for a couple cents
This is unacceptable in 2022.
>you can transact faster and cheaper with Lightning.
Lightning is a centralized service that functions the same as a bank and is still worse than 99% of banks.
>Doesn't matter if you hold it for years instead of months.
Where is the value coming from over these years? Whales can't prop up the price forever.
>But literally true.
Only if you participate in pools, which are centralized and defeat the purpose of the original mining concept.
Blockchain is unnecessary for the long term. There is no such thing as virtual property rights. No sane person over the age of 12 is going to bid against bots for a plot of land in a Minecraft server. There are property rights relevant to AI but they're real property rights, like paying for a compute cluster on AWS/GCP/etc to run it.
Wow you're so much smarter than Nick Bostrom, impressive.
I don't know who that is. If he's shilling blockchains he's probably a scam artist.
>makes comments on book
>'I don't know who that is'
Get off IQfy and never come back.
I'm not commenting on a book I'm commenting on your fricking post. Don't quote a book if you're going to be a pussy and backpedal when someone tells you the book is fricking stupid.
My post was just quoting a book.
And I'm commenting on the quote.
Dismissive comments about books you haven't read aren't arguments. Stay in school.
If you have more quotes you want to share then just post them, stop being an idiot. I'm not going to spend hours reading a book just to make you feel good about yourself.
The fact you don't know who Nick Bostrom makes you an unread in regards to trends in technology, which is what this thread is about.
Sorry I don't know who all your crypto grifters and scammers are, I don't religiously follow this shit like you do. Do you have any more quotes to share or are you just going to keep posting appeals to authority and ad hominems?
He's not crypto guy, which is what the OP was asking for. You're the one calling me names you no-book Black person.
If he is spouting the quasi-religious nonsense about blockchains and AI personhood that coiners do then he is effectively a crypto guy.
No, Nick Bostrom is the world renowned owner of Chuck e Cheese who wants to make AI animatronics real.
>there are property rights relevant to AI
>but they're "real" property rights
bitcoin is interesting to me for being one of the most honest forms of money that exists today. Every single bitcoin, from the very first one, to the very last, is traceble, its history public and difficult to erase. I remember my gf talking to me about women in history and how many of their thoughts and contributions were erased because someone didn't want it to be heard. I think about things like that, and how many things have been lost to history. Time will tell how long the bitcoin experiment will last, but if it holds up 50, 100, 1000 years from now, then we'll have an interesting record of humanity and its habit. Perhaps the world isn't ready yet for money that's that transparent, revealing every facet of our uglyness.
>>but they're "real" property rights
Yes. The storage in a datacenter is "real" property as in it actually exists in the real world, it's not 1s and 0s inside World of warcraft.
a data center which you don't own, but still pay for. kinda defeats the whole idea of property if its not yours.
>a data center which you don't own, but still pay for.
Yes. Property rights also include the right to rent out that property. No, this does not defeat the purpose. This is actually one of the main benefits of owning property, you get to rent it out.
>property rights also includes the right to rent out that property
again, (you) don't own that property. so it defeats the purpose to talk about property rights when you don't own it.
I do own it. I'm the one renting it out. When you own property you'll find out pretty quickly why it's better to do this. You make a lot more money by renting it out.
I understand the money making aspect of renting, that's no question. Original anon was trying to making some claim about property rights and AI, but its silly nonsense argument. It's not clear what was meant by "real" property rights with regards to AI, since AI is so abstract, and the example they gave of paying for a compute cluster is just naive. It's written in such a way to conflate paying for something with actually owning it, which is just wrong.
Either way, I think the idea of virtual property does exist, so long as some form of scarcity can be maintained. My issue with it though is its fragility, since most times the infrastructure is centralized, and if that goes down then every body's property goes down with it. If we are going to have digital property, then it must be decentralized / distributed. (also, we cannot have proprietary digital property, that's just nonsense)
>It's written in such a way to conflate paying for something with actually owning it, which is just wrong.
No it's not. The point is the property rights are the servers. Whomever owns the servers gets the property rights.
>I think the idea of virtual property does exist, so long as some form of scarcity can be maintained
Any form of virtual scarcity is going to be fake, 1s and 0s aren't scarce.
>then it must be decentralized / distributed
This will never happen. To enforce this "virtual scarcity" which is entirely fake, you need a centralized party. Because remember, this is all fake, it will only work if all participants are forced to agree on the fake rules.
>it will only work if all participants are forced to agree on the fake rules
sounds like money to me, don't see the problem here. bitcoin has been doing this for 13 years, no centralization required.
>sounds like money to me
No. The difference with a government-backed money is you get arrested for breaking the rules if they catch you. Crypto can do nothing. Bitcoin requires large amounts of centralization and is currently very centralized. It is also overrun with fraud and scams despite this.
the difference is no one has broken bitcoins rules in 13 years, so why would anyone need be arrested? it currently has over 9000 nodes, distributed throughout the world.
No that's wrong. Actually bitcoin's "rules" have been broken several times when the miners changed the protocol. They wouldn't arrest anybody because they can't, there is no penalty for doing this even if it loses everyone's money.
which protocol did miners change? if bitcoin has a protocol update, then a simple majority is needed to do so. that's part of the rules, and very simple.
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=823
https://freedom-to-tinker.com/2015/07/28/analyzing-the-2013-bitcoin-fork-centralized-decision-making-saved-the-day/
They changed the bitcoin protocol itself. The "simple majority" is 51%, the same percent you need to destroy or shut down the network.
The reality is that bitcoin is ruled by neither, but both count mount a successful attack on the system if they were so motivated.
the ability to change the protocol is part of the protocol. It's a very elaborate game of nomic
>miners
Bitcoin is ruled by holders (of which many are miners), not miners. Otherwise BCH would be Bitcoin.
no, bitcoin is ruled by nodes, of which some are miners
Nodes don't matter unless they create transactions.
BCH is bitcoin
Bitcoin will bcash
Money is based on collective faith. If no one had faith in the ultra-violence and it's ability to be redeemed by the collective faith of people, then the money would vanish.
My government sucks, but still I have a lot more faith in them to arrest and prosecute scammers than anyone involved in cryptocurrency. Because the coiner answer to this is "just let it happen bro".
The true coiner's answer should be "hire your own police".
Hire my own police to torture them and take their private keys so I can get my money back. So much for the "security" of blockchains.
Value is subjective, 1s and 0s sell for a lot if they're correct pattern. Most of us IQfyuys looking at filtering screens of pixels make their living playing with 1s and 0s.
>There's a limited BTC total by design, this makes it deflationary
Currencies don't have to be inflationary. Inflationary currencies are a shitshow and partially why we're headed to the mother of all global recessions.
No you're spewing more goldbug coiner nonsense. That's not why we're headed for a recession.
No, but they're partially why. The current inflationary monetary system only benefits the rich since they can buy assets (like housing) to safeguard their money against inflation. Poor people can't, and this has been causing housing prices to spiral out of control.
That whole inflationary argument has gone out the window since the fed has been raising interests since the beginning of this year or so.
And that tanked the markets.
You think rich people buying entire neighborhoods and companies like BlackRock buying every single house they can has nothing to do with rising housing prices?
>And that tanked the markets.
Yeah well I rather that your meme money becomes worthless than my actual money becomes worthless
I think everybody but a few buttcorn whale does
There are other ways to guard against inflation besides buying assets. But anyway, the HOLDers are literally attempting to use the same strategy by buying crypto coins and keeping them as assets.
The increased housing prices are because of a confluence of factors including the pandemic and population increases and a shrinking housing supply.
>Currencies don't have to be inflationary.
Yes they do. Otherwise everyone would just HODL and there'd be no money to pay with.
People still need to pay for food, housing, entertainment and other things.
Yes and the average Joe wouldn't have any because it would be litertally unavailable.
There hasn't been a single currency in the history of civilization that hasn't been inflationary.
Even in the Middle Ages, when people used gold and silver coins, it was standard practice to debase them so that the king could get more money.
>Yes and the average Joe wouldn't have any because it would be litertally unavailable.
If it was enough to just beat the inflation for those who have money they'd just buy treasury bonds. They'd put enough money back to get even more.
That has literally never happened in the history of mankind. Inflationary currencies dying on the other hand has happened every single time they're introduced.
Inflation makes your shitty currency worth less and less until it's worthless.
well yeah and the fed is fighting inflation by raising interest rates. Which again invalidates the never ending vuvuzuela money printer meme of shitcoiners.
>Works as currency: There's a limited BTC total by design, this makes it deflationary. No monetary controls. Transactions slow and expensive.
>deflation bad
>centralization good
>slow
moronic fed
reserve/
as long as the fed can do currency manipulation, btc is worthless as a currency, they can make the exchange rate be whatever the frick they want.
