4 ms·

What's the benefit of a low-cost global consensus system...? Is this sarcasm? Or are you getting caught up in some version of politics?

codesnik 4y ago
is it low cost, though?
- bitxbitxbitcoin 4y ago
  Compared to similarly functioning systems that are decentralized and distributed? Yes.
  - cowtools 4y ago
    Bitcoin and Etherium are probably amongst the most inefficient cryptocurrencies on the market.
    - exo762 4y ago
      Is this analysis based on technical details of protocols? Or their economics? If latter, then I must object. Tx on one chain is not the same as tx on other chain. They are not interchangeable.
    - idiotsecant 4y ago
      There are much cheaper ways to achieve consensus, so long as you don't care very much about that consensus being real.
- bowsamic 4y ago
  Low cost as in energy and computation, but the cost of transactions are still higher and transactions are still slower than some of the alternatives as far as I'm aware
cowtools 4y ago
etherium is hardly low-cost
- Zamicol 4y ago
  It's currently about $.02 to send Ethereum on an Ethereum L2 (Loopring): https://l2fees.info https://l2fees.info Ethereum at the moment isn't too bad with a fee of ~$0.83.
- everfree 4y ago
  It's low-cost to maintain (post-merge). The high prices to use it are a result of users crowding around a limited amount of product (block space).
goethes_kind 4y ago
swalsh 4y ago
I think focusing on the technology of blockchain is a mistake. A lot of web2 people look at blockchain like its a capability they csn integrate into their enterprise architecture. That's not really what it is. What modern crypto has become is a new digital economy. You can build a digital economy without blockchain (most people here probably work in one), but what blockchain is bringing is sovereignty to the economy. This distinction is important. Tech people keep talking about technical solutions to recent problems, but this isn't a problem caused by tech and its not a problem solved by tech. The conversation about things like tornado cash is one of foreign policy. A self sovereign digital economy has autonomy, but it relies on imported compute, which means it needs friendly relationships with foreign governments.
rcxdude 4y ago
Consensus on what, is the question. Cryptos have a billion solutions for moving stuff around in crypto space, not very many for actually linking it with the real world, which is in fact what a very large fraction of the existing financial infrastructure is built to do. For the length of time crypto has been promising to change everything, it's really lacking in killer applications (basically the only value I actually see is private/censorship-resistant transactions, but the chains which actually focus on that tend not to be seeing anywhere near as much interest, and there's a bunch of baggage associated with that because it's most useful for enabling harmful activities and money laundering).
- idiotsecant 4y ago
  Consensus in this case has a very specific technical meaning. You're trying to start some kind of philosophical discussion but you're not using the right words.
  - rcxdude 4y ago
    I know what the technical meaning is, but if you're going to argue for the usefulness of crypto you need to argue why the consensus that crypto achieves is actually useful, instead of just acting as if this is obvious.
    - idiotsecant 4y ago
      No, you don't need to demonstrate that at all. This could just as easily be a decentralized database for counting the number of jellybeans that exist on pluto and that word would still mean the same thing.
      - rcxdude 4y ago
        Yes you do. If you wish to argue that 'if crypto then useful', and you want to use the proposition 'if crypto then consensus', then you also need to provide something to support the proposition 'if consensus then useful'. You can substitude jellybeans on pluto or whatever else you want in the middle, the point is there are two steps necessary to the argument and only one is actually well supported.

codesnik 4y ago

is it low cost, though?

bitxbitxbitcoin 4y ago
Compared to similarly functioning systems that are decentralized and distributed? Yes.
- cowtools 4y ago
  Bitcoin and Etherium are probably amongst the most inefficient cryptocurrencies on the market.
  - exo762 4y ago
    Is this analysis based on technical details of protocols? Or their economics? If latter, then I must object. Tx on one chain is not the same as tx on other chain. They are not interchangeable.
  - idiotsecant 4y ago
    There are much cheaper ways to achieve consensus, so long as you don't care very much about that consensus being real.
bowsamic 4y ago
Low cost as in energy and computation, but the cost of transactions are still higher and transactions are still slower than some of the alternatives as far as I'm aware

cowtools 4y ago

etherium is hardly low-cost

Zamicol 4y ago
It's currently about $.02 to send Ethereum on an Ethereum L2 (Loopring): https://l2fees.info https://l2fees.info Ethereum at the moment isn't too bad with a fee of ~$0.83.
everfree 4y ago
It's low-cost to maintain (post-merge). The high prices to use it are a result of users crowding around a limited amount of product (block space).

goethes_kind 4y ago

swalsh 4y ago

I think focusing on the technology of blockchain is a mistake. A lot of web2 people look at blockchain like its a capability they csn integrate into their enterprise architecture. That's not really what it is. What modern crypto has become is a new digital economy. You can build a digital economy without blockchain (most people here probably work in one), but what blockchain is bringing is sovereignty to the economy. This distinction is important. Tech people keep talking about technical solutions to recent problems, but this isn't a problem caused by tech and its not a problem solved by tech. The conversation about things like tornado cash is one of foreign policy. A self sovereign digital economy has autonomy, but it relies on imported compute, which means it needs friendly relationships with foreign governments.

rcxdude 4y ago

Consensus on what, is the question. Cryptos have a billion solutions for moving stuff around in crypto space, not very many for actually linking it with the real world, which is in fact what a very large fraction of the existing financial infrastructure is built to do. For the length of time crypto has been promising to change everything, it's really lacking in killer applications (basically the only value I actually see is private/censorship-resistant transactions, but the chains which actually focus on that tend not to be seeing anywhere near as much interest, and there's a bunch of baggage associated with that because it's most useful for enabling harmful activities and money laundering).

idiotsecant 4y ago
Consensus in this case has a very specific technical meaning. You're trying to start some kind of philosophical discussion but you're not using the right words.
- rcxdude 4y ago
  I know what the technical meaning is, but if you're going to argue for the usefulness of crypto you need to argue why the consensus that crypto achieves is actually useful, instead of just acting as if this is obvious.
  - idiotsecant 4y ago
    No, you don't need to demonstrate that at all. This could just as easily be a decentralized database for counting the number of jellybeans that exist on pluto and that word would still mean the same thing.
    - rcxdude 4y ago
      Yes you do. If you wish to argue that 'if crypto then useful', and you want to use the proposition 'if crypto then consensus', then you also need to provide something to support the proposition 'if consensus then useful'. You can substitude jellybeans on pluto or whatever else you want in the middle, the point is there are two steps necessary to the argument and only one is actually well supported.