6 ms·

That has hardly ever been the ONLY problem crypto has had, ands acting as if solving this one problem should silence all dissenters lest they be considered unse

That has hardly ever been the ONLY problem crypto has had, ands acting as if solving this one problem should silence all dissenters lest they be considered unserious is disingenuous. Look at the comments for literally any popular article about crypto on this site, hell, keep scrolling on this one and you'll probably find plenty. I, for one, am happy that enabling art theft and fraud on a massive scale will shortly no longer ALSO consume terrifying amounts of electricity and hardware, but that is about as positive as I can be about this news.

bowsamic 4y ago
Honestly I think the biggest problem with crypto is how it has mainly been used either to scam people or to further centralise wealth towards the richest. I have seen very little morally good outcomes of crypto yet, but a vast number of morally bad ones.
- rvz 4y ago
  So given we all know that there are indeed scams on Ethereum, does that mean that all of crypto will go away entirely as a result of this 100%? I know precisely that I see the same old arguments against crypto time after time, but somehow despite all of these scams, carnage, etc. it still refuses to die somehow. Maybe companies like Google, Microsoft, Apple, Stripe, Monegram, and even the regulators want it to succeed? If not, they would have banned all the exchanges, coins, and removed all wallets off of the apps stores a long time ago. So I'm afraid that it is here to stay, with some survivors existing for a long time under certain compliance requirements and other crypto projects withering away.
- leppr 4y ago
  The wealth centralization effect is not an inherent aspect of crypto, it was nothing more than a result of the liquidity injections from central banks. The same argument could be made of all scarce assets that rocketed in price in the past years. Watches, the stock market, and real estate don't inherently "centralize wealth". Their price appreciation was only a symptom of the reduced cost of debt, which naturally favors the wealthiest, which reflects in the price of what wealthy people buy when they have too much money (scarce assets). The base concept of cryptocurrency is enabling free market economies by bypassing government regulation, and at least in the case of Bitcoin and Ethereum, regulating inflation by setting it in code, instead of being opaquely decided by a few wealthy people (some of them convicted of insider-trading[1]). Those two things tend to favor bottom-up wealth creation, rather than the trickle-down model fiat currencies encourage. That's a wealth decentralization force, not centralization like you claim. [1]: https://finance.yahoo.com/news/a-timeline-of-the-federal-reserves-trading-scandal-104415556.html https://finance.yahoo.com/news/a-timeline-of-the-federal-res...
  - immibis 4y ago
    Crypto has the same wealth centralization problem as all currencies (so far) - it's not immune, at all. It's not because of central bank activity. Wealth just centralizes. Free market economics lead to this emergent outcome. In principle, inflationary currencies have a force pushing away from wealth centralization, while deflationary currencies have a force pushing towards it, which is why everyone who thinks they'll have the centralized wealth likes deflationary currencies.
    - leppr 4y ago
      > In principle, inflationary currencies have a force pushing away from wealth centralization That depends entirely where the new money gets injected. If it gets injected at the top, like with our current fiat currencies, then there's nothing wealth-decentralizing about it, all the contrary. [1] Mineable cryptocurrencies inject the new money to whoever mines them, which could be anyone (less true with the current state of Proof of Work, but still true in the case of Proof of Space), thus the wealth-centralizing mechanism of fiat inflation is removed or at least mitigated. [1]: https://www.swfinstitute.org/news/89070/what-is-the-cantillon-effect-and-why-its-even-more-important-now https://www.swfinstitute.org/news/89070/what-is-the-cantillo...
      - Balladeer 4y ago
        > Mineable cryptocurrencies inject the new money to whoever mines them, which could be anyone While true in theory, is it true in practice? Those with the most resources to mine will mine the most and thus receive the most, allowing them to mine more, and the cycle of centralization continues. That's true regardless of PoW or PoS, isn't it?
        immibis 4y ago
        It is true. It's more true on PoS than PoW, since the mechanism in PoW is indirect. We can also consider how it works with traditional currencies, such as dollars, which has a hybrid PoS/??? system: you can receive resources by having the most resources (federal reserve deposits) and you can also receive them by performing services which the democracy deems useful (government spending), and to balance the numbers, resources are passively taken from people who spend their money but not from those who hoard it... maybe not the best design :)
rvz 4y ago
> That has hardly ever been the ONLY problem crypto has had, Where did I say it was the only problem? Why are you strawmaning my comment with such anger? > ands acting as if solving this one problem should silence all dissenters lest they be considered unserious is disingenuous. Another strawman and this rhetoric sounds like defeat and denial and my point was (if you've properly read my comment instead of misconstruing it) as soon as it moves to proof-of-stake, there will be no argument on the environmental issues in Ethereum, which was regularly parroted by the critics. > Look at the comments for literally any popular article about crypto on this site, hell, keep scrolling on this one and you'll probably find plenty. Look at what? I see no comments about the environmental issues in Ethereum anymore, which proves my point. I already recognise that there are scams, ponzis, etc happening in Ethereum which the regulators will step in and crackdown on them anyway. > I, for one, am happy that enabling art theft and fraud on a massive scale will shortly no longer ALSO consume terrifying amounts of electricity and hardware Exactly. All the fraud and scams are visible on a public blockchain which is easily traceable for everyone including the SEC, CFTC and the FBI to see.
- DanHulton 4y ago
  If your line: "But I imagine that they will invent new problems and the critics will hastefully rush in with their low effort hot takes" was _only_ intended to refer to "inventing new problems about environmental issues" and "low effort hot takes about environmental issues", you have not achieved the clarity in communication you were looking for. Also, it's kind of a weird stance to take? I haven't seen anyone claiming that PoS wouldn't do exactly what it set out to do, that is fix the energy waste issue inherent in PoW-based blockchains. Maybe we just run in different circles, but the main criticism I see of PoS is that it doesn't _matter._ It doesn't make blockchains or defi any more useful or moral, and it just highlights the other externalities more clearly.
  - rvz 4y ago
    > If your line: "But I imagine that they will invent new problems and the critics will hastefully rush in with their low effort hot takes" was _only_ intended to refer to "inventing new problems about environmental issues" and "low effort hot takes about environmental issues", you have not achieved the clarity in communication you were looking for. I was totally and exactly clear about what I meant about "Inventing new problems" after Ethereum moving to proof-of-stake. One can move to proof-of-stake, reduce or eliminate the significant environmental issues in their chains whilst also increase centralization which is another major valid criticism brought up after the upgrade to PoS widely discussed here. Like I said before, I don't see anyone here discussing how Ethereum moving to PoS is worse for the environment than PoW and I consider the environmental issues of Ethereum brought up by many critics answered and it will no longer be an issue. You can still be anti-crypto and welcome this [0] (or not) and still criticise it on the centralization, scams and ponzi enablement and alledged limited use cases etc. But not for the environmental issues, or 'burning up the planet', etc on Ethereum. > Also, it's kind of a weird stance to take? I haven't seen anyone claiming that PoS wouldn't do exactly what it set out to do, that is fix the energy waste issue inherent in PoW-based blockchains. I did not make that claim. > the main criticism I see of PoS is that it doesn't _matter._ It doesn't make blockchains or defi any more useful or moral, and it just highlights the other externalities more clearly. Right, unfortunately Ethereum or the wider crypto ecosystem in general isn't going to go away that easily. But I know it certainly will be more regulated with a few surviving blockchains. [0] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=32580828 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=32580828

