3 ms·

I think we aren’t quite there yet with Ethereum and Stellar. Proof of stake is promising, but it hasn’t rolled out yet. It’s possible that the migration leads

by lacker 7y ago

I think we aren’t quite there yet with Ethereum and Stellar. Proof of stake is promising, but it hasn’t rolled out yet. It’s possible that the migration leads to unforeseen problems, or fails entirely. The trusted models like Stellar aren’t operating at the same financial scale as Bitcoin. The question there isn’t technically whether they can handle the transactions per second, but socially whether they are as resistant to censorship as Bitcoin is. In the end, more people want Bitcoin than want Ethereum or Stellar. And people are willing to pay a lot of money to get it, money which in large part goes indirectly to miners’ energy expenditure. Perhaps, in the long run, the more efficient consensus mechanisms will prove superior to proof-of-work. But it hasn’t happened yet.

konschubert 7y ago
> In the end, more people want Bitcoin than want Ethereum or Stellar. This is an accident of history more than anything. I think the distribution will look different once the monetary cost of Proof of Work starts to impact the Bitcoin ecosystem.
- keymone 7y ago
  When will the monetary cost of gold mining start impacting gold ecosystem?
  - konschubert 7y ago
    That analogy does not hold if you think about it
    - keymone 7y ago
      why?
      - konschubert 7y ago
        Look, if you bring an anology into an argument then it’s in you to explain why it holds, it’s not on others to refute it. Ever heard of the bullshit asymmetry principle? Anyways, to answer your question: High cost of mining in gold is what limits the supply. High cost of mining in a cryptocurrency is not needed to limit supply.
        keymone 7y ago
        > High cost of mining in a cryptocurrency is not needed to limit supply. this is a bit backwards, high cost of mining is not needed, it's a consequence of demand in higher supply analogy does hold: there is demand for gold which causes certain amount of mining which has environmental impact. there is demand for bitcoin which causes certain amount of mining which has environmental impact. of course no analogy is perfect, bitcoin has another aspect with feedback loops to mining and demand - security. the more mining happens, the higher ledger security and the more valuable it is. it's still completely misguided to think that bitcoin mining is some process done for no reason - it's integral part of what makes bitcoin valuable. and the more mining - the more valuable bitcoin is. lastly, blaming energy consumers in environmental impact is wrong too, it's producers that use environmentally damaging means for energy production who should bear the blame.
lukev 7y ago
I think the only reason to hold out for Bitcoin over something like Stellar is an extreme libertarian ideology. Stellar is attractive to me precisely because it works with society, rather than against it. It uses the trust relationships already built into our social systems and institutions. It's true, I don't trust Chase individually not to screw me over. But I do trust 50 independent organizations (including government, private individuals and corporations) all checking each other's work. You get 98% of the benefit of Bitcoin with thousands of times greater efficiency. The only scenario where this stops working is in a complete societal breakdown, and frankly that is not a contingency most reasonable people plan for. Is hypothetical resilience in the face of an anarchist fantasy really worth millions of tonnes of real carbon being pumped into the atmosphere?

by lacker 7y ago

konschubert 7y ago

> In the end, more people want Bitcoin than want Ethereum or Stellar. This is an accident of history more than anything. I think the distribution will look different once the monetary cost of Proof of Work starts to impact the Bitcoin ecosystem.

keymone 7y ago
When will the monetary cost of gold mining start impacting gold ecosystem?
- konschubert 7y ago
  That analogy does not hold if you think about it
  - keymone 7y ago
    why?
    - konschubert 7y ago
      Look, if you bring an anology into an argument then it’s in you to explain why it holds, it’s not on others to refute it. Ever heard of the bullshit asymmetry principle? Anyways, to answer your question: High cost of mining in gold is what limits the supply. High cost of mining in a cryptocurrency is not needed to limit supply.
      - keymone 7y ago
        > High cost of mining in a cryptocurrency is not needed to limit supply. this is a bit backwards, high cost of mining is not needed, it's a consequence of demand in higher supply analogy does hold: there is demand for gold which causes certain amount of mining which has environmental impact. there is demand for bitcoin which causes certain amount of mining which has environmental impact. of course no analogy is perfect, bitcoin has another aspect with feedback loops to mining and demand - security. the more mining happens, the higher ledger security and the more valuable it is. it's still completely misguided to think that bitcoin mining is some process done for no reason - it's integral part of what makes bitcoin valuable. and the more mining - the more valuable bitcoin is. lastly, blaming energy consumers in environmental impact is wrong too, it's producers that use environmentally damaging means for energy production who should bear the blame.

lukev 7y ago

I think the only reason to hold out for Bitcoin over something like Stellar is an extreme libertarian ideology. Stellar is attractive to me precisely because it works with society, rather than against it. It uses the trust relationships already built into our social systems and institutions. It's true, I don't trust Chase individually not to screw me over. But I do trust 50 independent organizations (including government, private individuals and corporations) all checking each other's work. You get 98% of the benefit of Bitcoin with thousands of times greater efficiency. The only scenario where this stops working is in a complete societal breakdown, and frankly that is not a contingency most reasonable people plan for. Is hypothetical resilience in the face of an anarchist fantasy really worth millions of tonnes of real carbon being pumped into the atmosphere?