>Anonymous: False, once I track get a transaction from you, I can track all transactions from the same wallet, which is significantly more transparent that even Visa or Mastercard.
There are ways to have crypto wallets which are not associated with your identity, so this is a moot point. You can easily send and receive any arbitrarily large amount of funds digitally without the government knowing you sent or received funds. Not sure why this is such a difficult thing for you morons to wrap your head around.
Decentralized networks have been around for a very long long time. Freenet was made in the year 2000.
I'm thinking maybe a crypto could be made with it that's superior to bitcoin even since its private. No mining required. What do you guys think?
>Freenet was made in the year 2000.
Ironically this is true, and in the decades since the majority of online discussion has centralised around Discord, Reddit and IQfy. It's almost like decentralisation already failed.
Yeah the current generations are just getting dumber or something.
How can you have the hard problems already solved and come up with convoluted and inferior technology.
Hell I'm thinking of taking a crack at it and I'm just a midwit.
Just grab this
https://github.com/freenet-mobile/app
And turn into a handheld monero
They aren't getting dumber. They're getting smarter. They can see that "decentralization" is a blatant scam pushed by criminals and fraudsters.
Mining was NOT just the way to generate the money. Mining was the property that was supposed to keep the network secure by making it too expensive for a single party to take over the network. That became a stupid, worthless idea the moment they re-centralized back into mining pools.
no one cares about decentralization until it is too late
it is way fricking too late, this is the centralized corporate hellscape you wanted. yeah it fricking sucks and we told you so. frick you.
Mining is the only reason Crypto has any real world value as it shows "proof of work" someone needs to have their computer connected to the internet for transactions to go through in a decentralized network and the way to incentivice people to have their computers set up to do that is to reward in said currency. Any digital currency that doesn't have mining involved would need a totally different philosophy of holding real world value to work and I don't know what that would be.
not really there are many ways
You charge people money for your meme currency, you do fake mining for your meme currency like pi network or the best option you give meme currency for referrals straight up. Well those are not the only options but yeah.
Ok but I was talking about making it less of a meme and truly a better way to do decentralized finance
It's a good way to decentralize transactions.
Bitcoin is, ironically, the only legitimate use of it: make a decentralized currency. Then you have ntfs and other memes that are just pyramid schemes, basically.
Until we see other good use of it I'd say blockchain is mostly a meme.
But Bitcoin and other crypto"currencies" for that matter are not decentralised. The hash chain they are built on is the same for every participant.
It is distributed though, since every participant has a copy of that data.
What the frick do you think "decentralized" means then?
Its owned by chink miners, do I need to spell it out. What is decentralized governance meme?
If it's owned by chinks then why did BCH fail?
why wouldn't it fail?
Its just a bitcoin clone with slightly bigger blocks. Litecoin tier.
Because it was supported by chink miners.
E-mail is an example for a decentralised service. It just means there is no central authority. In case of bitcoin, the underlying hash chain is the central authority for all transactions.
You can start your own blockchain using Bitcoin protocol and hash chain is not an authority it's the product.
But then you are not part of the main Bitcoin network.
So?
Having separate instances that cannot directly interact doesn't make it decentralised.
So you want anyone to be able to create their own coins and everyone else to be forced to accept them?
No. I am simply stating that calling cryptocurrencies decentralised is incorrect.
You have a weird definition of decentralization.
It's an incredibly inefficient database where security is based entirely on being ridiculously inefficient, it's like having a padlock that takes six hours to open even with a key so therefore you're safe from lockpickers
Decentralised network of value transfer. there's not much value outside of the first, which is bitcoin. ETH has meme value as it allows decentralised cryptographically signed code, which allows shit like NFTs or smart contracts and lots of other abstraction memes, but at its core it's a way to represent value without relying on some kind of government or bank; without some kind of centralised authority to tell you how much value it has. Which is also its weakness.
It's a pyramid scheme modified just enough so that people can argue it's not one.
>Mine first coin for x work. Meme people into believing this is the future
>Second guy has to do 2x work to get his coin. Since work is not free, he says by this that his coin is worth that much. Since coins are interchangeable, the first guy's coin is now also worth 2x
>Years pass, now its 1 million x work to mine the coin. The value explodes correspondingly.
This essentially continues till either enough people figure out the whole thing is worthless (considering it's backed by worthless 'work') or when the mineable coins run out and the exponential growth can no longer be sustained.
You don't know what you're talking about. Mining was just a way to generate the money. It's irrelevant in the grand scheme of things, and the value of Bitcoin isn't backed by work, it's backed by trust, since the whole point is that it's decentralized and unfalsifiable. I doubt Bitcoin will suddenly drop to zero once the last coin has been mined as it's already unprofitable to mine today.
Dont kid yourself this shit is gojng to $5 eoy
How pink is IQfy right now?
Not very, the majority still believes that this is just one of those temporary dives that reverses into an even higher peak than last time. Even the pessimists think it will stagnate around the 20k mark instead of going down further.
>You don't know what you're talking about.
Ahh yes, the standard butter comeback for a decade.
? Did you stop at the first sentence?
Mining is supposed to stop le double spending problem
You need a factory full of asics or videocards to stop people from spending their corns twice apparently
Sounds to me like a load of cope.
>considering it's backed by worthless 'work'
Do you even know how new blocks are verified? Thats the work.
I can definitely see why the crazy moves got a hold of everyone, making them think it was the reinvention of the wheel.
Back in 2017 I saw a 2,700% return after holding for only a little over a year, the situation was insane.
Instead of getting euphoric I just got scared of the volatility and cashed out. And I didn't even pull out at the top, it was about $16,500 when I fricked off and never returned to it.
kek 10 years and it still hasn't clicked for you. sorry anon
A purely peer-to-peer version of electronic cash would allow online payments to be sent directly from one party to another without going through a financial institution. Digital signatures provide part of the solution, but the main benefits are lost if a trusted third party is still required to prevent double-spending. We propose a solution to the double-spending problem using a peer-to-peer network. The network timestamps transactions by hashing them into an ongoing chain of hash-based proof-of-work, forming a record that cannot be changed without redoing the proof-of-work. The longest chain not only serves as proof of the sequence of events witnessed, but proof that it came from the largest pool of CPU power. As long as a majority of CPU power is controlled by nodes that are not cooperating to attack the network, they'll generate the longest chain and outpace attackers. The network itself requires minimal structure. Messages are broadcast on a best effort basis, and nodes can leave and rejoin the network at will, accepting the longest proof-of-work chain as proof of what happened while they were gone.
just make a regular freenet database tbh
Dead serious, why wouldn't this work?
Just.Make.A.Database.On.Freenet.
Encryption and distributed network provided by yours truly.
ip over carrier pigeons is faster than freenet insert speeds, like actually not a joke.
it'd be like not even 1kb of data
yeah, i know.
well per coin i mean. Like each coin would contain less than 1kb of data. I don't know just throw darts
I mean transaction. Ugh each transaction would contain less than 1kb of data... did i mention that freenet has spam protection?
If you're really interested in the technology, just look at state machine replication.
The correct definition of blockchain (as cryptographic protocols) is: Byzantine tolerant state machine replication protocol whose communication cost is at most linear in the number of node.
The part about communication cost is because blockchains are expected to let anyone on the Internet join the protocol, that's why we require them to not choke the network they are running on.
Nick Bostrom's book Super Intelligence is the best argument for blockchain as a necessary technology for the long term. He actually mentions it, not by name, but as an immutable ledger. With our current internet bots will take it over very quickly and virtual property rights will be necessary if we are to co-exist with artificial intelligence, our current virtual infrastructure was simply never designed for it.
>virtual property rights will be necessary
We already have those, and they don't need blockchain.
>virtual property rights
There's no "virtual property" because everything digital can be perfectly reproduced for free.
there is virtual property and its stored on the government copyright and patents office's servers or whatever. Not some meme write only database blockchain.
I can download patents and copyrighted works, print them out, wipe my ass with them and there's no property "owner" that could prevent me from doing that.
they can take you to court and sue you
Good luck with that, they'll be laughed out of the court.
the creator of pepe got a settlement from alex jones for using not even the original pepe
People have also been sued for copying 3d objects on second life I think
He was selling it and in any case, I never said that you will not get punished for distributing copies of a copyrighted work.
that's more a construct when you think about it. If we're going to treat things like patent and copyright like property, then they shouldn't have some arbitrary expiration date like 20 years or 50 years. They should belong to whoever came up with them, and all families and individuals who share common ancestry with those inventors should be compensated for others use of the work.
