this post was submitted on 18 Nov 2023
1 points (100.0% liked)
Ethereum
5 readers
1 users here now
Resources
- Website & Blog
- White Paper & Yellow Paper
- Documentation & Stack Exchange
- Learn Solidity
- Source Code on Github
- Bounty program
- Chat on Gitter
- Network Status & Gas Price Market
- List of DApps
- Meetups
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
We are 15 years into blockchain technology now, and still, there's not a single thing it does better than existing non-blockchain tech. The functionality of Ethererum's "smart contracts" makes a 10-year-old Wordpress site look like advanced alien technology.
It's time to admit this was a fun experiement, that yielded nothing of value to society. I know everybody hopes to get rich, but that's just not going to happen. It's mathematically impossible for even a notable percentage of holders. It's a shame so many people have to lose so much, to learn, and some of them will refuse to admit the reality of the situation and repeat their same mistakes over and over.
Here's a quote from Mitchell P. Krawiec-Thayer, PhD, since you don't appear to understand what's going on here:
The term “decentralized consensus” refers to a set of principles and techniques that allow participants on a distributed network to arrive at perfect agreement on a shared document or database. Systems built upon decentralized consensus methods are inherently tamper-proof, censorship-resistant, and permissionless.
I'm not aware of any tech that can do this quite as well as blockchain. Developers are certainly leveraging these features.
That "consensus" is not at all democratic. It's an illusion. In the crypto world "consensus" translates to, "Whoever has the most resources has the most influence." Which is ironic given that crypto seems to aspire to elevate itself above powerful special interests, but ironically, does nothing of the sort. In fact it merely trades one set of powerful special interests, with an even smaller, less accountable set of powerful special interests.
Or are you seriously comparing the Fed to a decentralized protocol with 1,000,000s of members?
For the Fed to change monetary policy tomorrow, how many people need to agree? For Bitcoin to change its monetary policy tomorrow, how many people need to agree?
For you to alter the consensus on Ethereum would require nearly 100M ETH, 66% of all stake, about $300B, which is more than exists so good luck convincing all the others to sell. Beyond that if you're doing such an attack then social consensus will agree to fork the chain without you part of it, and carry on as was before with you $300B poorer in your own a silo-chain.
There is power in numbers... Following your logic it would make better sense to have 1 authority dictate all laws instead of hearing what the masses want. Shit, why do we even vote at all if we can just have 1 Supreme leader do all the work for us?
The only thing 1M people will ever agree on is security, or other things that benefit everyone. You will never see a minority succeed in enriching just themselves in any largely decentralized cryptocurrency. What the Fed does with money is absolutely in the minority basket, extremist in some cases, and often goes against consensus to benefit select minority groups exclusively - the same goes for every centralized system, especially any financial.
Who keeps the Fed accountable? There is no accountability. Who do I call today to lodge a complaint about the Fed reducing rates to 0% during a bull market, against all of the core tenants of basic economics, only because Trump wanted to pump the stock market even higher? (fact)
At least with consensus we all agree to it, we all want this exactly, if anyone is upset after the fact they are the one who made their bed. People who grow out of specific coin's ideologies and find themselves a minority are free to fork the chain to their taste or build on something else that resonates with them more. Because of this we end up with forks, competition, variety, success and failure, all happening at once. So much good research and many realworld breakthroughs have come from this competition. This choice that opens up when everyone does something they want, is very beneficial to consumers who also want those same things over other things..
The Fed seeing some competition, making them strive to do better or less worse, is precisely what the founding fathers would've wanted us to do to them. They would have done the same themselves given the tech - they truly hated banks more than anyone. It is what the US was built on, built for. Are you against capatalism....and for an oligarchy? Really? Lucky for you there are places which precisely serve that ideology - so hey you have the choice to live here or there, and so do I, and that's great, because it makes both places a little better when everyone agrees to a consensus on their way of living...or other things.
Right now on Ethereum there are 885,126 validators. It's going to be difficult and prohibitively expensive for any one group to influence consensus. How about some facts instead of rhetoric.
Play Doh has been around since the mid 50's but there's so many other children's toys that it's a shame parents still buy this stuff. Children just need to admit that Play Doh is no fun.
Maybe eth will be around longer than you think because people like using it more than your 10 year old WordPress.
You mean except for instantaneous money transfers to anyone. 7 days …. is how long it took to move money from E*trade to my bank account. 3 days … is how long it took to move money between my two bank accounts. 5 seconds is how long it took to move money between my two Eth wallets.
How about a SWIFT wire getting stuck for 2 weeks - just to be bounced back 200$ short? Happened twice over 5 years. B2B From US to France. Respectable well known banks. No explanation from neither bank. Nobody reimbursed the lost money.