3 ms·

I actually agree with you! PoW (proof-of-work) coins produce a big negative externality. That being said Ethereum is migrating to a PoS (proof-of-stake) system

I actually agree with you! PoW (proof-of-work) coins produce a big negative externality. That being said Ethereum is migrating to a PoS (proof-of-stake) system by year end that virtually eliminates all the problems you enumerate. Even if you believe in a policy response, wouldn't you agree that it'd be better specifically target proof-of-work blockchains rather than crypto in general? Ironically this bill may actually do the opposite. It places a much higher burden of DeFi and stablecoins, which are mostly Ethereum native. It will probably shift usage to large centralized exchanges, which generally favors PoW based Bitcoin.

henearkr 5y ago
Well, a finer policy would probably be better, I agree. But, in this case, even if the loss of a beautiful peace of engineering is always a pity (but it is not even lost, because the source code itself has no reason to be forbidden!), I don't see really what is the loss for the world. As I said in another comment, if you use a VPN, you can access preexisting online banking like PayPal, and to it while escaping surveillance and censure from any dictatorship you live in. So e.g. if you reimplement whatever usage you found for some Ethereum contracts, in a non-blockchain technology, then you can just access it through VPNs whenever that becomes necessary.