6 ms·

Correct, scams do come via the telephone and email. The telephone and email are also useful for legitimate transactions. They also take many orders of magnitude

Correct, scams do come via the telephone and email. The telephone and email are also useful for legitimate transactions. They also take many orders of magnitude less electricity than Ethereum, while providing far more service. I have yet to see any value provided by Ethereum, full stop. Its sole purpose is to enable wealth extraction. The internal economics of the whole situation is absurd on its face. It is literally rotten and valueless, except for the purpose of cheating people.

ETH_start 3y ago
>The telephone and email are also useful for legitimate transactions. Many people find Ethereum useful for legitimate transactions. In this case, you wouldn't even be using Ethereum. Just the public-private key pairs created by the Ethereum browser wallet. >They also take many orders of magnitude less electricity than Ethereum Since implementing the merge, Ethereum uses very little electricity: https://www.coindesk.com/tech/2023/04/26/ethereums-lifetime-energy-use-before-the-merge-equaled-switzerlands-for-a-year/ https://www.coindesk.com/tech/2023/04/26/ethereums-lifetime-... >Ethereum’s energy consumption from the blockchain's inception in 2015 until it moved to a proof-of-stake (PoS) consensus mechanism late last year is about equal to that used by all of Switzerland in just a year, according to the University of Cambridge’s Centre for Alternative Finance (CCAF). * >CCAF estimates Ethereum will consume 6.56 GWh of electricity annually. To put that into perspective, the annual electricity consumption of the Eiffel Tower is 6.70 GWh, while keeping the lights on for a year at the British Museum requires 14.48 GWh. So your criticism is at least two years outdated. >The internal economics of the whole situation is absurd on its face. It is literally rotten and valueless, except for the purpose of cheating people. This sounds like another anti-free-market diatribe. Are you really unaware of the horror stories of Venmo and PayPal freezing customer accounts? Or of governments forcing their constituents to use hyper-inflating currencies? Arguments like this want a return to serfdom, under the control of officialdom. There is no other conceivable reason why someone would not want people to have at least the option of taking custody over their own money, in a form more useful than physical cash.
- jurynulifcation 3y ago
  [flagged]
  - kinakomochidayo 3y ago
    Only for now, because the minimum is 32 ETH to solo stake. Even then, people can run Rocket Pool minipools with 8 ETH and eventually, it’ll go down even more. And if you still don’t have enough, you can just buy rETH so you get block rewards and MEV. You can’t even mine with Bitcoin PoW and break even, unless you buy ASICs, and even then, the % ROI is way less than what you’d get with Ethereum PoS (~3.3% for everyone, regardless of how much they stake) In that sense, Ethereum is way more equitable than Bitcoin. There are also layer 2s which make transactions less than 10 cents, and will be even less with the client updates around September this year.
    - jurynulifcation 3y ago
      See, the big problem is that people who buy into it can't be trusted to talk about it. There are vested interests everywhere afoot. I look this stuff up and there's just more about it from the perspective of the people who stand to gain by fooling me into it. This might all be factual. I simply don't care to take the time to fact check this large pile of jargon. Find me a resource that talks about this, that is also demonstrably not bought into the ecosystem and stands not to profit from it.
      - everfree 3y ago
        [flagged]
        jurynulifcation 3y ago
        No, I'll make the gamble that people will realize the stupidity of the whole affair before it gets so far entrenched into society. And, you know what? If the rot ever does really spread that far? There's always the coffin for me. I will not live in a cryptocurrency first society, simple as. The loss of privacy and the dedication towards fucking over others is intolerable. I will not be joining your circle jerk parade, I will not be participating in making the world a worse place. Thank you, come again.
EGreg 3y ago
I keep hearing this bullshit ancecdotal phrase repeated by some people on HN. “I have not seen X”. Well, plenty of other people have. Maybe you haven’t personally experienced hunger, doesn’t mean that everyone in the world is fed either. Here’s the thing —- whenever someone brings up legitimate applications of Web3, you just ignore them, slink out of the conversation, and then elsewhere continue to say “I have not seen any value provided”. It’s a no true scotsman fallacy all the way down. The most harm Web3 decentralized finance has done is to people who voluntarily put some of their assets into it — and the vast majority was actually done by Centralized services that claimed to be part of Web3 but were more of the old “trust me” garbage. The kind you like. By contrast, downsides of other things like fossil fuels, non-biodegradeable plastics and AI are far greater, and you can’t opt out of them. In every single way, your disingenuous argument against Web3 sucks.
- jurynulifcation 3y ago
  Currently, you have to opt-in to crypto. It looks like there is a non-negligible chance that it might become opt-out, then societally required. Let me put it simply: the ecosystem is built on bad tech. Immutable transaction history is stupid because it enshrines bad transactions as absolute fact, making the fight over established history competitive and zero-sum. The transaction times make legitimate transactions inconvenient or impossible. The gas fees are unconscionable in how large they can inflate and how rapidly they shift. Proof of Stake is designed to entrench the power of early movers by ensuring marginal rewards go to those with more. It is a bad system by which to organize people.
  - hanniabu 3y ago
    > Immutable transaction history is stupid because it enshrines bad transactions as absolute fact It prevent some entity arbitrarily deciding which transactions are deemed bad > The transaction times make legitimate transactions inconvenient or impossible I'm guessing all you know is Bitcoin 10min block times, that's ancient tech and the industry has moved past that. Transactions confirm in seconds, and near instant on rollups > The gas fees are unconscionable in how large they can inflate and how rapidly they shift Again, rollups are cheap and only getting cheaper (should be 1/100th progressively over the next 2 years) > Proof of Stake is designed to entrench the power of early movers by ensuring marginal rewards go to those with more This is a fallacy and has been debunked time and time again
xk_id 3y ago
[flagged]

