4 ms·

> Fiat is run by democracies with elections, they're not pay-to-play oligopolies like crypto. Cryptocurrencies are far more democratic: every time a transactio

by x4e 5y ago

> Fiat is run by democracies with elections, they're not pay-to-play oligopolies like crypto. Cryptocurrencies are far more democratic: every time a transaction is submitted the network votes on whether or not it is valid using consensus mechanisms like proof of work or proof of stake. Fiat currencies are far less democratic: we can only vote for the people that will control them, not for what they will actually do with the currency. In the UK we do not vote for any positions in the Bank of England. > Monetary and fiscal policies can be used to control the health of the economy. It's part of a wide system that also offers education, medical care, transportation, and many other utilities for actual people. Crypto offers what, exactly? Monetary and fiscal policies can still operate without control of the currency, see Eurozone members having local policies. All it means is that they can’t arbitrarily print the currency. > NFTs are worthless garbage nobody can legislate. Digital barcodes. Nation states have robust IP laws to protect and transfer ownership. You misunderstand NFTs. It is not about intellectual property, it is about property. I can prove I have ownership of any token instantly and trustlessly. > Crypto wastes energy. It also wastes human brains that could be solving more pertinent problems. Many cryptocurrencies have negligible energy usage even over the entire network: see Nano. Even in Bitcoin, how is the energy usage a “waste”? It is holding the entire network together. And with human brains, cryptocurrency research has had very beneficial impact in other fields, see for example Monero’s development of RingCT and Bulletproofs+. And that is ignoring the fact that these brains are reshaping our entire financial infrastructure. > Quantum computing will render all of the blockchain useless anyway. Not really. Even if quantum computing was possible now Bitcoin would still be usable. And advancements are being made across all cryptocurrencies to secure them better.

echelon 5y ago
> Cryptocurrencies are far more democratic: every time a transaction is submitted the network votes on whether or not it is valid using consensus mechanisms like proof of work or proof of stake. When the votes take money or resources, that's not democratic. > Fiat currencies are far less democratic: we can only vote for the people that will control them, not for what they will actually do with the currency. In the UK we do not vote for any positions in the Bank of England. It's still representative democracy. You broadly know what politician's platforms are with respect to taxes, priorities, etc. If they do stuff you don't like, you vote them out. > Monetary and fiscal policies can still operate without control of the currency, see Eurozone members having local policies. All it means is that they can’t arbitrarily print the currency. So you lose your largest levers so you can make rich cryptowhales happy. Not good. > You misunderstand NFTs. It is not about intellectual property, it is about property. I can prove I have ownership of any token instantly and trustlessly. I don't respect your ownership. Neither does anyone else. When your keys leak - and they will -, you don't own it anymore. I'll much sooner use actual laws with records to buy my next house or car. > Many cryptocurrencies have negligible energy usage even over the entire network: see Nano. None of the major cryptocurrencies do despite claiming they would for years. I'm not holding my breath. > Even in Bitcoin, how is the energy usage a “waste”? It is holding the entire network together. When it's a network that many of us think is pointless, we're simply scratching our heads at this. > Monero’s development of RingCT and Bulletproofs+. More crypto junk and not a cure for cancer. > And that is ignoring the fact that these brains are reshaping our entire financial infrastructure. It doesn't need changing! We're increasingly building tools to serve the underbanked, and we need the government to continue with AML, KYC, etc. They serve a very valuable purpose of stopping terrorism, preventing bribery, etc. > Not really. Even if quantum computing was possible now Bitcoin would still be usable. If Satoshi's keys, or the Winklevoss keys, or Coinbase keys leak, it's game over forever. > And advancements are being made across all cryptocurrencies to secure them better. Better hurry. I don't think you realize the clock is ticking. If quantum beats you, it's game over. The network has no value when the trust and ownership can't be proven. Once crypto can attack keys, parties can't prove they own the address. Even if the network is forked or reverted, it's forever broken.
- m00dy 5y ago
  When quantum comes, we will have talked about quantum-resistant networks anyway. Crypto is not just kids' play anymore. Monero community has genius people.
- x4e 5y ago
  > When the votes take money or resources, that's not democratic. It is by definition democratic. > It's still representative democracy Sure, I wasn’t claiming it isn’t democratic just that it is less democratic. > If they do stuff you don't like, you vote them out. Not always, for example the Bank of England’s monetary policy committee is not elected. > I don't respect your ownership. Good for you however I don’t actually care whether or not you respect it. For example with concert ticket NFTs the only person that needs to respect it are the organisers, not you. > When your keys leak - and they will -, you don't own it anymore. That is intended. > None of the major cryptocurrencies do despite claiming they would for years. What do you count as major? Nano is in top 100 by market cap. > When it's a network that many of us think is pointless, we're simply scratching our heads at this. I think that retail stock market trading is pointless however I respect its ability to consume energy as part of the free market. > More crypto junk and not a cure for cancer. Sounds like you are very prejudiced and have made no effort to research these technologies before calling them junk and wastes of energy. > It doesn't need changing! I’m sure nobody thought banking needed changing in the 1900s before it became digitally available. Researching new technology can almost never be bad. > We're increasingly building tools to serve the underbanked, and we need the government to continue with AML, KYC, etc. They serve a very valuable purpose of stopping terrorism, preventing bribery, etc. Yes and we still can, and are doing the same with cryptocurrencies. > If Satoshi's keys, or the Winklevoss keys, or Coinbase keys leak, it's game over forever. It’s only possible to crack someone’s private key using quantum computing if they have spent from that wallet before (as this is the only time at which an accounts public key becomes public). Most of those accounts you have listed have never spent any of their coins so it would not be possible to crack their accounts.

