3 ms·

All those things are single percent of the market, but they are lending legitimacy to the idea of cryptocurrencies. Yes, using XRP does not burn planet.. direc

by theamk 4y ago

All those things are single percent of the market, but they are lending legitimacy to the idea of cryptocurrencies. Yes, using XRP does not burn planet.. directly. But any time businesses say: "We support cryptocurrencies like XRP", plain people hear first 3 words, and become more likely to invest into cryptocurrencies, which are statistically most likely to be Bitcoin or Ethereum. So if you care about environment, or lack of ransomware, or anything else the OP talks about, the responsible thing is to reject all cryptocurrencies. The small amount of innovation and financial tools provided by XRP, Stellar etc.. is not worth the huge negative effects from bitcoin and ethereum and all the other PoW, [pseudo-]anonymous cryptocurrencies.

pcthrowaway 4y ago
> which are statistically most likely to be Bitcoin or Ethereum. Ethereum itself should be using proof of stake by the end of the year, hence also not contributing to burning the planet.
- datashaman 4y ago
  _should_ https://trends.google.co.za/trends/explore?date=today%205-y&q=Ethereum%20proof%20of%20stake https://trends.google.co.za/trends/explore?date=today%205-y&... This has been just around the corner for a few years now…
  - Zetaphor 4y ago
    The first of the three primary testnets will execute the merge next month. Current projections have the mainnet merge (the final merge) occurring around August. It takes a lot of testing and validation to make certain that such a substantial change to a network of this scale, securing this much capital, goes off with zero downtime or issues.
    - _Algernon_ 4y ago
      >Current projections That has been the case for years now. I genuinely thought it had already happened because last I heard of it the merge was supposed to happen mid-last year or something. At this point this merge will occur when HL3 is released, that is, never.
      - Zetaphor 4y ago
        That has not been the case for years now, you're contributing to the perpetuation of a false narrative. Yes, it was originally thought that the merge would be simpler (way back when it was referred to as Casper), and then it was realized it wasn't. Since that time the core devs have been transparent about the timelines. They have not been perpetually saying it's around the corner, they've been providing detailed roadmaps that have taken until now to reach completion. I encourage you to post sources to the contrary or admit that you're simply repeating the common falsehood. Multiple shadow forks of mainnet have been merged successfully and we are now moving into the primary testnets. The final steps are being taken and only something catastrophic will change the current trajectory. The merge will be completed by the end of this year, regardless of what you choose to believe.
- labster 4y ago
  How much more efficient is proof of stake compared to proof of work? The calculations I’ve seen suggest PoW is 4-5 orders of magnitude less energy efficient that credit cards. There needs to be tremendous improvement if ether doesn’t want to ruin the planet.
  - Zetaphor 4y ago
    You can run an Ethereum PoS validator on a consumer laptop or even a Raspberry Pi.
    - emikulic 4y ago
      How long a network outage are you allowed to have before you lose your stake?
      - Zetaphor 4y ago
        My understanding is around 4 hours, though you don't lose your entire stake, you pay a small penalty, determined by the current health state of the network. Slashing as most people think of it is reserved for malicious activity like contradicting network state. It's worth saying that you shouldn't consider running a validator unless you have the commitment and skill to maintain uptime and availability. This is a reward for skilled labor, not a "set it and forget it" revenue stream. It's your responsibility to ensure your client is up to date and operating correctly. While that doesn't necessarily mean you're chained to doing frequent maintenance, it's also not something a casual user should be doing without knowing what they're doing. Fortunately this information is widely available for anyone willing to learn. Work is being done on light clients which will bring us closer to the average consumer being able to contribute to network decentralization with a low effort contribution of hardware access, but today this is an operation where participants are responsible for high availability services with real financial stakes.
rvz 4y ago
> But any time businesses say: "We support cryptocurrencies like XRP", plain people hear first 3 words, and become more likely to invest into cryptocurrencies, which are statistically most likely to be Bitcoin or Ethereum. Maybe that is why Stripe (a business that needs no introduction) made an investment in Stellar, ditched 'Bitcoin' for payments and opted to use greener alternatives? Even with them using something like Polygon that still did not stop them either. Not all of these cryptocurrencies are the same as Bitcoin, and Ethereum and at least the latter is open to moving to greener alternatives to mining. > So if you care about environment, or lack of ransomware, or anything else the OP talks about, the responsible thing is to reject all cryptocurrencies. The small amount of innovation and financial tools provided by XRP, Stellar etc.. is not worth the huge negative effects from bitcoin and ethereum and all the other PoW, [pseudo-]anonymous cryptocurrencies. Perhaps one should also reject and stop driving any vehicle on the road because there are too many diesel and petrol cars emitting CO2 and not that many electric vehicles on the roads today, such that: 'The small amount of innovation in these electric cars is not worth the huge negative downsides from lorries, buses, trucks and all the other petrol and diesel vehicles.' It does not make any sense to generalise against others and outright reject all of them just because the most used one somehow also happens to be the most inefficient. It's the same reason why many companies rejected Bitcoin over alternatives for on-chain payments, especially for Stripe's use-case as well. It is also why sweeping generalisations really does not work.