>Crypto itself
Varies, The question is what problem is it being used to solve. Right now most of it is speculation, greed, smoke screens for a ponzi scheme, and people trying to get rich selling pickaxes, shovels, and trading posts for a gold rush. Very shady overall, with some elements completely without actual usefulness. Even worse considering most lie about how they "democratize" finance, but in fact are far more centralized and first-mover-profit-rich-get-richer by design.
>Blockchain
Theoretically useful, the biggest benefit. A distributed ledger that is immutable, but of course it depends how it is used. It can completely obliterate anonymity for instance, if you can find out who owns a given wallet address, without mixing or additional technologies
>DAOs, DAPPs, Tokens of any sort, etc
This is where the bullshit gets deep. 1% of the time it COULD be useful, but mostly it is for making money by passing the bag. The only way this is useful if say.. I'm running a new co-op or union and I fork some
>DeFi, Swaps
Nearly entirely speculative swindles designed to frick people over just like the big boys do on wall street. They want to scam and get out before it gets regulated.
>NFTs
Absolute bullshit, especially when it comes to gaming. Basically a digital "proof of authenticity" that costs stupid amounts of money on some blockchain to create and transfer. All the stuff that the Internet did with getting rid of digital scarcity? Crypto morons want to enforce more scarcity if they think they can get rich doing it. Absolutely without value, entirely scam related and based on monetization, destroying anything to which it is attached.
Whoops, some got cut off. Anyway, if I'm running an organization like a union or co-op , I can fork some asset (think of something like ETH) and use it to mint tokens to give to all my members. Each member can stake their token as part of a DAO principle in order to vote on something, for instance. However, this only works because I have forked the chain and I only need relatively small amounts of transactions being done. If I tried to do this by pulling token from a mainnet, it would mean it would cost $100+ for each member to cast their vote in ETH "gas" transaction fees, atop what near fortune it would cost me to make a ERC20 based token ecosystem etc. Its all bullshit in practice because its focused on speculation and big money. In theory, it could be somewhat useful on totally different scales that would have nothing to do with being able to exchange each token or asset for real money etc.
Yes, this is very costly. Etheruem as is is a very expensive network to transact on, so until they make the transition to a less costly consensus mechanism, it will always be user-unfriendly, even if the cost is a feature and not a bug. Side-chains too, i somewhat agree with Luke Smith's whole thing about added layers taking value away from the main chain. I think the most important thing now for any adoption is stablecoins, but there must be clear and nuanced guidance from regulators on how they should work before it gets fully adopted.
Right, and of course it is designed that way mostly because those holding or mining ETH (who in term have a frickload they can use to "vote" for which provisions and how the protocol should evolve because its literally a "those who have the most money, get the most votes" situation yet these two faced morons laughably claim it is democratizing finance) stand to benefit. Its just like something like LBRY - Odysee doesn't exist to be the very best decentralized YouTube alternative there is, its made in order to increase the value and create an attachment to the LBRY asset. Compare this to something like PeerTube which isn't limited to any particular protocol , monetization, etc...and is actually designed to do better in an open manner. All the side chains, tokens, assets, swaps etc.. basically feed the mainline so of course those who profit claim "yes! please develop on us! Pay ETH to create this and that! Peg your stuff to ours!"
If they really wanted transactions to be affordable, its amazing nobody who designs these things couldn't have the cost somewhat fixed and/or updated/scale based on the value. Same thing with any DAO voting or "Supernodes" in various tech. There are many crypto projects that have "Supernodes" where if you own one its doing part of the work for the network but they either require stupidly high amounts of hardware (Filecoin, Chia etc.) that again prefer those who have the money for thousands upon thousands of hardware, and usually also require something like "1000-2000 ASSET_HERE" or more. So if you get in when it costs less than a cent, you're okay. However if it even reaches a dollar much less over that, its basically impossible if you don't have lots of cash to throw around. One solution could be fractional ownership but they never let that work - its always "oh you can only split it into 2-4 parts" because its essentially a way to centralize wealth and power. Just like ASIC mining, or PoS volumeetc.
I'd imagine with a fixed fee that could lead to spam or an attack on the network, so i'm not sure how viable that would be long term. We also shouldn't chastise early adopters, since there's always going to be people who adopt it first and will reap a lot of benefit from it. my main concern would be token distribution, how fair is it, how they go about it, etc. LBRY is cool in theory, but yes it is very centralized in practice. Same with filecoin and other such things. peertube i wish would be widely adopted, but it is clear to me that the issue with many of these decentralized protocols is lack of incentive to host. It's like how mastodon or matrix is decentralized in theory but centralized in practice, my belief is people see more benefit with registering with the main instance and never both setting up their own.
I think a network like cardano has a decent solution, where fees scale with the value of the token itself, and theres penalty for too much centralization. Still, it suffers from centralization when a small group of stake pools attract the most delegations. it's tricky, and all this tech is too new so no one really knows the best way forward. i remain cautiously optimistic. these are hard questions, valuable questions to be asking, necessary to articulate them in as clear and precise a way as possible. only then will we ever get close to a real solution. dismissing valid criticisms or being hand-wavy about it will only lead to ruin.
Sounds like fool's errand to me. People will always find a way to delegate to someone else who knows how to game the system.
i disagree, but empathize. there will always be people who attempt to game the system. The real downfall is when people design things without taking things like that into consideration, or become complacent and don't have ways to respond when shit really hit the fan. There's this idea in cyber security, where one must assume the enemy knows the system, but it should work regardless. I agree with that, we have assume at some point in the future, someone may find an exploit, and respond accordingly.
That's another fundamental reason why blockchain bullshit will never work. They're intentionally designed so that nobody can respond quickly to incidents. If something bad happens you just lose all your money instantly and you can't get it back.
>theres penalty for too much centralization
how do they measure centralization?
excellent question, the answer they came up with is still kinda shakey. Since consensus is based on stake, centralization is measured by how much stake a stake pool has on the network. They call it the K factor. There's an equation in the whitepaper for the consensus mechanism if you're interested in reading it, explaining how they derived it. its an interesting read.
it's a little more nuanced i think, like how when the DAO exploit happened on ethereum, the network got forked to return the funds back. a lot of people view that as a negative against the network, but appreciate it as an example in contrast to bitcoin. bitcoin attempted to stay alive in the face of a doomsday scenario, ethereum faced the doomsday scenario and forked into a new domain. very weird dynamics that.
It isn't more nuanced. That wasn't a design that was literally a governance dispute.
governance dispute is part of the design
i agree with your sentiment, a lot of times people add a blockchain token just to add a blockchain token, without ever really asking why they need it to begin with. or the distribution is fudged, so insiders get all the value. also agree on open elements, though i'd extend and say "free and open" since freedom should come first and openess follows. if there is to be digital money, then it must be free and open source, no exceptions, no compromise. i see a lot of value in decentralized value transfer, p2p digital currencies. it was the missing piece of the digital puzzle, the last thing the pioneers in the 90s couldn't figure out. email, chat, social media, etc were all figured out by then, but it was the transfer of value that wasn't figured out until bitcoin came out (and monero works better as currency than bitcoin, but i digress)
the real power in cardano is held by stake pool operators, since they participate in the election process. the concern people have right now are single parties owning multiple stake pools. the concern i have is stake pool infrastructure being built on cloud services. both of these lead to centralization, but at least cardano community cares about it / bothers to have that conversation. seems most people are content with things that "just work" and never consider what that means in the long term. short term games being played by short term people.
>single parties owning multiple stake pools
that seems unavoidable in a pseudonymous system
yes, it is a risk that must be taken into consideration. not doing so will spell demise. failing to plan is planning to fail, as the adage goes
>governance dispute is part of the design
No it isn't. It's outside the design, it can never be part of the design as it is "the human factor", the most unpredictable part.
>at least cardano community cares about it / bothers to have that conversation.
If things go the wrong way there is nothing they can actually do about it. Don't confuse "having a conversation" with "caring about it to actually do something". They won't actually do something because any real solution requires centralization. This happens with every single coin. Every coiner thinks their shitcoin is different, but it's not.
I think a scaling fee or a fee pegged to a percentage of the value would be the most viable. Thats what a transaction fee is supposed to be, a minimal amount of credit or whatever to cover all the work done, but instead both tradiitonal banks and especially crypto use it as a major vector to profitability and surcharge. It basically punishes success of a blockchain asset because a 0.01 asset fee is fine when something costs less than a cent, but when the same thing costs $40,0000 per token then its insane. As for early adopters they can get a benefit, but the problem is many of these seem to either give such a disproportional benefit that gives them control and allows them to pull the ladder up after them. I don't think LBRY (or any other service based on a blockchain asset that doesn't actually use the entire service ON the blockchain . LOKI for instance or Status messenger that uses some Eth token or whatever) can be anything besides literal bait - its there specifically to push the value of the asset. There's no reason they couldn't use more open elements but that gets in the way of profitability for people who want that asset to grow in speculative value.
