*Maybe* there's some future version that won't have these problems, but AFAIK they're pretty central to all existing systems.
NYT: "The process of creating Bitcoin to spend or trade consumes around 91 terawatt-hours of electricity annually, more than is used by Finland, a nation of about 5.5 million." (https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2021/09/03/climate/bitcoin-carbon-footprint-electricity.html)
The trouble with Proof of Stake is that it's easy for a sufficiently wealthy person to take over the currency. (It's also "one dollar, one vote", which is not going to fight the overconcentration of wealth.)
From the first (Weaver) article: "Modern finance has this rule that anything electronic needs to be reversible for short periods of time. This allows an undo in case of fraud. Have you had your credit card compromised before? I’ve had my credit card numbers stolen a couple of times. The amount of money I lost is zero. Because we have both good fraud protection and good ability to reverse transactions. That does not exist in the cryptocurrency space. If your cryptocurrency wallet is compromised, all your apes are fudged."
Ransomware ransom is overwhelmingly demanded in crypto, because there's no other fast way to move millions of dollars internationally to known criminals.
🇳🇱
> Maybe there’s some future version that won’t have these problems, but AFAIK they’re pretty central to all existing systems.
Computers were pretty damn inefficient when they were first developed too. Computers incrementally improved and became more efficient generation after generation and eventually became remarkably efficient.
The same pattern is true of cryptocurrency. While there is no blockchain tech right now that is exceptionally scaleable we again see generation after generation becomes more scaleable, bitcoin is the least scalable first gen implementation, Ethereum is considerably more scalable, and newerr cryptos are beating out etherereum, as will continue to be the case.
The pattern demonstrates a path towards global scalability, we may not be there yet, but like computers that is hardly an indication that the technology is a dead end, just an indication it is new.
> NYT: “The process of creating Bitcoin to spend or trade consumes around 91 terawatt-hours of electricity annually, more than is used by Finland, a nation of about 5.5 million.” (https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2021/09/03/climate/bitcoin-carbon-footprint-electricity.html)
Using the first generation crypto to represent the efficiency of crypto as a whole, or worse yet the future of crypto is extremely disingenuous. That would be like me arguing that computers are wildly inefficient by quoting the statistics around ENIAC.
> The trouble with Proof of Stake is that it’s easy for a sufficiently wealthy person to take over the currency. (It’s also “one dollar, one vote”, which is not going to fight the overconcentration of wealth.)
Not thats not entierly true, partly. For a person to be wealthy enough to take over a PoS crypto, presuming such crypto was a world-currency, they would have to have 51% of all the money in the entire world. Even Elon Musk couldnt take over a world-wide crypto if he invested all his money.
Moreover even in the event someone could get 51% of the money for a takeover, all they would do is loose all of their money and take over nothing. They would lock up all their money into a stake vault and when they took over the world would notice the currency had been hijacked and would simply hard fork the chain and delete the stake. The original chain would devalue to 0 (And the person taking over loose all the money) and the new chain would be exactly as it was except the rich persons bank account would be set to 0. No one looses any money, world goes on, rich dude just lost all his money.
> From the first (Weaver) article: “Modern finance has this rule that anything electronic needs to be reversible for short periods of time. This allows an undo in case of fraud. Have you had your credit card compromised before? I’ve had my credit card numbers stolen a couple of times. The amount of money I lost is zero. Because we have both good fraud protection and good ability to reverse transactions. That does not exist in the cryptocurrency space. If your cryptocurrency wallet is compromised, all your apes are fudged.”
As we already covered cryptocurrency has the "undo" as well, so this is a moot point. The difference is the parties involved have control over that undo, not the banks. So if you deal with a party that you dont trust you use a cryptocontract, if you get cheated the contract reverses, if you dont the money gets locked in. You have all the same protections and more so because now you are in control of what those protections are and they are absolute.
> Ransomware ransom is overwhelmingly demanded in crypto, because there’s no other fast way to move millions of dollars internationally to known criminals.
Again, this is a problem for police not for money... Arguing that money is "easy to transfer and safe and garunteed" is somehow a bad thing just because it benefits evil people in all the same ways it benefits good people is a very disingenuous argument to make. The fact is criminal activity is the responsibility of police to deal with. Again illegal activity is often demanded in cash (such as physical ransoms) for exactly the same reasons, yet no one in their right mind would argue that cash should be made illegal simply because it is used for criminal activity because it is a reliable means of exchanging money.