bowsamic 4y ago

Honestly I think the biggest problem with crypto is how it has mainly been used either to scam people or to further centralise wealth towards the richest. I have seen very little morally good outcomes of crypto yet, but a vast number of morally bad ones.

rvz 4y ago
So given we all know that there are indeed scams on Ethereum, does that mean that all of crypto will go away entirely as a result of this 100%? I know precisely that I see the same old arguments against crypto time after time, but somehow despite all of these scams, carnage, etc. it still refuses to die somehow. Maybe companies like Google, Microsoft, Apple, Stripe, Monegram, and even the regulators want it to succeed? If not, they would have banned all the exchanges, coins, and removed all wallets off of the apps stores a long time ago. So I'm afraid that it is here to stay, with some survivors existing for a long time under certain compliance requirements and other crypto projects withering away.
leppr 4y ago
The wealth centralization effect is not an inherent aspect of crypto, it was nothing more than a result of the liquidity injections from central banks. The same argument could be made of all scarce assets that rocketed in price in the past years. Watches, the stock market, and real estate don't inherently "centralize wealth". Their price appreciation was only a symptom of the reduced cost of debt, which naturally favors the wealthiest, which reflects in the price of what wealthy people buy when they have too much money (scarce assets). The base concept of cryptocurrency is enabling free market economies by bypassing government regulation, and at least in the case of Bitcoin and Ethereum, regulating inflation by setting it in code, instead of being opaquely decided by a few wealthy people (some of them convicted of insider-trading[1]). Those two things tend to favor bottom-up wealth creation, rather than the trickle-down model fiat currencies encourage. That's a wealth decentralization force, not centralization like you claim. [1]: https://finance.yahoo.com/news/a-timeline-of-the-federal-reserves-trading-scandal-104415556.html https://finance.yahoo.com/news/a-timeline-of-the-federal-res...
- immibis 4y ago
  Crypto has the same wealth centralization problem as all currencies (so far) - it's not immune, at all. It's not because of central bank activity. Wealth just centralizes. Free market economics lead to this emergent outcome. In principle, inflationary currencies have a force pushing away from wealth centralization, while deflationary currencies have a force pushing towards it, which is why everyone who thinks they'll have the centralized wealth likes deflationary currencies.
  - leppr 4y ago
    > In principle, inflationary currencies have a force pushing away from wealth centralization That depends entirely where the new money gets injected. If it gets injected at the top, like with our current fiat currencies, then there's nothing wealth-decentralizing about it, all the contrary. [1] Mineable cryptocurrencies inject the new money to whoever mines them, which could be anyone (less true with the current state of Proof of Work, but still true in the case of Proof of Space), thus the wealth-centralizing mechanism of fiat inflation is removed or at least mitigated. [1]: https://www.swfinstitute.org/news/89070/what-is-the-cantillon-effect-and-why-its-even-more-important-now https://www.swfinstitute.org/news/89070/what-is-the-cantillo...
    - Balladeer 4y ago
      > Mineable cryptocurrencies inject the new money to whoever mines them, which could be anyone While true in theory, is it true in practice? Those with the most resources to mine will mine the most and thus receive the most, allowing them to mine more, and the cycle of centralization continues. That's true regardless of PoW or PoS, isn't it?
      - immibis 4y ago
        It is true. It's more true on PoS than PoW, since the mechanism in PoW is indirect. We can also consider how it works with traditional currencies, such as dollars, which has a hybrid PoS/??? system: you can receive resources by having the most resources (federal reserve deposits) and you can also receive them by performing services which the democracy deems useful (government spending), and to balance the numbers, resources are passively taken from people who spend their money but not from those who hoard it... maybe not the best design :)