PeerTube, Mastodon, Matrix are different and preferable, massively so. They';re more like Email or XMPP. They're decentralized federated social media alternatives, knowing that most people wont' host but that's okay, because its compatible with those that do. You can monetize however you want , the tech is designed to make the best version of those tools as possible. Its just up to people to host them as they wish or signup on one they like/want to support/has rules they can agree with. There's no inherent cost like some crypto linked garbage.
I'd have to look more into Cardano but it appeared very centralized and benefits strongly those who bought in early giving them all the power and ability to stake etc.
Blockchain is not theoretically useful. Period. The technology is not new, it has been known to be useless since the 1980s. Byzantine fault algorithms are a terrible thing to design a financial system after, inherently all solutions to the problem can be gamed.
What are you talking about? In practicality there are situations for distributed ledgers being viable. Likewise, many of those "game-able" solutions are difficult to pull off on a significant scale (ie we're unlikely to see a 51% attack even on BTC and even that can be mitigated with later implementations etc). I'm not saying its useful for an entire financial system in and of itself, but there are some situations the technology could be useful regarding just like with the whole smart contract/DAO thing - its just that most of the focus is on "how to I make easy money and pass around a speculative asset before the gold rush ends" which is not so much a technical issue as it is a human greed one.
>In practicality there are situations for distributed ledgers being viable.
In practicality there are no solutions. They solve no problems that aren't already solved by a traditional distributed database. I suggest PostgreSQL if you want a free open source option.
>we we're unlikely to see a 51% attack even on BTC
Bitcoin has already suffered several 51% attacks, every change to the mining protocol is effectively a 51% attack.
> just like with the whole smart contract/DAO thing
These are useless. In a normal database these are called "stored procedures" and you don't have to pay for them. Smart contracts are just another scammy way to put a price tag on something that existed decades before.
It's not an attack if everyone agrees to it and no one suffers.
No. It's absolutely an attack if you are part of the 49% that doesn't agree. We have been through all these discussions before when the chain forked. It is the same exact thing as a 51% attack. In either case your only recourse is you get to fork the blockchain and your coin instantly loses half its value (or more)
the majority is not everyone
why have a decentralized system in the first place when it just reproduces the centralized one in the end
There is nothing in the world "everyone" would agree to.
You mean like how nobody can ever agree what the value of a bitcoin should be because it is actually worth nothing?
>Distributed database
Well, its not distributed and verifiable enough for some situations. Sure, you can host a big SQL database somewhere, but its not like every client has an inviolable copy of everything that's on it, or contributes in the recording etc.
>51%
Of course in the past when it was smaller the easier it is to do so, but the larger and more widely used the less possible it is by design. Every change to the mining protocol as a 51% attack? I don't think that's the same thing and its not a "hostile" takeover. You may as well say that a hard fork is a 51% attack too, right? There's a pretty big difference how its handled not to mention its visibility and effect.
>"stored procedures"
Yeah it can certainly be used to do things in a scammy way, but I don't think thats inherent. You can just run a normal database but that isn't the same thing as a blockchain smart contract or whatever. Like in my other example of a union or co-op, I could very easily just run a LAMP stack or some other server with a database and collect everyone's votes that way (I could even in theory use some sort of PKI, or other forms of crypto for privacy, or just create user accounts for each new member to allow them to vote etc) but all the trust would be that I wouldn't frick with it. Something like blockchain makes it mathematically integral to the procedure to see each step that happens, everyone can see it and know what gets written/how, and makes it trackable in something like a DAO / Smart contract setup. I'm not sure how you could do this to the same degree in a traditional database that isn't either MORE cumbersome or basically leave a certain amount of trust in the central authority of the database who is running and provisioning it.
>but its not like every client has an inviolable copy of everything that's on it, or contributes in the recording etc.
Those are some of the easiest things to build on top of a SQL database. Almost all database apps grant the ability to do that in some way.
>Every change to the mining protocol as a 51% attack? I don't think that's the same thing and its not a "hostile" takeover
It is the same thing. Consider what happens if you are part of the 49% and you don't agree with the protocol changes, it's going to be hostile. This has already happened several times with just bitcoin and there was a lot of drama and b***hing and the chain forked.
>You may as well say that a hard fork is a 51% attack too, right?
It's a successful 51% attack by the ones who don't fork, yes.
>You can just run a normal database but that isn't the same thing as a blockchain smart contract or whatever
It is exactly the same thing. Coiner bros try to convince you that it's different but it's not. Smart contracts are just more expensive, worse versions.
>but all the trust would be that I wouldn't frick with it. Something like blockchain makes it mathematically integral to the procedure to see each step that happens, everyone can see it and know what gets written/how
>I'm not sure how you could do this to the same degree in a traditional database
Look up cryptographic voting systems. These things existed long before blockchains and don't require blockchains at all. The ONLY thing added by blockchains is that you need to pay speculative crypto tokens in order to get a vote.
I think a lot of the discussion comes down to the difference between the whole, the parts, and the sum of the parts.
>Inviolably distributed record in common databases
How would this be done, much less easily and visibly accessible to users? I can think of a cumbersome system of each user having a separate copy of the database, software to view and assess it, hashes for its various states, connectivity to not only the "main" database but something to ensure that all copies are coming to a consensus etc... but that all seems like a bit more cumbersome way of doing things and not at all integrated or just expecting it to work that way.
>Changing the protocol or fork
If you don't agree but you're outvoted, that doesn't necessarily mean its hostile and taken from you; it can still be part of the system. Your guy not winning an election is different from the electoral system being invalid both in concept (ie inequality in its design,etc) and within its own practice (ie it doesn't follow its own rules, someone is stuffing ballot boxes or faking results). There's a difference between a system working and democratically losing out to other voters and someone else being able to create a coup reagardless of the rules . Doesn't mean that just losing won't be contentious or a 51 to 49% win if you need a simple majority won't have a lot of pissed off people
>Same as regular database, and cryptographic voting
But its not, is it? You can have a great cryptographic voting software that's perfect in its security, but if its running in a VM on a blackbox I control and can frick with its outputs it doesn't really matter how perfect it is in the VM alone. I think that's the crux of it that makes it different - blockchain puts all of it together, has it work together, and makes each part depend on the others (ie the people doing the work/stake etc.. write in the ledger, each ledger is compared, each client can see the whole blockchain and any differences etc).,
> but that all seems like a bit more cumbersome way of doing things and not at all integrated or just expecting it to work that way.
It is exactly as cumbersome as blockchains if you expect all blockchain participants to do the "secure" equivalent and run a full node (hint: BTC is centralized, almost nobody using BTC does this. I don't want to store 4TB of transactions just to pay for a $5 sandwich)
>that doesn't necessarily mean its hostile and taken from you
But that is exactly what it means. That is the only reason a 51% attack is considered bad. If 51% of miners decide to start randomly blocking transactions that would be bad but would still be considered "legal" and not hostile, according to the protocol. It would piss of a lot of people but that wouldn't matter.
>There's a difference between a system working and democratically losing out to other voters and someone else being able to create a coup reagardless of the rules
In BTC, there is not. They consider them one and the same. If you get 51% consensus you can change the rules to whatever, you have full control over the network. This also isn't a democracy, you don't "vote" in a democratic sense. It's just whoever control the most hashpower at that time, determined by whoever is burning the most energy.
>but if its running in a VM on a blackbox I control and can frick with its outputs it doesn't really matter how perfect it is in the VM alone
The miners can frick with the outputs on the blockchain too. At some point the computer is going to be operated by humans and you have to trust that operator is doing the right thing. This is not avoidable, blockchains or not.
>blockchain puts all of it together, has it work together, and makes each part depend on the others
They don't even do that though because there are multiple chains, i.e. multiple "sources of truth". They could do that if everyone on the planet was forced to use one single blockchain all the time for everything, but that won't happen.
No one is in crypto for its actual use as an alt currency. Maybe 10,000 people in total have bitcoin to use for transactions. The rest are in it to make money off it, and have varying degrees of understanding about the technology.
Because of this, crypto has no future. It will always be traded for raw financial value rather than the technology or use as currency. If we went back 10 years ago with all the altcoins/shitcoins, before Coinbase and Binance and others were massive players in the space, you might have seen an actual currency-based or tech-based use out of crypto. But we're past that point.
The volatility and lack of widespread use should confirm this to you.