by x4e 5y ago

echelon 5y ago

> Cryptocurrencies are far more democratic: every time a transaction is submitted the network votes on whether or not it is valid using consensus mechanisms like proof of work or proof of stake. When the votes take money or resources, that's not democratic. > Fiat currencies are far less democratic: we can only vote for the people that will control them, not for what they will actually do with the currency. In the UK we do not vote for any positions in the Bank of England. It's still representative democracy. You broadly know what politician's platforms are with respect to taxes, priorities, etc. If they do stuff you don't like, you vote them out. > Monetary and fiscal policies can still operate without control of the currency, see Eurozone members having local policies. All it means is that they can’t arbitrarily print the currency. So you lose your largest levers so you can make rich cryptowhales happy. Not good. > You misunderstand NFTs. It is not about intellectual property, it is about property. I can prove I have ownership of any token instantly and trustlessly. I don't respect your ownership. Neither does anyone else. When your keys leak - and they will -, you don't own it anymore. I'll much sooner use actual laws with records to buy my next house or car. > Many cryptocurrencies have negligible energy usage even over the entire network: see Nano. None of the major cryptocurrencies do despite claiming they would for years. I'm not holding my breath. > Even in Bitcoin, how is the energy usage a “waste”? It is holding the entire network together. When it's a network that many of us think is pointless, we're simply scratching our heads at this. > Monero’s development of RingCT and Bulletproofs+. More crypto junk and not a cure for cancer. > And that is ignoring the fact that these brains are reshaping our entire financial infrastructure. It doesn't need changing! We're increasingly building tools to serve the underbanked, and we need the government to continue with AML, KYC, etc. They serve a very valuable purpose of stopping terrorism, preventing bribery, etc. > Not really. Even if quantum computing was possible now Bitcoin would still be usable. If Satoshi's keys, or the Winklevoss keys, or Coinbase keys leak, it's game over forever. > And advancements are being made across all cryptocurrencies to secure them better. Better hurry. I don't think you realize the clock is ticking. If quantum beats you, it's game over. The network has no value when the trust and ownership can't be proven. Once crypto can attack keys, parties can't prove they own the address. Even if the network is forked or reverted, it's forever broken.

m00dy 5y ago
When quantum comes, we will have talked about quantum-resistant networks anyway. Crypto is not just kids' play anymore. Monero community has genius people.
x4e 5y ago
> When the votes take money or resources, that's not democratic. It is by definition democratic. > It's still representative democracy Sure, I wasn’t claiming it isn’t democratic just that it is less democratic. > If they do stuff you don't like, you vote them out. Not always, for example the Bank of England’s monetary policy committee is not elected. > I don't respect your ownership. Good for you however I don’t actually care whether or not you respect it. For example with concert ticket NFTs the only person that needs to respect it are the organisers, not you. > When your keys leak - and they will -, you don't own it anymore. That is intended. > None of the major cryptocurrencies do despite claiming they would for years. What do you count as major? Nano is in top 100 by market cap. > When it's a network that many of us think is pointless, we're simply scratching our heads at this. I think that retail stock market trading is pointless however I respect its ability to consume energy as part of the free market. > More crypto junk and not a cure for cancer. Sounds like you are very prejudiced and have made no effort to research these technologies before calling them junk and wastes of energy. > It doesn't need changing! I’m sure nobody thought banking needed changing in the 1900s before it became digitally available. Researching new technology can almost never be bad. > We're increasingly building tools to serve the underbanked, and we need the government to continue with AML, KYC, etc. They serve a very valuable purpose of stopping terrorism, preventing bribery, etc. Yes and we still can, and are doing the same with cryptocurrencies. > If Satoshi's keys, or the Winklevoss keys, or Coinbase keys leak, it's game over forever. It’s only possible to crack someone’s private key using quantum computing if they have spent from that wallet before (as this is the only time at which an accounts public key becomes public). Most of those accounts you have listed have never spent any of their coins so it would not be possible to crack their accounts.