rvz 4y ago

> That has hardly ever been the ONLY problem crypto has had, Where did I say it was the only problem? Why are you strawmaning my comment with such anger? > ands acting as if solving this one problem should silence all dissenters lest they be considered unserious is disingenuous. Another strawman and this rhetoric sounds like defeat and denial and my point was (if you've properly read my comment instead of misconstruing it) as soon as it moves to proof-of-stake, there will be no argument on the environmental issues in Ethereum, which was regularly parroted by the critics. > Look at the comments for literally any popular article about crypto on this site, hell, keep scrolling on this one and you'll probably find plenty. Look at what? I see no comments about the environmental issues in Ethereum anymore, which proves my point. I already recognise that there are scams, ponzis, etc happening in Ethereum which the regulators will step in and crackdown on them anyway. > I, for one, am happy that enabling art theft and fraud on a massive scale will shortly no longer ALSO consume terrifying amounts of electricity and hardware Exactly. All the fraud and scams are visible on a public blockchain which is easily traceable for everyone including the SEC, CFTC and the FBI to see.

DanHulton 4y ago
If your line: "But I imagine that they will invent new problems and the critics will hastefully rush in with their low effort hot takes" was _only_ intended to refer to "inventing new problems about environmental issues" and "low effort hot takes about environmental issues", you have not achieved the clarity in communication you were looking for. Also, it's kind of a weird stance to take? I haven't seen anyone claiming that PoS wouldn't do exactly what it set out to do, that is fix the energy waste issue inherent in PoW-based blockchains. Maybe we just run in different circles, but the main criticism I see of PoS is that it doesn't _matter._ It doesn't make blockchains or defi any more useful or moral, and it just highlights the other externalities more clearly.
- rvz 4y ago
  > If your line: "But I imagine that they will invent new problems and the critics will hastefully rush in with their low effort hot takes" was _only_ intended to refer to "inventing new problems about environmental issues" and "low effort hot takes about environmental issues", you have not achieved the clarity in communication you were looking for. I was totally and exactly clear about what I meant about "Inventing new problems" after Ethereum moving to proof-of-stake. One can move to proof-of-stake, reduce or eliminate the significant environmental issues in their chains whilst also increase centralization which is another major valid criticism brought up after the upgrade to PoS widely discussed here. Like I said before, I don't see anyone here discussing how Ethereum moving to PoS is worse for the environment than PoW and I consider the environmental issues of Ethereum brought up by many critics answered and it will no longer be an issue. You can still be anti-crypto and welcome this [0] (or not) and still criticise it on the centralization, scams and ponzi enablement and alledged limited use cases etc. But not for the environmental issues, or 'burning up the planet', etc on Ethereum. > Also, it's kind of a weird stance to take? I haven't seen anyone claiming that PoS wouldn't do exactly what it set out to do, that is fix the energy waste issue inherent in PoW-based blockchains. I did not make that claim. > the main criticism I see of PoS is that it doesn't _matter._ It doesn't make blockchains or defi any more useful or moral, and it just highlights the other externalities more clearly. Right, unfortunately Ethereum or the wider crypto ecosystem in general isn't going to go away that easily. But I know it certainly will be more regulated with a few surviving blockchains. [0] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=32580828 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=32580828