3 ms·

Since you've received several trite replies, here's an answer to your actual question: The original promise of crypto was verifiable, trust-less, decentralized

Since you've received several trite replies, here's an answer to your actual question: The original promise of crypto was verifiable, trust-less, decentralized transactions of value without middlemen, sanctions or high fees. These transactions have different properties, whether alt-coins, BTC or Ether; for example: * Transaction speed can be Fast / Slow * Security - Very Secure / Broken * Centralization - Tends towards decentralization / Centralization * Transaction cost - Fee-less / Extreme * Privacy / Transparent - Opaque * Energy Efficiency - Highly Efficient / Purposefully wasteful Some alt-coins have far, far surpassed BTC and Ether in all of the above. However, the people who hold BTC and Ether were there first, made the most, and have no intention of letting that value go. If cryptos are nation state currencies, BTC and Ether have invested their money in defense and propaganda. Alt coins are a mixed lot, but some of them have greener, faster, more sustainable and less centralized methods. The small citizenry is what holds them back despite technological superiority; for now. The funny thing about that analogy though, is that changing your backed nation state takes less than a second...

neom 5y ago
So question about that. In this new world, we've effectively connected tech choice directly to financial return, is there a disincentivization to pick the "best" tech?
- mandmandam 5y ago
  Yes and no. Yes in the short term. Picking the best tech is disincentivized, because there are many and powerful forces beyond technical characteristics at play. No in the long term, because technology really does matter once people actually try to use the coin. Ether was once the best tech, and it was $10 a coin. Now it isn't, and it's >$4k. For example: More and more of the people who make money using their graphic cards to mine Ethereum are choosing to have their payment transferred in Nano, and other alts. It just makes more sense to go with the fee-less and near-instant option, when there's a choice like that to be made.
- bhaak 5y ago
  Look at the real word companies. It's not always the company with the best technology that wins. There are lots of different factors that influence that.
  - neom 5y ago
    That's true, I was thinking about it more in the context of OSS, but I suppose that is still true in open source projects as well.
cableshaft 5y ago
Some of these are greener only because they have less volume and a smaller market cap. Like I remember people saying "DOGE uses so much less electricity than Bitcoin!", which is true in its current overall total, sure, but if you multiplied its volume so it matched bitcoin (like what would have to happen if it replaced bitcoin) it would be almost the same. That's not to say there aren't greener alternatives out there (especially with Proof of Stake networks), but some of these coins claiming to be greener are only that way because they're not used anywhere near as much.

neom 5y ago

So question about that. In this new world, we've effectively connected tech choice directly to financial return, is there a disincentivization to pick the "best" tech?

mandmandam 5y ago
Yes and no. Yes in the short term. Picking the best tech is disincentivized, because there are many and powerful forces beyond technical characteristics at play. No in the long term, because technology really does matter once people actually try to use the coin. Ether was once the best tech, and it was $10 a coin. Now it isn't, and it's >$4k. For example: More and more of the people who make money using their graphic cards to mine Ethereum are choosing to have their payment transferred in Nano, and other alts. It just makes more sense to go with the fee-less and near-instant option, when there's a choice like that to be made.
bhaak 5y ago
Look at the real word companies. It's not always the company with the best technology that wins. There are lots of different factors that influence that.
- neom 5y ago
  That's true, I was thinking about it more in the context of OSS, but I suppose that is still true in open source projects as well.

cableshaft 5y ago

Some of these are greener only because they have less volume and a smaller market cap. Like I remember people saying "DOGE uses so much less electricity than Bitcoin!", which is true in its current overall total, sure, but if you multiplied its volume so it matched bitcoin (like what would have to happen if it replaced bitcoin) it would be almost the same. That's not to say there aren't greener alternatives out there (especially with Proof of Stake networks), but some of these coins claiming to be greener are only that way because they're not used anywhere near as much.