5 ms·

How exactly is eth stealing anything from anyone?

by concordDance 4y ago

pavlov 4y ago
It's primarily a Ponzi Construction Kit.
- alangibson 4y ago
  Best description of eth I've read
- Karunamon 4y ago
  Source?
  - _heimdall 4y ago
    https://www.coindesk.com/learn/minting-your-first-nft-a-beginners-guide-to-creating-an-nft/ https://www.coindesk.com/learn/minting-your-first-nft-a-begi...
    - Karunamon 4y ago
      Interesting! An artist creating, minting, and selling an NFT is a pretty solid point against the accusation made. A Ponzi scheme has a specific definition. Despite what HN seems to think, it is not shorthand for "crypto thing I don't like/understand".
      - bradjohnson 4y ago
        Citation needed on the "selling" part.
      - _heimdall 4y ago
        https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/Ponzi%20scheme https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/Ponzi%20scheme Here's the common definition of a Ponzi scheme. While people can debate whether any specific coin or nft built on etherium is a Ponzi scheme, it'd be hard to argue that there aren't plenty of examples. Etherium makes it easy to spin up a new "coin" or token, the article is a prime example.
      - cableshaft 4y ago
        Exactly, this list of Ponzi Scheme red flags is from Investor.gov[1]. While certain aspects of the crypto ecosystem may fall under these red flags, most don't, or don't apply to the coins/blockchains themselves. > Many Ponzi schemes share common characteristics. Look for these warning signs: > High returns with little or no risk. Some new shit coins and many NFT projects absolutely make these bullshit claims, but it's well, well known that there's risk by speculating in crypto at this point. We've all seen multiple 80% drops in bitcoin's price (or you can with a simple look at the 5-10 year chart). It's no secret. People speculate in it anyway for other reasons. > Overly consistent returns. Investments tend to go up and down over time. Be skeptical about an investment that regularly generates positive returns regardless of overall market conditions. Except for maybe stablecoins (which we found out this past year aren't exactly stable), no crypto coin can claim to have consistent returns. > Unregistered investments. Ponzi schemes typically involve investments that are not registered with the SEC or with state regulators. This part is true for many crypto coins, and the SEC is going after them now. Bitcoin itself seems to be immune to this by having no centralized component to it, which is unlike most other coins. > Unlicensed sellers. Federal and state securities laws require investment professionals and firms to be licensed or registered. Most exchanges are either licensed and registered if they operate in the US, hence their KYC measures. > Secretive, complex strategies. Yeah, some algorithmic stablecoins are like this (at least the complex part), and you've seen most of them collapse at this point. The rest are pretty simple coins for the most part, and many of them have completely open source code, so there's nothing secretive about it at all. > Issues with paperwork. Account statement errors may be a sign that funds are not being invested as promised. You can't really have an account statement error on the blockchain outside of a 51% attack (which is arguably not an error, just creating a new consensus), although some of the companies that have sprung up around it add obfuscation that can lead to possible account errors. Banks can have account errors as well, though. > Difficulty receiving payments. Be suspicious if you don’t receive a payment or have difficulty cashing out. This one can happen at exchanges, but the blockchains themselves still work and you can transfer with others directly, assuming you have taken your crypto off of exchanges ("Not your keys, not your crypto" as the saying goes). [1]: https://www.investor.gov/protect-your-investments/fraud/types-fraud/ponzi-scheme https://www.investor.gov/protect-your-investments/fraud/type...
      - rnk 4y ago
        An NFT is yet another pointless digital construct that foolish people paid huge sums for. It's like selling a jpeg that is publicly available. "In this spreadsheet a jpeg named foobar with this hashed value is owned by Fred Johnson" - this is creating something useful?
        dlubarov 4y ago
        A jpeg of the Mona Lisa is also publicly available, but even if I created a replica with identical brushwork, it wouldn't be worth much compared to the one in the Louvre. Would you also call original paintings a Ponzi?
        rnk 4y ago
        No, but those are physical objects. Your certified original jpeg (nft) is not worth anything really if everyone else can just find the jpeg on the internet. NFTs are just silly, another reason being that they are separate from copyright ownership of the image.
        dlubarov 4y ago
        I don't think the physical object is really relevant. Imagine we all had robotic painters in our garages, which given $1 of materials, could precisely replicate any brushwork from some images. Surely that wouldn't destroy the value of famous originals? Because their value is based on provenance, not the physical difficulty of (re)creation. NFTs are the same - replicating a JPEG is trivial, but the replica won't have the same provenance.
        Karunamon 4y ago
        And yet, SoundCloud and the iTunes Music Store and many other such sellers of trivially duplicatable bits of data exist and are successful. And yes, those bits of data are easy to find for free online. You can just say you don't understand the appeal, that is a perfectly valid opinion.
- nibbleshifter 4y ago
  According to you.

