4 ms·

> This is determined by code in ways everyone can see and understand. That's just a slightly more wordy way of saying "technocracy". An overwhelming majority o

> This is determined by code in ways everyone can see and understand. That's just a slightly more wordy way of saying "technocracy". An overwhelming majority of people in the world (including cryptocurrency enthusiasts) are incapable of following through a fizzbuzz program, let alone an SHA256 implementation, and the hash algorithm is barely the tiniest building block. > Monero uses ASIC resistant proof of work algorithms to mitigate it. Proof of waste stopped being sexy the moment we realized the environmental impact, and continuing to defend it on any "practical" merits is shortsighted at best. > Exactly. That's the true tragedy of cryptocurrencies. With all of your doubling down on technocracy, I find it odd that you defend a concept that, by design, began falling apart as soon as it started gaining traction. The original idea was noble, but it was almost meant to be perverted. What we should have done was to get back to the drawing board: how can we build distributed/decentralized infrastructure that actually helps people.

matheusmoreira 3y ago
> An overwhelming majority of people in the world (including cryptocurrency enthusiasts) are incapable of following through a fizzbuzz program, let alone an SHA256 implementation, and the hash algorithm is barely the tiniest building block. So? It's still more open than traditional finance. You can actually see how it works if you try. Unlike some central bank's political machinations at some abstract far away place. We need exactly one guarantee: that nobody can change how the system works to benefit themselves. Besides... The overwhelming majority of people do not even understand the nature of money itself. They do not understand fractional reserve banking. Most people think inflation is caused by the government printing money. Somehow that's not an argument against having money. > Proof of waste stopped being sexy the moment we realized the environmental impact Not this nonsense again. Even at the peak of the last bullrun, it didn't even amount to 1% of global energy consumption. > The original idea was noble, but it was almost meant to be perverted. I agree it was a noble idea and that it failed. I disagree that it was "meant" to be perverted. > What we should have done was to get back to the drawing board: how can we build distributed/decentralized infrastructure that actually helps people. Agree. At this moment in time, I think Monero is closest to that ideal. I am not opposed to even better and more decentralized technology. Ethereum's zero knowledge proofs are very interesting.
- rollcat 3y ago
  > [...] it didn't even amount to 1% of global energy consumption. When you put it in these terms, we should also just de-regulate fuel, plumbing, and electronics, because the combined lead poisoning won't kill as much as 1% of the population.
  - matheusmoreira 3y ago
    No. When I put it in these terms, it means I expect you to prioritize far more impactful targets for regulation than cryptocurrencies. Trading with China should be number one in your list. As should be every other modern western comfort and privilege. To me you all seen plenty happy to buy made in China computers to post your environmentalist takes with and it makes it really hard to take any of it seriously. Maybe after the world is done taking care of the truly impactful stuff we can revisit this proof of work debate.
    - rollcat 3y ago
      > As should be every other modern western comfort and privilege. Seems to me like gambling, speculation, and proof of waste all perfectly fit the definition of "comfort and privilege". > Maybe after the world is done taking care of the truly impactful stuff we can revisit this proof of work debate. It's crazy how much we can agree on! The only problem is, PoW is considered harmful even by the larger crypto community, to the point where alternatives were not only considered, but also implemented (e.g. PoS). I'm more than willing to reconsider PoW's merits at a later time (as you suggest), under the condition that all ongoing PoW schemes are paused until we're done dealing with these more important things. I think it's a perfectly reasonable compromise.
      - matheusmoreira 3y ago
        > The only problem is, PoW is considered harmful even by the larger crypto community, to the point where alternatives were not only considered, but also implemented (e.g. PoS). I have nothing against proof of stake, I think it's fine but inherently less decentralized than proof of work. The whole idea was that anyone with a computer could participate and be rewarded for contributing to the decentralization of the network. In order to actually participate in ETH proof of stake validation, you need to own 32 ETH. That excludes vast amounts of people including myself. It's a tradeoff and I'm not entirely sure it's worth it. Compared to the current status quo of huge centralized BTC mining operations it certainly looks attractive. There are better proof of work implementations though like Monero which better guarantee 1 CPU = 1 vote. I'm not ready to write it off yet. > I think it's a perfectly reasonable compromise. I don't accept that compromise.

matheusmoreira 3y ago

> An overwhelming majority of people in the world (including cryptocurrency enthusiasts) are incapable of following through a fizzbuzz program, let alone an SHA256 implementation, and the hash algorithm is barely the tiniest building block. So? It's still more open than traditional finance. You can actually see how it works if you try. Unlike some central bank's political machinations at some abstract far away place. We need exactly one guarantee: that nobody can change how the system works to benefit themselves. Besides... The overwhelming majority of people do not even understand the nature of money itself. They do not understand fractional reserve banking. Most people think inflation is caused by the government printing money. Somehow that's not an argument against having money. > Proof of waste stopped being sexy the moment we realized the environmental impact Not this nonsense again. Even at the peak of the last bullrun, it didn't even amount to 1% of global energy consumption. > The original idea was noble, but it was almost meant to be perverted. I agree it was a noble idea and that it failed. I disagree that it was "meant" to be perverted. > What we should have done was to get back to the drawing board: how can we build distributed/decentralized infrastructure that actually helps people. Agree. At this moment in time, I think Monero is closest to that ideal. I am not opposed to even better and more decentralized technology. Ethereum's zero knowledge proofs are very interesting.

rollcat 3y ago
> [...] it didn't even amount to 1% of global energy consumption. When you put it in these terms, we should also just de-regulate fuel, plumbing, and electronics, because the combined lead poisoning won't kill as much as 1% of the population.
- matheusmoreira 3y ago
  No. When I put it in these terms, it means I expect you to prioritize far more impactful targets for regulation than cryptocurrencies. Trading with China should be number one in your list. As should be every other modern western comfort and privilege. To me you all seen plenty happy to buy made in China computers to post your environmentalist takes with and it makes it really hard to take any of it seriously. Maybe after the world is done taking care of the truly impactful stuff we can revisit this proof of work debate.
  - rollcat 3y ago
    > As should be every other modern western comfort and privilege. Seems to me like gambling, speculation, and proof of waste all perfectly fit the definition of "comfort and privilege". > Maybe after the world is done taking care of the truly impactful stuff we can revisit this proof of work debate. It's crazy how much we can agree on! The only problem is, PoW is considered harmful even by the larger crypto community, to the point where alternatives were not only considered, but also implemented (e.g. PoS). I'm more than willing to reconsider PoW's merits at a later time (as you suggest), under the condition that all ongoing PoW schemes are paused until we're done dealing with these more important things. I think it's a perfectly reasonable compromise.
    - matheusmoreira 3y ago
      > The only problem is, PoW is considered harmful even by the larger crypto community, to the point where alternatives were not only considered, but also implemented (e.g. PoS). I have nothing against proof of stake, I think it's fine but inherently less decentralized than proof of work. The whole idea was that anyone with a computer could participate and be rewarded for contributing to the decentralization of the network. In order to actually participate in ETH proof of stake validation, you need to own 32 ETH. That excludes vast amounts of people including myself. It's a tradeoff and I'm not entirely sure it's worth it. Compared to the current status quo of huge centralized BTC mining operations it certainly looks attractive. There are better proof of work implementations though like Monero which better guarantee 1 CPU = 1 vote. I'm not ready to write it off yet. > I think it's a perfectly reasonable compromise. I don't accept that compromise.