Its a scam, only early investors made any money (ponzi, MLM, pump and dump, etc) mostly used by criminals to launder money. No one is buying pictures of monkies for millions of dollars. It's criminals buying pictures from themselves with a few idiots falling for the bandwagon then repeatedly getting rugpulled
"You'll own nothing and be happy"
>UHHH FRICK THAT SWEATY, I'M BUYING CRYPTO!
is the weirdest fricking response, kudos to the scammers for getting all the freepers to do the complete opposite of what should be done.
it was promising when it came out
I've been using BTC for years to send money overseas. Transactions may take a couple of hours but it's far better than the days it takes through normal banks. Fees are lower too and the recipients don't lose nearly as much when exchanging BTC to their currency than they would through banks. BTC is kind of antiquated though. Monero offers far better anonymity and speed, Avalanche is quite fast too and their deacentralized contracts have low fees.
The problem is cryptobros and financial institutions using crypto as a get-rich-quick scheme. As an example there's Dogecoin: for years it was a great currency to pay with since it was fast, had low fees and the price was stable. Then the cryptobros with their "to the moon" memes began to use it as a roulette at the casino and now none of those benefits remain.
That will continue to happen with every cryptocoin because your boys don't believe in very basic things like "capital controls" which we know are necessary to stop the currency from getting debased.
>The problem is cryptobros and financial institutions using crypto as a get-rich-quick scheme. As an example there's Dogecoin: for years it was a great currency to pay with since it was fast, had low fees and the price was stable. Then the cryptobros with their "to the moon" memes began to use it as a roulette at the casino and now none of those benefits remain.
THIS. Frickers like Max Kaiser and even Elon Musk pushing it as if it's the next gold rush has irreparably fricked up the space. Going forward I might just consider only holding coins where there's an effort made towards using the coins as opposed to "muh HODL" or "muh moon" and then nobody uses the fricking things, maybe get more stablecoins and shit like BCH or Monero.
I think that the the bigger problem is that these people hype up things to insane degrees and people listen to them. Hopefully now they're exposed as frauds and while there still will be volatility, it won't be to the same degree.
With LBRY/Odysee at least they basically throw tokens at you and you can use other methods to tip channels (although I would be fine with the token going away). Something like Status doesn't need tokens whatsoever, it just complicates something that should be simple to use.
>there's an effort made towards using the coins
That won't happen as crypto coins are fundamentally useless for payments. They have no inherent value, the only reason they are worth any money at all is due to speculators driving the price up. Yeah I know you can buy shit like NFTs that also function as a concert ticket so they technically could have value, but nobody wants to use post malone tickets as a currency.
>Hopefully now they're exposed as frauds and while there still will be volatility, it won't be to the same degree.
There will always be extreme volatility. This is what crypto bros want. They wanted no regulations, that's what they get.
They will pay for that in their local currency which is actually useful for payments.
>That won't happen as crypto coins are fundamentally useless for payments. They have no inherent value, the only reason they are worth any money at all is due to speculators driving the price up.
Please nobody tell this man about where the value of fiat comes from. Also I've spent hundreds of dollars worth of coins on payments what are you talking about?
>There will always be extreme volatility. This is what crypto bros want. They wanted no regulations, that's what they get.
With regulations you get some kind of limp-dick coin that has none of the benefits while still having many of the drawbacks. If anything there needs to be a crash similar to that of the video game industry that clears out all the shit and then a project made by people with heads on their shoulders comes in.
>Please nobody tell this man about where the value of fiat comes from.
The value of fiat does not come from speculation. It comes from the economic output of a country.
And if you consider crypto coins to be money (they aren't) all crypto coins would also technically be fiat money.
>Also I've spent hundreds of dollars worth of coins on payments
People spent billions of dollars on Madoff's scheme before it fell apart.
>With regulations you get some kind of limp-dick coin that has none of the benefits while still having many of the drawbacks.
That's what I'm saying. There will never be regulation because crypto bros don't want it. It means they don't get to have their "decentralization" fantasies anymore and also they can't gamble. It would just become a boring thing to use as a unit of exchange, kind of like.... well you know, money.
>a project made by people with heads on their shoulders comes in.
It will never happen, those with heads on their shoulders ignore this because it is a giant scam. Blockchains are not new. They were known about in the 1980s. They solve no problems and were quickly dismissed as a pipe dream. A fringe group of anarchists revived it in 2008 because they were angry about the housing crisis but knew nothing about technology or finance. Then the speculators saw these people as their marks and rolled in. It will happen over and over again until you get it.
Ironically the most "coin/currency" suited crypto I've seen to date is Monero. Its not about all kinds of other speculation shit, but instead its supposed to be a private, anonymous cash like digital transaction. It can be mined with both CPU and GPU, and they change the algos and evolve. ASICs don't work, there's no "supernodes" etc. Transaction fees are low and transactions are pretty quick. It has mixers and a protocol to benefit anonymity and privacy , not a lot of "dapps" or any ancillary shit .
Its price still fluctuates with crypto overall mostly because of the entire thing is speculator driven (not Monero, but crypto as a whole) but this is actually worse because Monero is being shut out of a bigger investment on many sides because A) it doesn't have shifty speculator shit that makes them rich like sidechain dapp bullshit and B) the privacy elements make regulators and others really hate the frick out of it and know its going to be used to shady stuff. However overall its one of the better cryptos Iv'e seen that is actually designed as a cash-like currency to privately and anonymously transfer. Its just a pity that isn't valued on a larger scale against ponzi schemes and tracking bullshit.
No normal person has any reason to use monero or any other form of private digital cash. Nobody actually wants that besides criminals. Its only use case is that you can do illegal things with it. Even for buying drugs most people can just use paypal or venmo and put in the note "getting pizza for the party" or something.
monero is the worst offender in the ecosystem on the topic of scams. they sell an idea that their code cannot ever possibly match, it is a fricking pile lies and sadness. do basic fricking code review, dont take my word for it. if you cant even do that, your opinion doesnt matter here anyways.
no, no they dont. no one cares about privacy enough to use cash, except maybe the schizos. no normal person will. ever.
Are you not mistaking that for something else? There's at least reasonable suspicion for the use of ZCash's ZK-SNARK proofs as being untested in the long run or whatever, but Monero is based on some pretty common technologies and known math for crypto, mixing, among other stuff. Its just integrated better than DASH or the whole "we'll put a mixing layer ontop of Bitcoin" or other projects which are also privacy focused.
>Monero is based on some pretty common technologies
their implementation of it is a ball of dogshit wrapped in duck tape and spaghetti with a bunch of fanboys worshiping it.
This seems to be a "nobody needs free speech" or "why would you ever transact in cash, bro, instead of a card" or "Why don't you like social credit system, citizen? Two point loss for unpatriotic question, two more for being associated with shady people" and falls to the same fallacies. People don't need to be criminals to want privacy for their transactions, or maybe they simply want lesser transaction fees that are more aligned to an actual need to process rather than making big payment processors or banks wealthy? Hell, you can't even buy a fricking IQfy Pass with PayPal or any other "common, use your visa/mastercard" service (or you couldn't, if this has changed ) and it is one of the more popular sites around. Maybe you wanted to donate to a cause that someone would object to or the ruling interest of your country dislike? There's a lot of reasons for wanting essentially anonymous transactions.
>This seems to be a "nobody needs free speech" or "why would you ever transact in cash, bro, instead of a card" or "Why don't you like social credit system, citizen? Two point loss for unpatriotic question, two more for being associated with shady people" and falls to the same fallacies.
It's not a fallacy. What you are omitting is that these are TRANSACTIONS. They happen between two parties. Why would you want to deal in some market where every person is known to be shady? You have to trust the other party, either it's done through some kind of credit system, or you have a legal system that punishes them after the fact if they scam. There is no other way this works. Not in monero, not with cash, not with anything. There is no "free speech" here, that's a meme and you bought it hook line and sinker. Either someone is telling the truth and the transaction is legit, or they're lying and you got scammed and then you're going to be fricking pissed off and want your money back.
>or maybe they simply want lesser transaction fees that are more aligned to an actual need to process rather than making big payment processors or banks wealthy?
That will never happen with crypto coins. The entire purpose of them is that you are making the miners/stakers wealthy by paying transaction fees.
>Maybe you wanted to donate to a cause that someone would object to or the ruling interest of your country dislike?
That is an incredibly poor reason to use crypto coins as they are overrun with scams. Exposing an already oppressed people to more scams isn't going to help them.
>There's a lot of reasons for wanting essentially anonymous transactions.
No crypto coins can ever be fully anonymous. The chains are all public, by design.
>t's not a fallacy. What you are omitting is that these are TRANSACTIONS. They happen between two parties. Why would you want to deal in some market where every person is known to be shady? You have to trust the other party, either it's done through some kind of credit system, or you have a legal system that punishes them after the fact if they scam. There is no other way this works. Not in monero, not with cash, not with anything. There is no "free speech" here, that's a meme and you bought it hook line and sinker. Either someone is telling the truth and the transaction is legit, or they're lying and you got scammed and then you're going to be fricking pissed off and want your money back.
