3 ms·

1. Fees on chains made for transactions are pennies (Google "X transaction fees" where x = solana, polygon, bitcoin lightning, etc.) 2. I'd expect a project tr

1. Fees on chains made for transactions are pennies (Google "X transaction fees" where x = solana, polygon, bitcoin lightning, etc.) 2. I'd expect a project trying to create digital money to take a bit more time then a JS framework[1]. Does that seem reasonable? It took React 6 years to "go mainstream" and had the backing of Facebook. It's hard to do consequential things in the real world, it will take time. 3. Why do you think it won't happen? Just because it's taking a long time? It's a big change with a ton at risk if it goes wrong. It's going to take a while to happen. 1 - https://blog.risingstack.com/the-history-of-react-js-on-a-timeline/ https://blog.risingstack.com/the-history-of-react-js-on-a-ti...

dangerwill 5y ago
1. I looked up bitcoin transaction fees dog, that's where those numbers came from (just converting the btc cost into dollars for ease of discussion). And yeah I don't care about whichever "low cost" blockchain is being talked about this week. Every single time one of those begins to become popular the scale problem shows itself and transaction times or fees (or both) go up as more nodes are added. Even proof of stake suffers from this. 2. Sure but none of these projects are run by reputable people and have shown deep misunderstandings of financial systems and human nature. Why would I trust any of these to be a replacement for my bank? And like, just from a tech perspective, doesn't the Hacker News community love talking about solving problems at scale, maximizing transactions per second at the minimum cost? How can you look at how absolutely, nightmarishly dog shit crypto networks are by design at handling high throughput and think that they are cool? You have traded every single engineering best practice away and are using brute computing power to solve the distributed double spend problem. I'm frankly deeply ashamed at how many engineers are willing to put up with this. 3. There is a fundamental difference between a 3 year planned migration and a migration that is stalled for 3 years with a fresh delay announcement every couple of months. You can say I'm being overly harsh but given how 95-99% of people in crypto are scammers and vaporware vendors I am forced to have a default pessimistic view of everything in the scene.

dangerwill 5y ago

1. I looked up bitcoin transaction fees dog, that's where those numbers came from (just converting the btc cost into dollars for ease of discussion). And yeah I don't care about whichever "low cost" blockchain is being talked about this week. Every single time one of those begins to become popular the scale problem shows itself and transaction times or fees (or both) go up as more nodes are added. Even proof of stake suffers from this. 2. Sure but none of these projects are run by reputable people and have shown deep misunderstandings of financial systems and human nature. Why would I trust any of these to be a replacement for my bank? And like, just from a tech perspective, doesn't the Hacker News community love talking about solving problems at scale, maximizing transactions per second at the minimum cost? How can you look at how absolutely, nightmarishly dog shit crypto networks are by design at handling high throughput and think that they are cool? You have traded every single engineering best practice away and are using brute computing power to solve the distributed double spend problem. I'm frankly deeply ashamed at how many engineers are willing to put up with this. 3. There is a fundamental difference between a 3 year planned migration and a migration that is stalled for 3 years with a fresh delay announcement every couple of months. You can say I'm being overly harsh but given how 95-99% of people in crypto are scammers and vaporware vendors I am forced to have a default pessimistic view of everything in the scene.