Let's talk about Cryptocurrencies

[jammies]

Originally Posted by afc wimbledon

overseen by some neutral authority

You're using logic to try to understand ideology. Crypto enthusiasts don't trust any authority, blockchain designs are intended to replace authority with consensus. This design means inefficiency is built in, a blockchain needs massive redundancy and atomization of storage and processing onto many smaller discrete resources that can act as equally valid truths/nodes in an elective system, or it isn't a blockchain.

This inherent inefficiency is an insoluble limitation of the tech. Perhaps one day we will live in a world where limitless computing resources and sophisticated algorithms (algorithms an order of magnitude or two better than what is used now) will make this inefficiency irrelevant. Or, as is much more likely, the whole exercise will remain a pointlessly baroque and overcomplicated solution to a problem better solved at a different level of data storage and processing.

[PsYcNeT]

Using validator systems as proofing rather than GPUs and ASICs burning thousands of watts a day already solves that issue for getting a consensus on thousands of transactions per block in 2 seconds.

PoW is being phased out, the Ethereum Merge is just the start of that.

[Fuzz]

An individual’s power in a Proof of Stake blockchain is based on the number of tokens out of the total supply they hold, thus, the idea of performing a 51% attack on such a system is economically unfeasible due to the amount of tokens a user would have to own. However, even if it did occur, that user would have vested interest in not collapsing faith in its network in order to maintain the value of its investment.

https://medium.com/onomy-protocol/pr...w-d152fafde499

My favourite part of designing financial systems is when they rely on the rational behaviour of humans for their stability. No human would ever act irrationally in an unexpected way, would they?

[PsYcNeT]

Originally Posted by Fuzz

https://medium.com/onomy-protocol/pr...w-d152fafde499

My favourite part of designing financial systems is when they rely on the rational behaviour of humans for their stability. No human would ever act irrationally in an unexpected way, would they?

I'm not a maxi by any stretch, but traditional financial systems are manipulated all the time. A 51% attack on a PoS has yet to be documented, while there have been dozens on PoW.

[Fuzz]

Originally Posted by PsYcNeT

I'm not a maxi by any stretch, but traditional financial systems are manipulated all the time. A 51% attack on a PoS has yet to be documented, while there have been dozens on PoW.

Ya, that part just made me giggle. Surly no one would work against their best interest, so stability is guaranteed! Uhm, have you met people?

[jammies]

Originally Posted by PsYcNeT

Using validator systems as proofing rather than GPUs and ASICs burning thousands of watts a day already solves that issue for getting a consensus on thousands of transactions per block in 2 seconds.

That doesn't change the inherent inefficiency, that just refines the method to make it less inefficient than it was before. I already said improving the algorithms is one way to improve the abysmal performance. That is an evolutionary change, you might think enough such evolution will eventually result in a transformative financial and social revolution, but not only do I very much doubt this, I think the world would be a worse place if it did.

[PsYcNeT]

Originally Posted by jammies

That doesn't change the inherent inefficiency, that just refines the method to make it less inefficient than it was before. I already said improving the algorithms is one way to improve the abysmal performance. That is an evolutionary change, you might think enough such evolution will eventually result in a transformative financial and social revolution, but not only do I very much doubt this, I think the world would be a worse place if it did.

The latter aside, because I'm inclined to agree with you ultimately, what are PoS or PoT&S or whatever comes next for proofing, inefficient in relation to? It certainly can't be the modern fin-sec apparatus, because that thing is barely better than a PoW network when looking at kWh/transaction ratios.

[afc wimbledon]

Originally Posted by jammies

You're using logic to try to understand ideology. Crypto enthusiasts don't trust any authority, blockchain designs are intended to replace authority with consensus. This design means inefficiency is built in, a blockchain needs massive redundancy and atomization of storage and processing onto many smaller discrete resources that can act as equally valid truths/nodes in an elective system, or it isn't a blockchain.

This inherent inefficiency is an insoluble limitation of the tech. Perhaps one day we will live in a world where limitless computing resources and sophisticated algorithms (algorithms an order of magnitude or two better than what is used now) will make this inefficiency irrelevant. Or, as is much more likely, the whole exercise will remain a pointlessly baroque and overcomplicated solution to a problem better solved at a different level of data storage and processing.

I get that there is a level of bat#### wackdoddlry to all of this, what I dont understand is why everyone involved wouldn't recognise that what crypto is likely doing is pointing out a need/market that something else far simpler and cheaper will fill

[Tiger]

Originally Posted by Cappy

I don't think anyone is discounting the usefulness of blockchain technology; however, if the best example we can find is Walmart using blockchain to fix their invoicing issues, maybe this tech isn't as revolutionary as some suggest - i will admit that supply chain / logistical refinements are important

A) I want to point out I really enjoy the discussion going on in this thread now

As for quoting this post. the fact that Walmart is using this for invoicing and logistics means it will probably be adopted by most companies in the future and say it just supply chain it effects then that is huge already. But it’ll will get into much more.

