4 ms·
I agree having a company trying to produce revenue is arguably more valuable, but keep in mind cryptocurrency isn't _just_ a string of numbers -- what you're bu
by zenlikethat 9y ago
I agree having a company trying to produce revenue is arguably more valuable, but keep in mind cryptocurrency isn't _just_ a string of numbers -- what you're buying into is a massive network of machines verifying your transactions and protecting the system from things like double-spends. Sure, Bitcoin has scaling issues, but there is still an insane amount of computing power backing it, and that isn't changing. I'm not 100% sure I see as much value in Ethereum, for sure -- since throwing that much computing power at verifying programs is more dubious to me, as is the switch to proof of stake.
- DennisP 9y agoEthereum does the same thing as Bitcoin. It's just that you can also have scripts on the network that move money around.
- zenlikethat 9y agoThat's as much a liability as it is an asset -- for instance, https://www.reddit.com/r/ethereum/comments/6eruqb/if_your_exchange_is_related_to/?st=j3gfi7i8&sh=b5673c95 https://www.reddit.com/r/ethereum/comments/6eruqb/if_your_ex... ("QuadrigaCX exchange lost 60000 Ether due to smart contract problems").
- DennisP 9y agoYou have to be careful, but people have gotten a lot better at being careful. The contract used by QuadrigaCX was written last summer, and violated a well-known best practice, which is no longer necessary due to an improvement in Solidity. Human error is always a problem, but these days it's common to hire at least one security auditor for any contract that handles nontrivial amounts of money. (I'm a full-time Solidity dev/auditor.) It's still a little scary, but I'd say it's less scary than safety-critical embedded code.