by theamk 4y ago

pcthrowaway 4y ago

> which are statistically most likely to be Bitcoin or Ethereum. Ethereum itself should be using proof of stake by the end of the year, hence also not contributing to burning the planet.

datashaman 4y ago
_should_ https://trends.google.co.za/trends/explore?date=today%205-y&q=Ethereum%20proof%20of%20stake https://trends.google.co.za/trends/explore?date=today%205-y&... This has been just around the corner for a few years now…
- Zetaphor 4y ago
  The first of the three primary testnets will execute the merge next month. Current projections have the mainnet merge (the final merge) occurring around August. It takes a lot of testing and validation to make certain that such a substantial change to a network of this scale, securing this much capital, goes off with zero downtime or issues.
  - _Algernon_ 4y ago
    >Current projections That has been the case for years now. I genuinely thought it had already happened because last I heard of it the merge was supposed to happen mid-last year or something. At this point this merge will occur when HL3 is released, that is, never.
    - Zetaphor 4y ago
      That has not been the case for years now, you're contributing to the perpetuation of a false narrative. Yes, it was originally thought that the merge would be simpler (way back when it was referred to as Casper), and then it was realized it wasn't. Since that time the core devs have been transparent about the timelines. They have not been perpetually saying it's around the corner, they've been providing detailed roadmaps that have taken until now to reach completion. I encourage you to post sources to the contrary or admit that you're simply repeating the common falsehood. Multiple shadow forks of mainnet have been merged successfully and we are now moving into the primary testnets. The final steps are being taken and only something catastrophic will change the current trajectory. The merge will be completed by the end of this year, regardless of what you choose to believe.
labster 4y ago
How much more efficient is proof of stake compared to proof of work? The calculations I’ve seen suggest PoW is 4-5 orders of magnitude less energy efficient that credit cards. There needs to be tremendous improvement if ether doesn’t want to ruin the planet.
- Zetaphor 4y ago
  You can run an Ethereum PoS validator on a consumer laptop or even a Raspberry Pi.
  - emikulic 4y ago
    How long a network outage are you allowed to have before you lose your stake?
    - Zetaphor 4y ago
      My understanding is around 4 hours, though you don't lose your entire stake, you pay a small penalty, determined by the current health state of the network. Slashing as most people think of it is reserved for malicious activity like contradicting network state. It's worth saying that you shouldn't consider running a validator unless you have the commitment and skill to maintain uptime and availability. This is a reward for skilled labor, not a "set it and forget it" revenue stream. It's your responsibility to ensure your client is up to date and operating correctly. While that doesn't necessarily mean you're chained to doing frequent maintenance, it's also not something a casual user should be doing without knowing what they're doing. Fortunately this information is widely available for anyone willing to learn. Work is being done on light clients which will bring us closer to the average consumer being able to contribute to network decentralization with a low effort contribution of hardware access, but today this is an operation where participants are responsible for high availability services with real financial stakes.

rvz 4y ago

> But any time businesses say: "We support cryptocurrencies like XRP", plain people hear first 3 words, and become more likely to invest into cryptocurrencies, which are statistically most likely to be Bitcoin or Ethereum. Maybe that is why Stripe (a business that needs no introduction) made an investment in Stellar, ditched 'Bitcoin' for payments and opted to use greener alternatives? Even with them using something like Polygon that still did not stop them either. Not all of these cryptocurrencies are the same as Bitcoin, and Ethereum and at least the latter is open to moving to greener alternatives to mining. > So if you care about environment, or lack of ransomware, or anything else the OP talks about, the responsible thing is to reject all cryptocurrencies. The small amount of innovation and financial tools provided by XRP, Stellar etc.. is not worth the huge negative effects from bitcoin and ethereum and all the other PoW, [pseudo-]anonymous cryptocurrencies. Perhaps one should also reject and stop driving any vehicle on the road because there are too many diesel and petrol cars emitting CO2 and not that many electric vehicles on the roads today, such that: 'The small amount of innovation in these electric cars is not worth the huge negative downsides from lorries, buses, trucks and all the other petrol and diesel vehicles.' It does not make any sense to generalise against others and outright reject all of them just because the most used one somehow also happens to be the most inefficient. It's the same reason why many companies rejected Bitcoin over alternatives for on-chain payments, especially for Stripe's use-case as well. It is also why sweeping generalisations really does not work.