5 ms·

Collabarate on bringing about the end of crypto currencies like Bitcoin

20 points by dsr12 5y ago

0x6A75616E 5y ago
The strategies proposed here are sketchy at best. No specifics given, very la-la land. While I agree that proof of work cryptocurrencies are currently weighing on our power-generation abilities and on the environment, one could argue banks are worse. Decentralized currencies do away with reckless money printing and other evils, and for that reason they are the future. I'm sure many were concerned about the environmental impact of the internet, and yet here we are. We'll find a way to make it work.
- lwansbrough 5y ago
  > one could argue banks are worse. How, exactly, would one argue that? > Decentralized currencies do away with reckless money printing and other evils, and for that reason they are the future. We're already doing that. When was the last time you used cash? It's called plastic.
  - bitcoinmonger 5y ago
    > How, exactly, would one argue that? Banks use energy.
  - Dah00n 5y ago
    And that plastic is full of printed money. Just look at the US economy..
  - vcavallo 5y ago
    not to be a dick, but, i don’t think you understand that the problem with recklessly printing money is not whether you’re using paper or plastic. read up on inflation a little.
ignoranceprior 5y ago
Why not just switch to proof of stake? Isn't that supposed to be much less environmentally costly?
- 0x6A75616E 5y ago
  Because the authors are clearly just against cryptocurrency in general. They're pro-banks.
- lwansbrough 5y ago
  Banks are what proof of stake looks like after a few hundred years. Ultimately, proof of stake is a centralizing mechanism. It delegates authority to those with stake, which incentivizes acquiring greater and greater stakes. This will happen through takeovers/acquisitions and slowly, you'll have an oligopoly of centralized powers which control a large portion of the money supply. Sound familiar?
compressedgas 5y ago
They didn't consider raising the cost of electricity.
- lwansbrough 5y ago
  This has pretty serious negative effects outside the realm of cryptocurrency.
  - deleted 5y ago
    [deleted]
- BenoitP 5y ago
  Taxing them would be the best of both worlds. Ultimately, proof-of-work is actually a proof of faith. How much resources are you ready to waste in order to prove your faith, and have a chance at discovering the next block? Now, a (globally enforced) tax would raise the bar for every miner. The same amount of resources would be wasted by the miners: their resources and faith remain unchanged. But now, a portion of the miner waste would go into community resources. A 99% tax would be great! The only problem is enforcement; if someone doesn't pay their taxes, they have a much greater proof. Maybe it can be enforced by the blockchain? Lets say a blockchain recognizes a "government" entity -with a magic address-; a consensus rule could be that 99% of the reward goes to it?
bitcoinmonger 5y ago
Why not just perform a 51% attack? That's the obvious weakness.
vcavallo 5y ago
No, thanks!

20 points by dsr12 5y ago

The strategies proposed here are sketchy at best. No specifics given, very la-la land. While I agree that proof of work cryptocurrencies are currently weighing on our power-generation abilities and on the environment, one could argue banks are worse. Decentralized currencies do away with reckless money printing and other evils, and for that reason they are the future. I'm sure many were concerned about the environmental impact of the internet, and yet here we are. We'll find a way to make it work.

lwansbrough 5y ago
> one could argue banks are worse. How, exactly, would one argue that? > Decentralized currencies do away with reckless money printing and other evils, and for that reason they are the future. We're already doing that. When was the last time you used cash? It's called plastic.
- bitcoinmonger 5y ago
  > How, exactly, would one argue that? Banks use energy.
- Dah00n 5y ago
  And that plastic is full of printed money. Just look at the US economy..
- vcavallo 5y ago
  not to be a dick, but, i don’t think you understand that the problem with recklessly printing money is not whether you’re using paper or plastic. read up on inflation a little.

ignoranceprior 5y ago

Why not just switch to proof of stake? Isn't that supposed to be much less environmentally costly?

0x6A75616E 5y ago
Because the authors are clearly just against cryptocurrency in general. They're pro-banks.
lwansbrough 5y ago
Banks are what proof of stake looks like after a few hundred years. Ultimately, proof of stake is a centralizing mechanism. It delegates authority to those with stake, which incentivizes acquiring greater and greater stakes. This will happen through takeovers/acquisitions and slowly, you'll have an oligopoly of centralized powers which control a large portion of the money supply. Sound familiar?

compressedgas 5y ago

They didn't consider raising the cost of electricity.

lwansbrough 5y ago
This has pretty serious negative effects outside the realm of cryptocurrency.
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]
BenoitP 5y ago
Taxing them would be the best of both worlds. Ultimately, proof-of-work is actually a proof of faith. How much resources are you ready to waste in order to prove your faith, and have a chance at discovering the next block? Now, a (globally enforced) tax would raise the bar for every miner. The same amount of resources would be wasted by the miners: their resources and faith remain unchanged. But now, a portion of the miner waste would go into community resources. A 99% tax would be great! The only problem is enforcement; if someone doesn't pay their taxes, they have a much greater proof. Maybe it can be enforced by the blockchain? Lets say a blockchain recognizes a "government" entity -with a magic address-; a consensus rule could be that 99% of the reward goes to it?

bitcoinmonger 5y ago

Why not just perform a 51% attack? That's the obvious weakness.

vcavallo 5y ago

No, thanks!