How exactly is eth stealing anything from anyone?

pavlov 4y ago

It's primarily a Ponzi Construction Kit.

alangibson 4y ago
Best description of eth I've read
Karunamon 4y ago
Source?
- _heimdall 4y ago
  https://www.coindesk.com/learn/minting-your-first-nft-a-beginners-guide-to-creating-an-nft/ https://www.coindesk.com/learn/minting-your-first-nft-a-begi...
  - Karunamon 4y ago
    Interesting! An artist creating, minting, and selling an NFT is a pretty solid point against the accusation made. A Ponzi scheme has a specific definition. Despite what HN seems to think, it is not shorthand for "crypto thing I don't like/understand".
    - bradjohnson 4y ago
      Citation needed on the "selling" part.
    - _heimdall 4y ago
      https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/Ponzi%20scheme https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/Ponzi%20scheme Here's the common definition of a Ponzi scheme. While people can debate whether any specific coin or nft built on etherium is a Ponzi scheme, it'd be hard to argue that there aren't plenty of examples. Etherium makes it easy to spin up a new "coin" or token, the article is a prime example.
    - cableshaft 4y ago
      Exactly, this list of Ponzi Scheme red flags is from Investor.gov[1]. While certain aspects of the crypto ecosystem may fall under these red flags, most don't, or don't apply to the coins/blockchains themselves. > Many Ponzi schemes share common characteristics. Look for these warning signs: > High returns with little or no risk. Some new shit coins and many NFT projects absolutely make these bullshit claims, but it's well, well known that there's risk by speculating in crypto at this point. We've all seen multiple 80% drops in bitcoin's price (or you can with a simple look at the 5-10 year chart). It's no secret. People speculate in it anyway for other reasons. > Overly consistent returns. Investments tend to go up and down over time. Be skeptical about an investment that regularly generates positive returns regardless of overall market conditions. Except for maybe stablecoins (which we found out this past year aren't exactly stable), no crypto coin can claim to have consistent returns. > Unregistered investments. Ponzi schemes typically involve investments that are not registered with the SEC or with state regulators. This part is true for many crypto coins, and the SEC is going after them now. Bitcoin itself seems to be immune to this by having no centralized component to it, which is unlike most other coins. > Unlicensed sellers. Federal and state securities laws require investment professionals and firms to be licensed or registered. Most exchanges are either licensed and registered if they operate in the US, hence their KYC measures. > Secretive, complex strategies. Yeah, some algorithmic stablecoins are like this (at least the complex part), and you've seen most of them collapse at this point. The rest are pretty simple coins for the most part, and many of them have completely open source code, so there's nothing secretive about it at all. > Issues with paperwork. Account statement errors may be a sign that funds are not being invested as promised. You can't really have an account statement error on the blockchain outside of a 51% attack (which is arguably not an error, just creating a new consensus), although some of the companies that have sprung up around it add obfuscation that can lead to possible account errors. Banks can have account errors as well, though. > Difficulty receiving payments. Be suspicious if you don’t receive a payment or have difficulty cashing out. This one can happen at exchanges, but the blockchains themselves still work and you can transfer with others directly, assuming you have taken your crypto off of exchanges ("Not your keys, not your crypto" as the saying goes). [1]: https://www.investor.gov/protect-your-investments/fraud/types-fraud/ponzi-scheme https://www.investor.gov/protect-your-investments/fraud/type...
    - rnk 4y ago
      An NFT is yet another pointless digital construct that foolish people paid huge sums for. It's like selling a jpeg that is publicly available. "In this spreadsheet a jpeg named foobar with this hashed value is owned by Fred Johnson" - this is creating something useful?
      - dlubarov 4y ago
        A jpeg of the Mona Lisa is also publicly available, but even if I created a replica with identical brushwork, it wouldn't be worth much compared to the one in the Louvre. Would you also call original paintings a Ponzi?
        rnk 4y ago
        No, but those are physical objects. Your certified original jpeg (nft) is not worth anything really if everyone else can just find the jpeg on the internet. NFTs are just silly, another reason being that they are separate from copyright ownership of the image.
        dlubarov 4y ago
        I don't think the physical object is really relevant. Imagine we all had robotic painters in our garages, which given $1 of materials, could precisely replicate any brushwork from some images. Surely that wouldn't destroy the value of famous originals? Because their value is based on provenance, not the physical difficulty of (re)creation. NFTs are the same - replicating a JPEG is trivial, but the replica won't have the same provenance.
        Karunamon 4y ago
        And yet, SoundCloud and the iTunes Music Store and many other such sellers of trivially duplicatable bits of data exist and are successful. And yes, those bits of data are easy to find for free online. You can just say you don't understand the appeal, that is a perfectly valid opinion.
nibbleshifter 4y ago
According to you.