Hi gigajew, let me tell you how it's supposed to work before you fricked it in every direction, you get scammed? you go to them and you kill them. After they die you get pulled to court where your peers exhonrate you because they would have done the same for being scammed. the judge might have even let you go if you attempted a citizens arrest instead.
>bb-but how will corporations do the same
they shouldn't legally exist at all. Corporations are not people and your illegal organizations should be burned to the ground for treason.
>you go to them and you kill them.
How are you supposed to find them if they're anonymous, dingus?
>giving your money to anonymous people
lol, lmao even.
>dude buying drugs on the internet is like so super gamer, and like bro how do you do fellow drug buyers. this is xXx_notdoj_87_xXx and i want to hear about my fellow monero users and what their fave markets are.
>pic rel, me irl
nice picture of yourself.
>buying drugs instead of diying your own
lol lmao.
>Nobody actually wants that besides criminals.
Only criminals wanted to be anonymous.
When it comes to anonymously transferring large amounts of cash overseas, yes. That is literally illegal in any civilized country. You can almost guarantee that person is doing something shady.
Blockchain isn't anonymous, it's an immutable ledger. Every wallet and transaction is kept track of.
This is blockchain 101 stuff.
>Blockchain isn't anonymous
sort of true, it can be but it ends up scaling worse.
if bitcoin is email via smtp, monero is email via A.A.M.
>sort of true
Cash will always be more anonymous then even privacy coins.
this is why all the bug eating pod life promoters are pushing for a cashless society.
Sad but true. It will be literally over when they cash is rendered obsolete.
>the year is 20X6
>winter is here in july and the nuclear fallout rains above pretty hard for this time
>the walmart cheer bringers sing their song to keep your "walmart cheer™" levels above the minimal legal levels
>the lyrics go as follows
tis the season CONSUME PRODUCT
you will eat the bugs and be happy
suck the dick you FRICKING BIGOT
get back in the pod and own nothing
buy the bitcoin, dump the dollar
xbox live, epic games, Amazon prime
tis the season CONSUME PRODUCT
you will at the bugs and be happy
you can thank monero for that. their refusal to make their tech accessible to normal people has ensured that only bad actors will go through the pain to use it. they have reached the network effect for crimial activity that ensures no legitimate use cases for monero can exist, to fight the system, maaaaaaaaaaaaan.
Monero (and all the other privacy coins) will never be usable or accessible to normal people as they require an in depth knowledge of cybersecurity and cryptography to even begin to have the benefits. If you leak even one piece of data through some other channel the benefits of them are nil. It's the same reason PGP never took off among the general public despite many companies trying to put fancy wrappers around it. Normal people have less than zero reason to frick around with it. Nobody is ever going to want to LARP as a extreme secret agent hacker just to pay for baby diapers or dog food or canned peas or whatever.
yea, tell that to monero kids and watch their autism explode.
With LBRY/Odysee throwing tokens at you is exactly what I was talking about. Also trying to tip channels using anything else is made intentionally cumbersome (if the user doesn't have another platform set up all ready. Also I think there's some level of priority given for things like what shows in chat and whatnot, only LBRY is integrated into that etc). There's also literal "tipping/use of credits ensures content is more viewable" , they've got a whole monetization scheme in it that's hostile to anything else. While I have to begrudgingly give therm credit for making an easy import from YouTube basically before PeerTube, PT is working on that but was more concerned with actually being a good video platform and adding features that were beneficial to users and hosts alike, rather than focusing on monetization. It always sucks when the guys doing the right thing get screwed over because of it, but all we can do is support PeerTube and similar "fediverse" alternatives over cryptoshit monetization.
Odysee has plenty of features to it and more importantly it has more videos of any note than PeerTube. The issue with Fediverse-type stuff tends to be a whole lot of instances that you would have to find one you like, while I can go to Odysee and it's one website where shit is. Unfortunately it's the same for chat protocols: Telegram and Signal are specific applications I can tell people to go to as opposed to with XMPP where there's a whole bunch to cycle through. At least with Matrix you have Element which is a relatively easy go-to.
As for dollar payments from what I see it's as much as add your card details and then pay.
>The value of fiat does not come from speculation. It comes from the economic output of a country.
Then explain where all that money that was printed the last couple of years came from? Was there some massive output I didn't see?
>People spent billions of dollars on Madoff's scheme before it fell apart.
I purchased goods and services I used. What a dumb point.
>It would just become a boring thing to use as a unit of exchange, kind of like.... well you know, money.
I think you look at a few coins and think that's the entire space when you have coins that can be used much more as money, especially stablecoins.
>They were known about in the 1980s. They solve no problems and were quickly dismissed as a pipe dream
The problem back then was feasibility (although they did exist as far back as the 90's
>Odysee has more videos etc..
This is the problem with a centralized system with vested monetized interest. Its like "There's always more software/PCs sold with Windows, when MS is basically throwing money at OEMs to ship with MS products, locking in businesses, and willing to lose money if it means keeping competitors out of the market.". The only reason there appears to be more on Odysee is they came up with a "dump all your stuff from YT onto us" tool very early -they built the tipping and monetization and all the shit about LBRY credits before a lot of other features (ie Livestreaming, which PeerTube has ). Regarding multiple instances, considering many federate with each other and display others content, plus they have a new metasearch engine just in the past year or two that is connected to pretty much all instances. I understand why some people look to LBRY but much in the same way that its worth investing in Linux , libre alternatives and other stuff, its probably better to support tech that is about better social media and hosting alternatives in and of itself, than those with crypto stapled onto them which make that their major motive.
All of these things can happen in cash and for that matter can happen with trackable fiat. Doesn't necessarily mean that its bad to want privacy or that lacking it will mean avoiding all scams. There are plenty of markets where there are other forms of trust - hell, plenty of paypal using computer hardware forums use Heatware and similar rep because they know that someone will use their sister's paypal account or ship a box with a brick instead of a graphics card and you're basically out it - you call them out for scamming but they move on you don't necessarily get your shit back. Dealing in reputation is another issue, and many darkwebs that use crypto have solid rep systems that have lasted for years. There's also a technical solution even with crypto like some sort of escrow . OOR
First off Odysee has livestreaming and has had it for about a year. It works pretty well. To make a comparison to Microsoft is disingenuous in that one brought creators in through ease-of-use and the other is buying their way to success. The YouTube transfers are a selling point that b***hute nor PeerTube do in the same way (Rumble does). I know that the tokens are a major part of Odysee but I don't think that's the main focus, that's being a video platform without YouTube's BS (similar to all the other YT alternatives).
>Odysee has plenty of features to it and more importantly it has more videos of any note than PeerTube. The issue with Fediverse-type stuff tends to be a whole lot of instances that you would have to find one you like, while I can go to Odysee and it's one website where shit is. Unfortunately it's the same for chat protocols: Telegram and Signal are specific applications I can tell people to go to as opposed to with XMPP where there's a whole bunch to cycle through. At least with Matrix you have Element which is a relatively easy go-to.
Yeah, fediverse is pretty confusing. I don't really know which instance I should even use. I used one with the highest number of "follows" (syndication) and that had porn on it.
You must first distinguish between specification and implementation. Specification is the declarative knowledge that defines a process. In this case, the cryptographic process.
The cryptographic specification defines the absolute integrity of the information. This means that information protected by a cryptographic system is free from corruption. This is what every implementation aims to sell. The crypto-capital business is the information integrity business.
I'm old enough to remember how everything was "Object-Oriented" back in the 90s. Even if it didn't make sense, you'd say it is just to market your product and impress investors. Now "blockchain" was the same overhyped meme in 2017-2020, the difference being OO was occasionally useful, blockchain never is. There's no use cases for it, it's a solution in search of a problem, good old SQL database is a better solution in 100% of cases. Still, the hype was there and people aped it to make money. Same goes for the NFT meme in 2021, only it ended even quicker.
Basically the way I see it, it's comparable to open source vs proprietary software.
Many people say that crypto solves nothing, that everything it does was theoretically possible with traditional systems, like credit cards or databases. Well, the same goes from open source software. Every functionality that has some open source tool for it, can and likely is already covered by proprietary alternatives. Does that mean that libre software solves nothing? No, it has benefits that proprietary alternatives don't, even if the functionality is the same.
Before cryptocurrencies, there was only proprietary money. Money under control of the state, or certain companies like Visa or Paypal. They could ultimately stop you from paying certain people or getting paid by certain people, or they could manipulate the parameters like inflation in ways you disagree with and would rather change if you had the chance.
