hnthrow1010

9 ms·

31.
by hnthrow1010 4y ago
There's also the matter that ENS "solves" the problem by reintroducing a central point of failure: the smart contract itself. Anything blockchain-adjacent really can't conceivably be called "decentralized".
32.
by hnthrow1010 4y ago
I should also mention another reason why banning cryptocurrency is not like banning encryption. The only thing that encryption actually needs to function is two people, and the encryption algorithm itself. If any two parties agree on the al
33.
by hnthrow1010 4y ago
>When have I ever said that you should invest in cryptocurrency? Sorry, I should have been clear I didn't mean you. I've heard so many crypto promoters ignore my comments and tell me I don't understand unless I buy the tok
34.
by hnthrow1010 4y ago
>That would be a hard fork, because they will not be able to spend those "higher" coinbase outputs, which are seen as lower to the rest of the network. If the majority of miners agree to it then the rest of the network either g
35.
by hnthrow1010 4y ago
>but that is a tangential concern to the accessibility of executing financial transactions No, I disagree. It's exactly the same, because without that concern your transactions can be deprioritized or blocked. Miners can absolutely
36.
by hnthrow1010 4y ago
I'm sorry, can't you see what you're saying? Bitcoin can crash over 70% in the span of a month, that's significantly more than the dollar's inflation over 50 years. And unless you're trying to retrieve your gre
37.
by hnthrow1010 4y ago
And again, using that term is wrong, because by definition these networks only give more power to those who have more money. Proof-of-work and proof-of-stake are intentionally designed to work that way. There is no democratization or fair
38.
by hnthrow1010 4y ago
>Then fork it yourself and change the tokenomics to suit your interests. I don't need to fork it, the easiest solution is to just not have "tokenomics" at all. If the last several years have been any indication, those will
39.
by hnthrow1010 4y ago
>bitcoin supply is limited to 21 million. that's key. No, this is another falsehood pushed by crypto promoters. For a user only trying to make a payment, the 21 million is just a magic number. Technically the miners can coordinate t
40.
by hnthrow1010 4y ago
But that's also false. In practice the network isn't decentralized at all. This was very obviously the case since the very first bitcoin mining pool formed in 2010. The advantages of re-centralizing are far too great, and the whal
41.
by hnthrow1010 4y ago
But it actually is though, "fiat" is just another one of those words that crypto promoters have redefined to mean something that it doesn't. The original definition was a currency that isn't backed by a commodity, its va
42.
by hnthrow1010 4y ago
>It basically boils down to "I lost faith in fiat". Well, this makes no sense, because the value of crypto is also a fiat backed by nothing. With crypto it's not just the government you have to worry about, any person can
43.
by hnthrow1010 4y ago
It is the same. Crypto exchanges can also freeze your assets when you hold them in that exchange. And actually this is a good thing, the accounts of fraudsters, thieves and scammers should absolutely be frozen and confiscated. Crypto compan
44.
by hnthrow1010 4y ago
To use your phrase, all cryptos are shitcoin casinos. The difference between bitcoin and all the others are just one more shitcoin. The Lightning Network is fundamentally flawed and broken anyway [1]. If it actually did work in any capacity
45.
by hnthrow1010 4y ago
>I don't think the promise of Bitcoin was ever that there would be no exchanges, only that no one would be beholden to any given provider. As long as you can pick up your keys and seamlessly start trading on a different exchange, th
46.
by hnthrow1010 4y ago
>There are cryptocurrency systems like Nano or GNU Taler Nano has the same ponzi-like economics as the rest of the cryptocurrencies so that's a no-go. GNU Taler is explicitly not a cryptocurrency, in particular it should not be used
47.
by hnthrow1010 4y ago
But you know that most people wouldn't put hundreds of thousands of dollars in a system like that. It would fall apart if that happened. Also, I don't know how they could be happy with it given the extreme crash over the last few
48.
by hnthrow1010 4y ago
I've seen those and I wouldn't describe them as "blockchains" in the same sense that cryptocurrencies use it. The word seems to only be used for marketing purposes. Those are just an ordinary ledger with some sharding&#x
49.
by hnthrow1010 4y ago
That makes no sense. I wouldn't have to keep repeating myself if crypto people didn't also do the same thing. Also, please don't describe the act of disagreeing as being "in hysterics", that's bad discussion.
50.
by hnthrow1010 4y ago
Fundamentally, Web3 can't actually solve any of those problems because the technology doesn't actually do anything, besides money laundering, and siphoning money away to miners and whales. The technology also isn't new, distr
51.
by hnthrow1010 4y ago
>which means for that very common stock the majority of the profit came from appreciation. And you can see from the last few months how that's still an inherently risky attitude towards investing. I agree, buybacks are also a questi
52.
Pump-and-Dump Schemes(blog.dshr.org)
3 points by hnthrow1010 4y ago|0 comments
53.
by hnthrow1010 4y ago
It's not still early days. Bitcoin was created 13 years ago, it was useless for payments back then and it's still useless for payments now. Every direction that anyone takes it will be in the direction of some kind of pure money-m
54.
by hnthrow1010 4y ago
The existence of Lightning is a failure of Bitcoin's designers to create a system that can scale well, they instead chose to focus on something that was going to be maximum profitable for the miners in the short term and dumped respons
55.
by hnthrow1010 4y ago
There's no wheat. The entirety of web3 is a series of ponzi-like schemes to pump up the price of some token and dump it on unsuspecting users. When someone is trying to sell you a currency, they're not trying to sell you a product
56.
by hnthrow1010 4y ago
>then literally the entire stock market is a ponzi scheme - how else would you pay investors more if you weren't making money off of new investors paying more for the exact same stock? No, this is very wrong and is based on a fundam
57.
by hnthrow1010 4y ago
>but some people here can't talk objectively about crypto for some reason. To the contrary: It's the crypto people who can't talk objectively about blockchains, because every single "invention" they come up with
58.
by hnthrow1010 4y ago
It's not simply a matter of "leaning against blockchains", that's like saying you're "leaning against bogosort". Anyone with even a basic knowledge of distributed systems can see that blockchains are a use
59.
by hnthrow1010 4y ago
>So I think you’re one step away from the epiphany, if you can resist doubling down on this statement I will double and triple down on it. I've been following this for at least a decade now. Smart contracts are completely useless an
60.
by hnthrow1010 4y ago
>Smart contracts represent the first time in history when you can trust code to do what it says. This is extremely, extremely wrong. The operators of the network can change the smart contract VM whenever they want. There's nothing m

More ›