everfree

32 ms·

331.
by everfree 4y ago
> If something only has value because you think you can sell it to the next sucker for more, it is a ponzi scheme. That's not what a ponzi scheme is. In a ponzi scheme, there is a fictitious business model that's purported to b
332.
by everfree 4y ago
> The burden of proof is on the crypto promoters to demonstrate ability to create wealth. For crypto to be financially successful, strictly speaking it doesn't need to create wealth, it only needs to attract it. Plenty of profitable
333.
by everfree 4y ago
> unless you jumped through all the necessary hoops to also anonymize it There's a single hoop, and it's Monero. It always confuses me when people say that crypto doesn't excel at buying drugs online. Out of all the things
334.
by everfree 4y ago
If Google decided to keep their profits on their balance sheet instead of paying dividends or doing buybacks, what would my recourse be? I can't just vote in a dividend, because founders Larry and Sergey control 51% of the voting power
335.
by everfree 4y ago
> If Google stock were really worthless, someone could buy all of it for pennies Nobody is disputing that it has market value. My argument is that it has much less intrinsic value than some people would like to believe. > A single Goo
336.
by everfree 4y ago
> When the company is sold, you are entitled to the proceeds. So in other words, your share is worth what other people will pay you for it. I already said that. A whole-company sale is just an event where all shares are bought at once.
337.
by everfree 4y ago
> There is economic value in a piece of equity in google. It doesn't entitle you to profits, it doesn't entitle you to assets (except in bankruptcy), you can't eat it, and it's only worth what other people will pay yo
338.
by everfree 4y ago
I'm missing the part that makes this noteworthy?
339.
by everfree 4y ago
> If you are comparing the state of the internet in 1983 (calling it the "big bang" because TCP/IP was standardized!!!) and equating it to the release of a software client that could be downloaded and run in 2009 I'm
340.
by everfree 4y ago
Public auditing software that transparently shows how government or charity funds are being spent in real time - from the incoming tax proceeds, through each agency and department, down to (when appropriate) every individual purchase, with
341.
by everfree 4y ago
Git does not guarantee the validity of timestamps stored within it, nor does it explicitly provide a single canonical tip. Those two guarantees are what prevent history from being forged. > The immense fraud and criminal behavior associa
342.
by everfree 4y ago
> the process was a lot slower than shipping an update to a blockchain network The process of creating a system for private, energy efficient smart contract transactions took 12 years. To make them scalable and foolproof for the general
343.
by everfree 4y ago
> the company can retroactively create a conflicting chain of backdated signatures and purport it to be the canonical one
344.
by everfree 4y ago
> So for Ether to generate even something like a meager 3% yield to beat inflation Inflation eats away at a rate of 3%, so to beat inflation Ether needs to beat a -3% real yield, not a 3% real yield. A 3% real yield would mean that Ether
345.
by everfree 4y ago
> How many eyes are on Debian vs memecoin-smart-contract-22112? To be perfectly honest, the memecoin contract probably has more. A smart contract's code base is much, much smaller and changes less often, and a greater number of peop
346.
by everfree 4y ago
> computers were expensive and slow, and network connectivity was very limited Blockchains have been expensive and slow, and functionality was very limited. When Bitcoin launched, you couldn't run turing-complete scripts, it only su
347.
by everfree 4y ago
> blockchain has had plenty of time, audience, etc for widespread adoption Blockchains have been in a dial-up era. Bitcoin only supports balance transfers and has a hard-coded throughput limit of 1 Megabyte every 10 minutes (1990s modem
348.
by everfree 4y ago
I believe that average investors (without domain-specific knowledge) should not be investing in crypto at this point in time because the tech is too immature and there are too many pitfalls, so everything you said is consistent with my beli
349.
by everfree 4y ago
> you can't think of a single example that is actually trust worthy In addition to USDC, USDH, and DAI, we've also got GUSD, RAI, LUSD, and USDP in terms of trustworthy stablecoins. All of them are audited in reputable ways, ei
350.
by everfree 4y ago
> It didn't replace the traded stocks with it's own stock I guess I still don't fully understand what you're implying, but I am interested. If we go back to your original comment: > The problem with crypto is that
351.
by everfree 4y ago
Decentralized data stores exist. IPFS is perhaps the most widely known. But if you discount imaging and store only medical summaries (which if we're being honest is often the only thing doctors look at after the fact anyways), it would
352.
by everfree 4y ago
> Then the companies using "BigBucksDB" decide to transfer all of their customers funds into their own accounts at a real bank and declare bankruptcy. Not your keys, not your coins. If some random company that you don't tr
353.
by everfree 4y ago
I like how as soon as you mention stablecoins, everyone starts replying with the most god-awful trash examples of shady stablecoins they can think of, as if those cherry-picked dumpster fires represent the best that stablecoins can and will
354.
by everfree 4y ago
Smart contracts only need to be audited once, traditional accounts need to be audited continuously. Amortized over enough time, that's a much lower surface area for error. Smart contracts can be audited by any member of the public with
355.
by everfree 4y ago
To be fair, Amazon didn't hit their stride as a retailer until the 2000s, roughly 20 years after the internet's "big bang" date. And while we're 14 years into distributed ledger technology, we're only 7 years i
356.
by everfree 4y ago
> Blockchain, no matter how good it might be or might have been, is clearly not that system due to its now tarnished reputation at this point in time. I never understand how people can consider the reputation of glorified timestamped lin
357.
by everfree 4y ago
> It's merely a tool in our arsenal of confirming trust, that makes it easier to tell where the problem lies if someone along the chain is lying. That makes it a useful tool, no? > people trying to create the "feature"
358.
by everfree 4y ago
> And while domains (not DNS) are less decentralized, it's all standardised and protocol based. For what it's worth as an example, Ethereum's name system (ENS) is also standardized and protocol based. And it eliminates the
359.
by everfree 4y ago
> then any operations involve canonicalizing the state by scanning the entire subsequent chain Sounds exactly like what blockchain node software does when you first start it up and it syncs the chain?
360.
by everfree 4y ago
No, you're the one perpetuating straight up misinformation. You said that "crypto can't offer a better rate than $50 fee per swap," and I'm telling you that that's completely inaccurate, no matter how you slice

More ›