If you understand the benefits of libre software then you should also understand the benefits of a libre alternative to the proprietary money that I described above. Money that you were finally free to use exactly how you wanted. And it goes beyond simple transactions too, you can now program entire open source software that incorporates money processing independently and automatically, with the same benefits of having full control and sovereignty yourself.
> Before cryptocurrencies, there was only proprietary money
There's still only proprietary money, cryptocurrencies aren't "money" in any sense, it's a speculative commodity. Hell, even cryptobros measure their wealth in USD because that's the real money, BTC is just a means to get it.
Now you're just arguing semantics. I'm talking about functionality. Crypto allows for the transfer of value, like fiat currencies.
So does selling hats in TF2, that doesn't make them "money". For starters, no one prices their goods and services in cryptocurrencies. Russian ruble is ridding a fricking forex roller coaster right now, yet it's still "money", it's a legal tender in Russia, you can buy goods and services with it, and it gets its value from the Russian government. Bitcoin is a commodity, with neither intrinsic value (like gold) nor a government enforcing it (like real currencies), making it a purely speculative asset and not "money".
I don't know if you are deliberately trying to derail the conversation or if it's accidental, but whether you think crypto is money or not is 100% irrelevant to my main point, so therefore I will not continue such a discussion.
> irrelevant to my main point
Well, it's not. Your point is that CC are "open-source money", and my counter-argument was to show that CC are not money at all. While open-source software is a drop-in replacement for proprietary software, CC don't replace and can't possible replace "money" in any sense, making your analogy bogus.
No, my point is not that CC is "open source money". My point is that CC is libre in that it is permissionless and trustless, and that it has the same functionality as money whether you want to call it that or not.
> it has the same functionality as money
But it doesn't, it's not a legal tender in any country, you can't pay taxes with it, merchants can freely refuse to accept it, no government backs it. In practice too, no one uses CC as money, only as a speculative asset. It looks like you don't understand what "money" is.
Exactly, there's no need to (badly) reinvent "money" to make it digital.
You are talking to someone who has a web store where I have accepted crypto for payment for almost a decade now. I DO use crypto as money and nothing you say that change that fact. I am myself the evidence for what I am saying. You saying that something I've been doing for a nearly a decade isn't a thing is literally gaslighting. You've baited me enough, this time for sure will be the last post I will bother making in this fruitless sideline of the actual argument.
Have you paid your taxes in CC tho? Are you obligated to accept CC? If you're a US resident, your business has to accept USD and you have to pay your taxes in USD, or you're gonna have a problem with the US government. No one can force you to use CC, and that's why it's not money, but a speculative asset. Your anecdotal evidence doesn't change the fundamental difference.
Digital money already exists, nearly all money that exists is digital.
That is a horrible analogy. Crypto bullshit is not like open source. Technically the code to run a miner is open source but that doesn't fricking matter, what really matters is the chain itself because that is where is all the value is. But the chain is explicitly NOT open source, you still have to pay to access it and it is controlled by a group of people who are not you.
I think it's a good analogy. The value proposition of libre software and cryptocurrencies is the same: Giving control back to the people instead of being at the mercy of a single party.
>you still have to pay to access it
First of all, not necessarily, there are systems like IOTA with zero fees, and secondly, that's beside the point. As said, the value of open source software, as with crypto, is not that it is free, it is that it is libre.
>and it is controlled by a group of people who are not you.
Not really, first of all it is controlled by democracy and that is the way it has to be, because if no one agreed on one set of rules then the system would be unusable, and secondly, if you really do disagree, then you are free to create your own chain with your own rules and use that instead.
>Giving control back to the people instead of being at the mercy of a single party.
That is not the actual value proposition of either of them. Promoters may say that but it's a lie. FOSS doesn't matter to most people besides programmers and even then programmers can't do anything when the code is stored on someone else's server. Blockchains literally just put all control in the hands of the miners who become increasingly centralized over time. With both FOSS and cryptocurrency, you actually are still just at the mercy of a single party most of the time.
>First of all, not necessarily, there are systems like IOTA with zero fees,
Well too bad because this is still not true of most other blockchains. As usual we are back to "all the shitcoins are bad except my shitcoin"
>As said, the value of open source software, as with crypto, is not that it is free, it is that it is libre.
Crypto is neither, as you don't control it, and you must pay to use it. The miners control them and they require your payment.
>first of all it is controlled by democracy
Well no, it's not a democracy. The "votes" are not distributed equally. Most of the time the "votes" are handed out to whoever puts the most money in first. That's not even trying to assume the appearance of a fair system. There are other coins that attempt to do something else but all of them deteriorate towards the people with the money being in charge, because no one else has any incentive to actually vote in a network whose entire purpose is making money.
>and that is the way it has to be, because if no one agreed on one set of rules then the system would be unusable
Yes, hence why they all become centralized eventually.
>and secondly, if you really do disagree, then you are free to create your own chain with your own rules and use that instead.
The only thing that does is proliferate more worthless shitcoins.
The fact that you don't seem to see value in FOSS either, basically proves my point that their types of value are similar. I know that for many people, neither FOSS or crypto has any additional value because they only care about raw functionality, and are okay with third parties having control of their usage of the tech. And it's okay to think that way. But that doesn't mean that everyone else thinks that way too. For the people that DO care about freedom, FOSS, like crypto, do have benefits.
>The fact that you don't seem to see value in FOSS either
There is value in FOSS but it's all ironically in large corporations using it as a royalty free business platform. It's not "putting power back into the hands of the people" or whatever stupid feelgood social bullcrap they sold you.
>basically proves my point that their types of value are similar.
Yes, cryptocurrency is also mainly useful for large businesses and the already wealthy, except they are mainly just using it to scam people in plain sight with no penalty. FOSS at least can be used to run a business to do some useful things.
>For the people that DO care about freedom, FOSS, like crypto, do have benefits.
No they do not, not unless you are a large business. If you aren't then you are probably just a useful idiot for them.
foss devs hate coin world because coin world makes multitudes of projects that are worthless that worse code and a single one of these projects makes more money at then all of foss ecosystem combined.
Yes, FOSS devs are among the marks for these con artists.
Why do people feel the need to lie? Don't you feel ashamed for talking about things you haven't done any homework on at all?
it is not as promising and pioneering as the average IQfy bagholder makes it out to be. it is a mildly interesting novel alternative way to do decentralization. it is all hype, rugpulls, vc money runs and such. this is why i despise it, it is most efficient scam industry in the history of recorded human existence. this does not mean it is not sort of useful sometimes, it is more that it is the most bang for your buck given effort and reward when it comes to making snakeoil scam projects to gain money. i hate this industry it is worse than silicon valley, kill fricking everyone in it. i will hold the door of the oven closed on the inside to make sure they all burn to death.
t. works in coin world.
>t. works in coin world.
So, you are a part of the problem.
my hatred of this industry is so deep you have no idea
>i will hold the door of the oven closed on the inside to make sure we all burn to death.
Sure, you will.
cash is technically private
Sounds like people forgot about cash
Just don't forget to ask your dealer if he's a cop. He can't lie if he is.
Someone explain to me how bitcoin or any other crypto "removes the middle-man and is decentralized", when thousands of transactions take place via brokers, and people need a bank account to deposit or cash out.
I'm not even trying to challenge the notion. Maybe what I mentioned above still makes it decentralized.
There are p2p exchanges and defi.
>why should i use linux if i cant use msdn and windows apis when developing?
this is what you sound like.
I think you guys must look at its value through the lens of its alternatives, it is quite an interesting phenomena given that, fundamentally its "nothing", but when compared to its alternatives eg centralized Fiat currency, you can understand that a decentralized ledger does have some value and utility, being able to send money anywhere in the world digitally, without any banks or intermedieries being able to halt or confiscate it does have a value.
Also given that its cryptographically secure, has a set amount which cannot be replicated in any way, like counterfeit currency makes it much better then the alternatives.
All Fiat currency is mathematically guaranteed to collapse to 0, some speculate that the price of btc is not going up itself but that it is simply fiat which is losing buying power compared to it, fiat is an unlimited supply chasing a finite amount of goods, which always leads all goods to going up in price over time.
Bitcoin has many similarities to gold, with some pros and cons, but overall it closely mimics gold, because it requires capital to "mine", given the modern digital age, bitcoin actually has a better usecase for financial purposes, gold is pretty much the only viable alternative to fiat, and when fiat imevitably collapses, doing things such as online shopping with gold is a big pain in the ass, so bitcoin becomes a good competitor as a breakaway financial system.
The only reason bitcoin cannot scale or support smart contracts is because the dev team Blockstream have purposefully sabotaged it, they receive funding from the rothschilds, who purposefully limited block size so it couldn't bedome widely adopted and compete with traditional payment systems. Ethereum was created because the btc devs rejected vitaliks proposal to impelment smart contract capability on btc. All of the forks of btc happened because of this
If bitcoin had large enough blocks to process transactions at visa/mastercard scale then no one could run full nodes.
