4 ms·

Proof of Work is on its way out already. Ethereum will be running on Proof of Stake soon which uses very little power. I'm not sure the traditional financial s

by Sargos 6y ago

Proof of Work is on its way out already. Ethereum will be running on Proof of Stake soon which uses very little power. I'm not sure the traditional financial system would ever out-compete the cryptocurrency ecosystem even if you removed the KYC etc as crypto is permissionless which is a breeding ground for innovation and efficiency. It would be impossible for the banks to keep up.

TeMPOraL 6y ago
"Breeding ground for innovation and efficiency" also means breeding ground for various scams. The traditional banks have a good value proposition here, should they choose to take it: they can copy the innovations that work, bolt them on top of their product, and offer something that is both innovative and is secured by men with guns.
- Sargos 6y ago
  Yes there are scams. There are scams with any new technology and people have dealt with them in various ways for hundreds of years. I don't think that will ever change but our ability to point them out and protect ourselves from them will. >they can copy the innovations that work, bolt them on top of their product, and offer something that is both innovative and is secured by men with guns I don't think this has ever worked. By the time they have cut all of the red tape and finished bolting this feature onto their enormous enterprisey stack the world will have already moved on and the Ethereum ecosystem will be on The Feature 2.0. Also, if your security is provided by men with guns then those same men with guns can change the rules on you or the bank which makes your money much less secure. I'd take "mathematically impossible to cheat" over "men with guns might be angry if someone cheats" any day.
  - TeMPOraL 6y ago
    > I'd take "mathematically impossible to cheat" over "men with guns might be angry if someone cheats" any day. This may be the point we disagree on fundamentally :). To me, "mathematically impossible to cheat" usually comes with "mathematically unforgiving of mistakes". I estimate chances that the government will cheat me out of my money to be much lower than me getting crushed under a smart contract that, in the fiat land, a human judge would invalidate based on circumstances. Writing this, I realized I'm thinking from the POV of someone living in a democratic and relatively sane country. I guess the risk calculus is different when you truly, deeply mistrust your nation's government.

by Sargos 6y ago

TeMPOraL 6y ago

"Breeding ground for innovation and efficiency" also means breeding ground for various scams. The traditional banks have a good value proposition here, should they choose to take it: they can copy the innovations that work, bolt them on top of their product, and offer something that is both innovative and is secured by men with guns.

Sargos 6y ago
Yes there are scams. There are scams with any new technology and people have dealt with them in various ways for hundreds of years. I don't think that will ever change but our ability to point them out and protect ourselves from them will. >they can copy the innovations that work, bolt them on top of their product, and offer something that is both innovative and is secured by men with guns I don't think this has ever worked. By the time they have cut all of the red tape and finished bolting this feature onto their enormous enterprisey stack the world will have already moved on and the Ethereum ecosystem will be on The Feature 2.0. Also, if your security is provided by men with guns then those same men with guns can change the rules on you or the bank which makes your money much less secure. I'd take "mathematically impossible to cheat" over "men with guns might be angry if someone cheats" any day.
- TeMPOraL 6y ago
  > I'd take "mathematically impossible to cheat" over "men with guns might be angry if someone cheats" any day. This may be the point we disagree on fundamentally :). To me, "mathematically impossible to cheat" usually comes with "mathematically unforgiving of mistakes". I estimate chances that the government will cheat me out of my money to be much lower than me getting crushed under a smart contract that, in the fiat land, a human judge would invalidate based on circumstances. Writing this, I realized I'm thinking from the POV of someone living in a democratic and relatively sane country. I guess the risk calculus is different when you truly, deeply mistrust your nation's government.