ETH_start 3y ago

>The telephone and email are also useful for legitimate transactions. Many people find Ethereum useful for legitimate transactions. In this case, you wouldn't even be using Ethereum. Just the public-private key pairs created by the Ethereum browser wallet. >They also take many orders of magnitude less electricity than Ethereum Since implementing the merge, Ethereum uses very little electricity: https://www.coindesk.com/tech/2023/04/26/ethereums-lifetime-energy-use-before-the-merge-equaled-switzerlands-for-a-year/ https://www.coindesk.com/tech/2023/04/26/ethereums-lifetime-... >Ethereum’s energy consumption from the blockchain's inception in 2015 until it moved to a proof-of-stake (PoS) consensus mechanism late last year is about equal to that used by all of Switzerland in just a year, according to the University of Cambridge’s Centre for Alternative Finance (CCAF). * >CCAF estimates Ethereum will consume 6.56 GWh of electricity annually. To put that into perspective, the annual electricity consumption of the Eiffel Tower is 6.70 GWh, while keeping the lights on for a year at the British Museum requires 14.48 GWh. So your criticism is at least two years outdated. >The internal economics of the whole situation is absurd on its face. It is literally rotten and valueless, except for the purpose of cheating people. This sounds like another anti-free-market diatribe. Are you really unaware of the horror stories of Venmo and PayPal freezing customer accounts? Or of governments forcing their constituents to use hyper-inflating currencies? Arguments like this want a return to serfdom, under the control of officialdom. There is no other conceivable reason why someone would not want people to have at least the option of taking custody over their own money, in a form more useful than physical cash.

jurynulifcation 3y ago
[flagged]
- kinakomochidayo 3y ago
  Only for now, because the minimum is 32 ETH to solo stake. Even then, people can run Rocket Pool minipools with 8 ETH and eventually, it’ll go down even more. And if you still don’t have enough, you can just buy rETH so you get block rewards and MEV. You can’t even mine with Bitcoin PoW and break even, unless you buy ASICs, and even then, the % ROI is way less than what you’d get with Ethereum PoS (~3.3% for everyone, regardless of how much they stake) In that sense, Ethereum is way more equitable than Bitcoin. There are also layer 2s which make transactions less than 10 cents, and will be even less with the client updates around September this year.
  - jurynulifcation 3y ago
    See, the big problem is that people who buy into it can't be trusted to talk about it. There are vested interests everywhere afoot. I look this stuff up and there's just more about it from the perspective of the people who stand to gain by fooling me into it. This might all be factual. I simply don't care to take the time to fact check this large pile of jargon. Find me a resource that talks about this, that is also demonstrably not bought into the ecosystem and stands not to profit from it.
    - everfree 3y ago
      [flagged]
      - jurynulifcation 3y ago
        No, I'll make the gamble that people will realize the stupidity of the whole affair before it gets so far entrenched into society. And, you know what? If the rot ever does really spread that far? There's always the coffin for me. I will not live in a cryptocurrency first society, simple as. The loss of privacy and the dedication towards fucking over others is intolerable. I will not be joining your circle jerk parade, I will not be participating in making the world a worse place. Thank you, come again.

EGreg 3y ago

I keep hearing this bullshit ancecdotal phrase repeated by some people on HN. “I have not seen X”. Well, plenty of other people have. Maybe you haven’t personally experienced hunger, doesn’t mean that everyone in the world is fed either. Here’s the thing —- whenever someone brings up legitimate applications of Web3, you just ignore them, slink out of the conversation, and then elsewhere continue to say “I have not seen any value provided”. It’s a no true scotsman fallacy all the way down. The most harm Web3 decentralized finance has done is to people who voluntarily put some of their assets into it — and the vast majority was actually done by Centralized services that claimed to be part of Web3 but were more of the old “trust me” garbage. The kind you like. By contrast, downsides of other things like fossil fuels, non-biodegradeable plastics and AI are far greater, and you can’t opt out of them. In every single way, your disingenuous argument against Web3 sucks.

jurynulifcation 3y ago
Currently, you have to opt-in to crypto. It looks like there is a non-negligible chance that it might become opt-out, then societally required. Let me put it simply: the ecosystem is built on bad tech. Immutable transaction history is stupid because it enshrines bad transactions as absolute fact, making the fight over established history competitive and zero-sum. The transaction times make legitimate transactions inconvenient or impossible. The gas fees are unconscionable in how large they can inflate and how rapidly they shift. Proof of Stake is designed to entrench the power of early movers by ensuring marginal rewards go to those with more. It is a bad system by which to organize people.
- hanniabu 3y ago
  > Immutable transaction history is stupid because it enshrines bad transactions as absolute fact It prevent some entity arbitrarily deciding which transactions are deemed bad > The transaction times make legitimate transactions inconvenient or impossible I'm guessing all you know is Bitcoin 10min block times, that's ancient tech and the industry has moved past that. Transactions confirm in seconds, and near instant on rollups > The gas fees are unconscionable in how large they can inflate and how rapidly they shift Again, rollups are cheap and only getting cheaper (should be 1/100th progressively over the next 2 years) > Proof of Stake is designed to entrench the power of early movers by ensuring marginal rewards go to those with more This is a fallacy and has been debunked time and time again

xk_id 3y ago

[flagged]