It’ll likely be huge in online gaming same with NFTs. Again another huge market. It is really something that in 20 years will be a technology in most things but it will be behind the scenes

[dobbles]

One thing I will point out as for why I read this thread is there are often new projects that get mentioned and asked about in here. While most are against bitcoin specifically, there are always interesting projects that can actually benefit from blockchain and cryptocurrencies. Watching dino trash talk everyone is of course the other nice part!

[Itse]

Walmart using blockchain for something other than a "currency" is basically completely unrelated to crypto.

Yes, blockchains are a real, fairly unexciting type of IT with valid uses. Just because you can do something with a blockchain does not validate other, completely different things that are also technically done with blockchain.

[PsYcNeT]

Originally Posted by Itse

Walmart using blockchain for something other than a "currency" is basically completely unrelated to crypto.

Yes, blockchains are a real, fairly unexciting type of IT with valid uses. Just because you can do something with a blockchain does not validate other, completely different things that are also technically done with blockchain.

Yep. This is precisely why "projects" are at best, pump and dump garbage, and why paying attention to the blockchain technologies themselves makes way more sense (and who is leveraging them).

Well, other than xApp/Interoperability Protocols. Those are actually exciting projects.

[Enoch Root]

Originally Posted by Tiger

A) I want to point out I really enjoy the discussion going on in this thread now

As for quoting this post. the fact that Walmart is using this for invoicing and logistics means it will probably be adopted by most companies in the future and say it just supply chain it effects then that is huge already. But it’ll will get into much more.

It’ll likely be huge in online gaming same with NFTs. Again another huge market. It is really something that in 20 years will be a technology in most things but it will be behind the scenes

This exemplifies how blockchain is a tool, not an investment.

It is just like the dot.com craze of 1999. The World Wide Web! was the coolest technology going, and it was going to make people rich! Pet.com quickly became a billion dollar company, as did many others like it, because people thought that whoever utilized the internet was going to win.

But the problem with that is that the technology is available to everyone. And it is the best companies that will do the best job of utilizing that technology, not simply the first to make use of it.

And as the technology becomes more usable, and more ubiquitous, it will become more and more apparent that it is in fact, simply a tool, just as the internet is simply a tool. And investing in companies simply because they use that tool, is a fool's errand.

I suspect that the whole crypto/blockchain market craze will end the same way that the dot.com craze did.

[PsYcNeT]

I think that's already happened; a ton of blockchains and big projects have already gone tits up.

It's like the dot com bubble paired with a boom bust stock market. There will be market ebbs and flow when the garbage is shook off (hopefully).

[Enoch Root]

it's not a boom bust stock market though, other than with tech, and fringe tech in particular (including crypto), the market has been pretty normal, and not particularly volatile over the last couple years.

[PsYcNeT]

Originally Posted by Enoch Root

it's not a boom bust stock market though, other than with tech, and fringe tech in particular (including crypto), the market has been pretty normal, and not particularly volatile over the last couple years.

I'm using it analogously.

If the crypto markets and stock markets were closely tied, the the crypto markets likely shouldn't even exist because that means they've become entirely controlled by the same funds, investors and market makers as TradFi.

It's unfortunately been trending that way, but as the last couple month have shown, the high risk of CeFi and DeFi had things break off quickly.

[Fuzz]

Binance, the issuer of the world's third largest stablecoin, said on Monday it will convert customers' holdings in three rival stablecoins USDC, USDP and TUSD into its own stablecoin on September 29 to "enhance liquidity and capital-efficiency for users" in a move that has baffled many enthusiasts. USDC is the world's second largest stable coin, whereas BUSD is the third largest.

https://slashdot.org/story/22/09/05/...tm_medium=feed

LOL. We've decided to take your "investment" in our rival coins and turn it into our own!

[Enoch Root]

These things are going to replace fiat currency any day now!

[PsYcNeT]

Originally Posted by Fuzz

https://slashdot.org/story/22/09/05/...tm_medium=feed

LOL. We've decided to take your "investment" in our rival coins and turn it into our own!

####ty move, but Binance has virtually no trade pairs with those other 3 stables anyway (by design of course).

Nearly all Binance trading is done against USDT, BUSD, ETH or BTC.

[afc wimbledon]

nice to see a Canadian crypto grifter getting some headlines though, Kits High will be proud