8 ms·

Right, but you don't have to be rich to participate in PoS. You can stake a small amount in a pool. Just like you don't have to be rich to create a giant mining

Right, but you don't have to be rich to participate in PoS. You can stake a small amount in a pool. Just like you don't have to be rich to create a giant mining farm, you can join a mining pool with 1 miner. Actually I think PoS might be more egalitarian than PoW. Even if you can scrape together enough money to buy 1 miner, if you don't have access to cheap electricity you just don't mine. Whereas you can always stake with a small amount regardless of where you are in the world.

camgunz 5y ago
Sure, this is just pooling your resources; the front page of Ethereum's PoS site gives this as an option if you don't have 32ETH. But this is like millennials pooling their resources to buy a house, except in that case you get a house. What do we get if we pool together to run an Ethereum node? The ability to run a slower payment system than the one we already have? The ability to launder money simply and effectively?
- rglullis 5y ago
  Those staking ETH are rewarded with 2%/year, so they are all having some form of savings account. What else does it let you do? - To make transactions with anyone in the world without being blocked by a bank or a financial institution. - To put your resources to use without having limits. If you have a bicycle, you will be able to join a distributed bike-sharing program, fully insured. You will be able to finance micro-credit programs for people in countries without having to go through tons of red-tape or corrupt middlemen. - you will be able to be fully sovereign over your online identity(ies). Think of how easy it is to switch between server hosting providers. As long as you control the domain name, you are not forced to stay with a vendor you don't like. With blockchain identities, you will be able to do the same with service you use. The only thing you are showing with your pseudo-criticism is that you are in quite a privileged position if you are okay with the status quo, and also you have no imagination.
  - camgunz 5y ago
    2%/yr is junk, even CDs are better than that. The rest of your post is crypto naïveté. I'll believe the rest when I see it, because the current crypto landscape is essentially all scams and speculation, with again no utility whatsoever.
    - sanderjd 5y ago
      Could you point me to a CD at 2% right now?
      - camgunz 5y ago
        Wow they're so bad! OK I'll eat it on this one, I'm out of date. But like, there are lots of safer investments that get you > 2%.
        sanderjd 5y ago
        It really depends on what you view as safe! I agree that 2% seems really low for locking money into a risky asset. But the fact is that everything with more yield than that right now has an unknown level of risk attached to it. Here's an interesting podcast from today that essentially argues for just holding cash right now: https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2021-12-06/richard-bookstaber-on-the-big-structural-risk-in-the-market-right-now https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2021-12-06/richard-b...
        camgunz 5y ago
        Oh yeah totally I mean, one of the first bonkers things I learned about money is that its value changes and there's nowhere you can put it where it doesn't evaporate (devalue from inflation) where it might not instantly disappear (crash). Everything is a balance. But like, for locking up $130k in a wildly volatile market, I'd expect way more than 2%. That's way out of balance. Like, there are no reasonable (sure there are some bond ETFs or the one ESG ETF under 2%) Vanguard ETFs below that, and the ones you'd invest in are at worst 8%, none of which are anywhere near the risk or volatility of ETH. So to me, the 2% doesn't seem like an incentive. But I don't think it was designed that way? I thought it was to make the rewards more equitable, and also continue to keep validator skin in the game (why would you corrupt Ethereum, you get paid in ETH). I don't know if it really succeeds at these things; I think rich people can stake multiple times and the initial big miner investment are probably sufficient skin (plus like, are people committed to ETH because of their mining rigs or because of the gains?), but that's just conjecture, hard (impossible?) to know for sure.

camgunz 5y ago

Sure, this is just pooling your resources; the front page of Ethereum's PoS site gives this as an option if you don't have 32ETH. But this is like millennials pooling their resources to buy a house, except in that case you get a house. What do we get if we pool together to run an Ethereum node? The ability to run a slower payment system than the one we already have? The ability to launder money simply and effectively?

rglullis 5y ago
Those staking ETH are rewarded with 2%/year, so they are all having some form of savings account. What else does it let you do? - To make transactions with anyone in the world without being blocked by a bank or a financial institution. - To put your resources to use without having limits. If you have a bicycle, you will be able to join a distributed bike-sharing program, fully insured. You will be able to finance micro-credit programs for people in countries without having to go through tons of red-tape or corrupt middlemen. - you will be able to be fully sovereign over your online identity(ies). Think of how easy it is to switch between server hosting providers. As long as you control the domain name, you are not forced to stay with a vendor you don't like. With blockchain identities, you will be able to do the same with service you use. The only thing you are showing with your pseudo-criticism is that you are in quite a privileged position if you are okay with the status quo, and also you have no imagination.
- camgunz 5y ago
  2%/yr is junk, even CDs are better than that. The rest of your post is crypto naïveté. I'll believe the rest when I see it, because the current crypto landscape is essentially all scams and speculation, with again no utility whatsoever.
  - sanderjd 5y ago
    Could you point me to a CD at 2% right now?
    - camgunz 5y ago
      Wow they're so bad! OK I'll eat it on this one, I'm out of date. But like, there are lots of safer investments that get you > 2%.
      - sanderjd 5y ago
        It really depends on what you view as safe! I agree that 2% seems really low for locking money into a risky asset. But the fact is that everything with more yield than that right now has an unknown level of risk attached to it. Here's an interesting podcast from today that essentially argues for just holding cash right now: https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2021-12-06/richard-bookstaber-on-the-big-structural-risk-in-the-market-right-now https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2021-12-06/richard-b...
        camgunz 5y ago
        Oh yeah totally I mean, one of the first bonkers things I learned about money is that its value changes and there's nowhere you can put it where it doesn't evaporate (devalue from inflation) where it might not instantly disappear (crash). Everything is a balance. But like, for locking up $130k in a wildly volatile market, I'd expect way more than 2%. That's way out of balance. Like, there are no reasonable (sure there are some bond ETFs or the one ESG ETF under 2%) Vanguard ETFs below that, and the ones you'd invest in are at worst 8%, none of which are anywhere near the risk or volatility of ETH. So to me, the 2% doesn't seem like an incentive. But I don't think it was designed that way? I thought it was to make the rewards more equitable, and also continue to keep validator skin in the game (why would you corrupt Ethereum, you get paid in ETH). I don't know if it really succeeds at these things; I think rich people can stake multiple times and the initial big miner investment are probably sufficient skin (plus like, are people committed to ETH because of their mining rigs or because of the gains?), but that's just conjecture, hard (impossible?) to know for sure.