There are only a few mining pools which make up the majority of hashrate anyway, you would just need each country to have its own nodes in data centers, in order for it to be decentralized.
>you would just need each country to have its own nodes in data centers, in order for it to be decentralized.
Oh, don't worry, they are working on just the thing you'd like. They call it central bank digital currencies.
You make a great point, no crypto has the ability to do transactions at the level of visa, let alone do each transaction in 2 seconds (Noramally they take 10+min.)
>All Fiat currency is mathematically guaranteed to collapse to 0
So it all crypto.
> so bitcoin becomes a good competitor as a breakaway financial system.
"fiat" aka real money is backed by something crypto has never had, armies with guns, and you are going to literally kill you if you try to subvert them. In the case that a government/system fails, another one will take it's place.
Your imagined scenario is impossible, because you're hoping for BOTH the breakdown of government and criminal gangs at the same time as society just becoming peaceful all of a sudden (impossible)
In order for crypto to work it would have to work entirely on the phone, store the whole network on the phone, be instant and be able to be bought and sold over the phone.
Otherwise you'd get all kinds of stupid centralized services come up around it.
Blockchain is a major part of the 4th industrial revolution and is the beginning of the synthesis of the high finance and high tech class into one. The number one problem with global governance is the lack of trust between market actors and scalability of institutions. The blockchain's smart contracts allows us to have scalable zero trust institutions, these zero-trust based institutions will actually displace negative trust ones as people will trust a vending machine over a corrupt bank if it's convenient enough.
Most of this backend tech such as blockchain will be completely invisible to the average person as much as the SWIFT banking system is now. All they'll see are vending machines type websites, virtual store items in the metaverse and numbering go up in their accounts whenever they complete a quest on their smart devices.
'Decentralization' and the world order are the same thing on an abstract enough level: a system which encompasses the entire world. As much as the lolberts and pirates say they hate globalism & government, little do they understand they're ushering it in.
I don't need permission to send memecoins.
I pay for *ALL* of my web services with them. Some of them being entirely deplatformed by payment processors.
The only thing is, people need to TRANSITION from btc to a privacy coin like XMR.
>Some of them being entirely deplatformed by payment processors.
Oh ok, I get it. You should have just said before what kind of person you were. Why are coiners always like this? First it's "privacy isn't just for criminals" then you immediately announce what kind of shit you're up to. You couldn't be more repellent of sympathy.
>nooo you can't just buy a VPS without the approval of mastercard that's criminal
lmao
>buying a IQfy pass? wtf? are you a terrorist?
VPS are another major scam, they are tracking everything you do.
Joe who? I'm not american, mutt.
They're tracking what exactly? The site I host publicly?
You are generating more metadata every day by keeping it up than you save by dodging a mastercard transaction
>he says while interacting with a cloudflare honeypot
I am not trying to hide anything. Come at me bro.
dont worry, Europeans will have to deal with him smelling the heads of 12 y/o girls soon enough when he bails out the euro to try and stop china from becoming the world's reserve currency. no amount of coin shilling can stop this future you all deserve. i'll be in my ted shed in north west maine growing mycelium and looking at the rest of the country burn down. the best kind of technology is no technology.
Stop taking tedposting seriously you schizo.
why? i LIKE it.
dont worry, when the machine is done chewing up the middle the fringe is next. no one will save you, we will cheer as it happens to you, the future you deserve will come sooner than you think. thank joe biden for that. 😀
scam.scam.scam.
as you've been told over and over since 2 decades ago
Backing for coins is assumed to be turtles all the way down. The blockchain behind them doesn't solve this problem. All it does is provide an immutable database with assurance that double spending can't happen by means of artificial scarcity.
Blockchains do not even provide that. The "assurance" is provided only by a hope that miners won't collude with each other and damage the network, because the artificial scarcity is supposed to be enough to satiate the miners' greed. This is bunk however, because the miners are inherently the ones in charge and a majority can technically change the block reward at any time they feel like.
Every time you shitpost on for chen, you're using technology derived from commercial ledgers, which were the origin of written language. It's unimaginative to dismiss new ledger technology out-of-hand.
Crypto is just a decentralized database platform. By decentralization, participants don't need to trust each other, nor a central authority, but just the specific network they interact over. In particular, they trust that:
>1) the network will stay online
>2) interactions with the network will be fairly incorporated into the network state
>3) spoofed interactions will be omitted from the network state
Crucially, these are needed for applications where the network state represents something vital that's shared among network participants, e.g. account balances. Most rejoinders to DLT are moronic straw-men for cases where a centralized DB is the obvious and optimal solution. Anyway, all criteria are impossible on a centralized network. The network has a single point-of-failure due to centralization, so 1) is out. That the network owner could kick anyone off anytime rules out both 1) and 2). There's probably mitigations for 3), but in general, whatever the network owner says goes.
So there's obvious value to a decentralized network. IMO the crypto endgame is dystopic: even more pervasive mass surveillance, and the financialization of everything. Also the erosion of decentralization, a natural tendency in human society which no project appears to have a working solution for.
>but just the specific network they interact over
Which is centralized itself or it wouldn't be able to work. BTC is centralized in a number of ways, for one there is only one chain and you have to interact with that chain.
>The network has a single point-of-failure due to centralization, so 1) is out.
You're confusing distributed with decentralized. A network can be centralized and distributed (which BTC is) and then you get 1) again. Of course blockchains are still a very poor way to accomplish this, even though they can technically be used to do it.
>That the network owner could kick anyone off anytime rules out both 1) and 2).
The miners/stakers can also kick anyone off of a crypto coin if a majority agree to it.
>BTC is centralized in a number of ways, for one there is only one chain and you have to interact with that chain
As stated, crypto only has application where the network state is shared; one-network/multi-chain boils down to multi-network. Anyway, decentralization is a huge challenge in crypto, which it has largely failed at. Bitcoin is a particularly bad offender. Typically decentralization is illusory out of the gate, but it will certainly fail over time with basic PoW or PoS.
>You're confusing distributed with decentralized
Distribution is meaningless without decentralization. AWS is distributed and centralized. If Amazon goes breasts up, you're fricked (AWS regions do go down quite often). If Amazon doesn't like you, frick you.
bitcoin itself uses terribly outdated design. as a currency, it's a failure. transaction fees are flat and quite high. transactions take too long to process. "mining" required to verify transactions consumes huge amounts of energy for no good reason. those problems are only going to get worse if it becomes more widespread because of its fundamental design flaws. everyone can see the full history of transactions. this means that any anonymity is gone as soon as someone is able to identify an address as belonging to you.
however... there are newer cryptos that deal with those problems. so i will restrain myself from passing a judgement on whether or not cryptocurrency itself is a good idea or not. what i know for sure that if we are going to use cryptocurrency in its intended role in the future (not just as a means of speculation), it's certainly not going to be bitcoin.
>"mining" required to verify transactions consumes huge amounts of energy for no good reason.
It's a way to control inflation.
The protocol is designed around 1 coin every 10mins, or something. Add a lot of power to the network and the dificulty increases to maintain the generation rate.
Otherwise bitcoin would have been mined out years ago.
there are other ways to control inflation that don't require huge amounts of computational work. see proof of stake.
Manage your own finance, don't need banks, paypal, whatever other BS interfering, and spying on you. Monero ftw
Look at the price
Beanie babies is going to 0
Bitcoin solves the problem of "how to achieve a decentralized exchange that can't be defeated by a single bad actor." Now, after so many years and revisions later, we have the answer to "is a decentralized exchange in any way desirable" while also failing to have any means to make a decentralized exchange not the least efficient thing that has ever existed. You might be able to prevent one bad actor from fricking up your exchange, but you will never prevent distributed bad actors from undermining it at both a conceptual level as well as on a consumer-desirability level.
There is no economic value to crypto. It's only useful to criminals and scam artists and only for as long as idiots continue to prop it up.
Its sad seeing people defending bitcoin and the concept of mining and blockchain as a whole in the year 2022
Its like abused housewives or something
this
probably seething homosexuals that just lost their madeup fortune
It is, it's a way to virtualized trust and decentralization between unknown parties, which is pretty sick. But its current application completely miss the point, it's a way to create fake scarcity and perpetuate the socio-economical disparity some profit upon on our current capitalistic view of the world.
Buying 3d asset and 'mive them' on different platform is shut. Buying, say, a ticket for a live concert as a virtualized token (nft) and showing it to the entry without them having to check their own server (because everyone could check it belongs to you), is neat (stupid example, sure).