lottin

27 ms·

331.
by lottin 4y ago
Nobody is doubting that transactions aren't worth what people pay for them. The doubt is whether the fees that users pay exceed the costs of operating the network.
332.
by lottin 4y ago
Sorry, aren't these "validators" part of the network? They run the network, don't they? The money that they get paid is therefore revenue, not a cost, from the standpoint of the network.
333.
by lottin 4y ago
Both issuance of eth and fees are forms of revenue to validators. You're saying that revenue is predominantly in the form of transaction fees. This is just one part of the equation. The other part is costs, and this doesn't tell
334.
by lottin 4y ago
It's unclear to me by looking at these numbers that the network is profitable. Profit is the difference between revenue and cost, so we need to know the amount of fees earned and the operating expenses.
335.
by lottin 4y ago
Staking "can't fail" in the same way that a sovereign bond can't fail, since the issuer can always make the promised payments by issuing more worthless tokens. In other words, staking can absolutely fail.
336.
by lottin 4y ago
Source?
337.
by lottin 4y ago
Ransomware attacks, for example, are only viable thanks to cryptocurrencies. I will also point out that limiting the movement of money, goods and people is not a characteristic of totalitarian regimes. Every single country has such restric
338.
by lottin 4y ago
That's right, a volatile currency is bad for businesses, because the revenue from sales will likely exceed by a lot or fall well below the cost of sales, increasing the likelihood of bankruptcy.
339.
by lottin 4y ago
I'm saying that, if we assume that the government will oppress people (that's the assumption that CBDC critics make), it's silly to assume that it WILL use CBDCs to oppress people, and at the same time assume it WON'T us
340.
by lottin 4y ago
Well, in that case, the same applies to CBDCs, but so far all criticisms of CBDCs assume that the government will use CBDCs as a means of oppression unrestrained by any laws.
341.
by lottin 4y ago
CBDCs are intended to be used like pocket change, as far as I know. People will continue to use banking and payment services, so I doubt that it will all end up in one account.
342.
by lottin 4y ago
Do you understand that by definition a government is able to exert violence against citizens? Surely you must find this more terrifying than the possibility that they might be able to stop someone from making payments.
343.
by lottin 4y ago
I have a feeling that when I read a book I get smarter, whereas when I interact with a chat bot I get dumber. And it's not just a feeling, I'm positive that this is what's actually happening.
344.
by lottin 4y ago
Tiktok succeeded because it offered something that the public wanted. I don't know that a chat bot is something that the public wants. I know I have no use for it.
345.
by lottin 4y ago
What do you mean? I have been using focus-follows-mouse since the late 1990s and have never noticed a program that was incompatible with it.
346.
by lottin 4y ago
I think you're misunderstanding how borders work. A border simply allows a country to control what goes in and out of its geographic boundaries. It doesn't allow a country to control what goes in and out of another country&#x27
347.
by lottin 4y ago
My point is precisely that we do have the technology, so I don't know what you're trying to say.
348.
by lottin 4y ago
Good... I don't have a problem with that. I only have a problem with false advertising.
349.
by lottin 4y ago
Do you mean the rules that restrict the movement of people, capitals and goods across borders? These are typically national laws. I have no idea why you think this is important, though.
350.
by lottin 4y ago
Okay, but be honest and call it for what it is — a tool to evade financial regulations. 'Borderless payments' is shameless cynicism. It's like calling illegal border crossings 'borderless travel'.
351.
by lottin 4y ago
So you think the rules don't apply to you, because somehow you're special. That's bold, indeed.
352.
by lottin 4y ago
No, that's dumb. That's not the purpose of borders.
353.
by lottin 4y ago
Not this nonsense again... the reason we don't have borderless payments isn't because we don't have the technology. It's because we don't want borderless payments. That's why nations set up borders in the fir
354.
by lottin 4y ago
Yes, it comes as standard with Emacs too (M-x doctor).
355.
by lottin 4y ago
If you did, it went over your head, because you don't even know what a central bank is. Maybe try reading something more basic first.
356.
by lottin 4y ago
No, they don't. That's not how it works. Read the PDF.
357.
by lottin 4y ago
So you're saying that the Bank of England was involved in a conspiracy that wouldn't acknowledge something that has been public knowledge for over a century?
358.
by lottin 4y ago
> if you're calculating an aggregate then you shouldn't include both the claim and the thing it's a claim on This is why M1, which includes bank deposits, does not include bank reserves.
359.
by lottin 4y ago
Banks can create deposits but creating deposits that aren't backed with reserves entails a risk of insolvency. Thus the amount of deposits banks can create is ultimately limited by the reserves that they hold. The demand for credit a
360.
by lottin 4y ago
What you describe isn't how the "current system" works.

More ›