5 ms·

>it needs to make the people running it rich or they wouldn't bother. This is debated I don't think this is even debatable anymore. We were promised decentrali

>it needs to make the people running it rich or they wouldn't bother. This is debated I don't think this is even debatable anymore. We were promised decentralization and transaction costs at a fraction of traditional payments. Instead we have astronomical transaction/gas fees and effective centralization around a different cast of characters. Of course there are positives. For instance, if you are sending large sums, it can be cost-effective. But, this is far from the world of micropayments and fractional penny transaction costs, and that money is going somewhere. Seems pretty clear that we've just dislocated some percentage of the financial incumbents to create new ones. And, even the old incumbents are buying back in. Reminds me of the early promise of the Internet itself giving way to corporate overlords and capital. I'm not anti-crypto, but it is kind of silly to keep pretending it's close to or even on track to realizing its early promise.

BoiledCabbage 5y ago
> Seems pretty clear that we've just dislocated some percentage of the financial incumbents to create new ones. And, even the old incumbents are buying back in. Reminds me of the early promise of the Internet itself giving way to corporate overlords and capital. And yet again a bunch of tech-enthusiasts are forced to face that fact that their breakthrough technology does not infact lead to the techno-utopia they imagined, and instead is heavily directed by human factors, and leveraged/exploited by the same types of systems and entities that had the most power/influence prior to it. Can't wait till we start again on this cycle with widely deployed machine learning systems in about 15 years. The same exact arguments of "it's just a technology." "It doesn't matter how it will be used in society." "By nature it's more [democratic/egalatarian/...]" "It will help to remove people problems by being tech". Which will yet again change to: "Wait what?" "Not like that." "It's not supposed to be used like that". "It's been corrupted and taken over by X. Who could've foreseen this??" If you're designing tech without designing how it will interact with society, you're just designing foot-guns. Hopefully at somepoint as an industry we'll get past this stage from teenage "look what I can do isn't this cool" to resonsible adult "Yes I have the freedome/ability to do this, and here's how I'll do it responsibly."
ikt 5y ago
How is nano (a zero fee blockchain that has no impact on the environment that's based on ethereum) centralised?
- franga2000 5y ago
  https://hub.nano.org/i/merchants/4 https://hub.nano.org/i/merchants/4 > 52 Results As GP said, "stillborn"
  - ikt 5y ago
    it's amazing for sending currency overseas with minimal fees, merchants aren't necessary for this
- pcthrowaway 5y ago
  Are you saying Nano is based on Ethereum? Because it's not. Or if you mean the environmental impact claims are based on Ethereum... that's sort of true (Bitcoin is still the biggest offender here, but Ethereum currently also has a significant impact). However, Ethereum is moving to proof-of-stake, so this won't be relevant once that transition is complete.
  - deleted 5y ago
    [deleted]
  - ikt 5y ago
    sorry yeah, i duno why i thought nano was an erc20

BoiledCabbage 5y ago

> Seems pretty clear that we've just dislocated some percentage of the financial incumbents to create new ones. And, even the old incumbents are buying back in. Reminds me of the early promise of the Internet itself giving way to corporate overlords and capital. And yet again a bunch of tech-enthusiasts are forced to face that fact that their breakthrough technology does not infact lead to the techno-utopia they imagined, and instead is heavily directed by human factors, and leveraged/exploited by the same types of systems and entities that had the most power/influence prior to it. Can't wait till we start again on this cycle with widely deployed machine learning systems in about 15 years. The same exact arguments of "it's just a technology." "It doesn't matter how it will be used in society." "By nature it's more [democratic/egalatarian/...]" "It will help to remove people problems by being tech". Which will yet again change to: "Wait what?" "Not like that." "It's not supposed to be used like that". "It's been corrupted and taken over by X. Who could've foreseen this??" If you're designing tech without designing how it will interact with society, you're just designing foot-guns. Hopefully at somepoint as an industry we'll get past this stage from teenage "look what I can do isn't this cool" to resonsible adult "Yes I have the freedome/ability to do this, and here's how I'll do it responsibly."

ikt 5y ago

How is nano (a zero fee blockchain that has no impact on the environment that's based on ethereum) centralised?

franga2000 5y ago
https://hub.nano.org/i/merchants/4 https://hub.nano.org/i/merchants/4 > 52 Results As GP said, "stillborn"
- ikt 5y ago
  it's amazing for sending currency overseas with minimal fees, merchants aren't necessary for this
pcthrowaway 5y ago
Are you saying Nano is based on Ethereum? Because it's not. Or if you mean the environmental impact claims are based on Ethereum... that's sort of true (Bitcoin is still the biggest offender here, but Ethereum currently also has a significant impact). However, Ethereum is moving to proof-of-stake, so this won't be relevant once that transition is complete.
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]
- ikt 5y ago
  sorry yeah, i duno why i thought nano was an erc20