Again, my position is about crypto as it exists now, not a hypothetical future version. It's not equivalent to you citing ENIAC, because that was almost 80 years ago.
Real crypto, as it is being used right now, is doing real damage to people and communities.
The "undo" isn't working (for at least some real crypto right now):
https://web3isgoinggreat.com/?id=crypto-speculator-loses-over-200000-to-wallet-compromise
Transferring $5M in cash internationally is much more difficult than doing it with crypto. That's why ransomwarers choose crypto.
The whole ransom argument is like saying that because files on computers are easier to transfer around the world in an instant, and thus easier to steal, we should do away with computer files entierly and strictly store all our data on printed paper that is harder to steal, thus securing our data.
Obviously this is a horrible argument.
If everyone started using ENIAC equivelant computers again, despite modern efficient computers existing, would that be an argument that all computers are bad?
Also **most** (as in more than half) of the people dont use BTC. The vast majority of cryptocurrency users hold next generation cryptocurrency (about 2/3rds of all the investment in crypto)
Many are, irrelevant to the point though that PoW has an efficient replacement that is being phased in. So the argument has been made moot as we have solved that problem and are in the process of migrating to non-PoW crypto. In fact the only one of the top cryptos not moving to PoS is bitcoin.
(How do I quote text from the original toot?)
"crypto is far superior to cash, this is why rasomers, like many other people use it… so?"
Ransomers almost exclusively use crypto. Other people don't. Why the difference? Because ransomers are committing a crime, so they can't use banks.
> (How do I quote text from the original toot?)
You use a ">" at the start of the line
> Ransomers almost exclusively use crypto. Other people don’t. Why the difference? Because ransomers are committing a crime, so they can’t use banks.
When a person ransoms a child or does any other sort of illegal activity they use cash.
So by your very logic since criminals prefer cash and crypto. So your arguing as much against cash as you are against crypto.
How is that different, i could use thast logic on crypto.
"When you ransom a virtual object you arent going to have a handoff anyway, so might as well just use crypto"
You seem to be focusing on the weakest part of your argument for some reason.
Let me try again:
Ransoming little kids wouldnt exist at the current scale without cash.
Thats a bad counter example, cash, or at least some form of physical currency, has existed since the beginning of written history. You take away physical cash and kidnappers would have no way of demanding money other than non-physical means,
Your argument all around is exceedingly weak on this point, im not sure why you press it as a valid point at all. Money being more useful means it will be more useful for criminals and non criminals alike. Crippling money by insisting it have fewer features is obviously not the response to that.
Decentralized control
Garunteed behavior- not open to human interpretations (contracts are in objective code rather than subjective legal contracts
Supply is predictable - again defined by code rather than a small handful of people in control.
Immutable ledger - The history of the movement of it is immutable and cryptographically guaranteed to be accurate.
You control your money, not your bank - You decide where it goes and when and your bank cant say otherwise.
Anonymity when desired - I can purchase or transfer my money while preserving my right to anonymity. No one has a right to know I buy vibrating butt plugs if I dont want them to know.
Your money is actually in your account, unlike with banks where it is loaned out and potentially not there if there is a run on banks.
Interest bearing despite the last point, so can bear interest and still guarantee being present if there was a run on accounts/banks
Depending on the crypto it may serve a double function as providing a useful service while securing the crypto. For example FileCoin makes remote NAS storage available in place of Proof Of Work. So you actually solve real world needs by spending/using crypto
The list is quite long actually.
I'm not sure all of those things are desirable -- that's a much longer conversation -- but I can certainly see arguments that some of them could be.
It has become clear that what I'm attacking is not necessarily the same thing you're defending. Can we agree that Bitcoin, specifically, is bad?
Bitcoin is horrific, agreed. It was a proof of concept and should have never been so widely adopted.
@peterdrake
We are both talking about crypto **now** and not some future version.
Bitcoin is gen1, there are many generations worth of newer solutions that dont remotely resemble bitcoin, so citing bitcoin **is** like citing ENIAC.
The undo works just fine, the fact that your citing cryptos that are older generation cryptos that didnt implement the undo yet is a cheat, we fixed that problem, if someone wants to use old tech where that problem isnt fixed yet (like bitcoin), so be it. But thats silly to cite that when the problem has long since been fixed.
> Transferring $5M in cash internationally is much more difficult than doing it with crypto. That’s why ransomwarers choose crypto.
This is true, crypto is far superior to cash, this is why rasomers, like many other people use it... so?
@stux @cobratbq