The other 20% of the issues are things that skeptics claim to be "causing harm", but either ignore to see that the harm already exists with the status quo (money laundering with crypto is actually really hard, and a lot more money gets laundered within the existing financial infrastructure) or ignore there are solutions to mitigate them being developed or in place.
There is no system that will be "good for all parties involved". Ever. It's all about trade-offs. It's fine if you are okay with the status quo, but don't go around thinking that everyone working in the space is either malicious or an opportunist.
Not surprising when the vast majority of activity is on systems still using proof-of-work. Even the term "web3" is just a blatant attempt to profit off the success of the web as a technology. Not to mention, other systems that don't use proof-of-work have their own downsides. All of them are hugely inefficient compared to non-blockchain-based technology.
> The other 20% of the issues are things that skeptics claim to be "causing harm", but either ignore to see that the harm already exists with the status quo (money laundering with crypto is actually really hard
[Citation needed]
> , and a lot more money gets laundered within the existing financial infrastructure)
Again, what evidence do you have of this? And even it's true, it means nothing when the vast, vast majority of transactions happen on... existing financial infrastructure.
Are you really going to argue that a smaller proportion of crypto transactions are laundering money?
> There is no system that will be "good for all parties involved". Ever. It's all about trade-offs. It's fine if you are okay with the status quo, but don't go around thinking that everyone working in the space is either malicious or an opportunist.
Blockchain as a technology is a solution looking for a problem. It always has been. In the early days, you could be justified in thinking that there must be a worthwhile problem out there to solve with it, and that we just need to find it, because it achieved something genuinely new and exciting. To this day, not a single problem has been solved with blockchain. It just doesn't work as a foundation for a digital currency, and for so many reasons!
As for other uses of blockchain: ethereum is certainly interesting. Smart contracts are sufficiently powerful that it will be a while before I feel we've exhausted all possible uses for them, but at the end of the day, it's still in the "solution looking for a problem" phase.
In short: if you think you've found that killer problem where blockchain is the solution, go for it! I'm not judging anyone for working on it, and seeing where it goes. The issue is with everyone already invested trying to force these magic beans onto people who don't know any better, making outlandish and unsupported claims about a (so far entirely useless) technology. There's a word for this: scamming people. It happens to be illegal. If you own crypto, then you don't have an unbiased opinion on this: more enthusiasm for crypto is directly profitable to you.
- "The estimated amount of total money laundered annually around the world is 2-5% of the global GDP (USD 800 Billion – 2 trillion)"
- In 2009, total spend on illicit financial activities like money laundering was 3.6% of the global GDP, with USD 1.6 trillion laundered (according to the UNODC)[0]
> Are you really going to argue that a smaller proportion of crypto transactions are laundering money?
Yes! Without a doubt. We are talking about money laundering here, not "transactions volume that are not reported to any fiscal authority", which are two very, very different things.
> To this day, not a single problem has been solved with blockchain.
We can move value across the world in less than 10 seconds, without having to ask permission to anyone. That in itself might be no big deal for privileged folks living in places with (still) functioning institutions. But ask anyone who got blocked by Paypal or Google or even tried to make an international money order, and see if they don't think that crypto has solved a problem already.
> If you own crypto, then you don't have an unbiased opinion on this: more enthusiasm for crypto is directly profitable to you.
First, you can find a lot of things that I've written where I the biggest use case I promote is for stable tokens (i.e, crypto that is pegged to the USD or the EUR). The biggest use-case I am working on is to make payments easier, faster and independent of big centralized institutions [1].
Second, I don't "invest" in crypto as someone who buys lottery tickets and hopes to hit the jackpot. My focus is on collaborating to build an useful economy on it. You won't see me promoting/defending a project based on the token.
Third: Skin in the Game. Yes, I am working on the space so of course I want it to succeed. This doesn't mean that you have any right to say that I am being unethical or that I am not deserving of any of the potential rewards.
[0]: https://www.tookitaki.ai/compliance_hub/50-statistics-on-mon...
[1]: https://hub20.io
Part of the development for "Proof of Stake" Ethereum includes scaling the number of transactions via sharding. Each shard will be able to handle 2,400 tps. As more shards are deployed up to 64, Ethereum will reach 160,000 tps. Please note, the upcoming improvement to Proof of Stake Ethereum does not yet use sharding, but it is under development.
As comparison 1,700 tps for the Visa network is a good benchmark. I recall Visa's technical capability is 10x or 100x that number though. This comparison isn't intended to claim "ETH beats Visa for currency stuff", but simply to give a sense of the potential impact of Ethereum as it improves. Thousands of transactions per second implies a powerful network, whatever it's used for.
None of the core devs talk about these things anymore and everyone has accepted that the way to scale will involve layer-2 systems and some sacrifices in decentralization for performance.
Anyone claiming to do 1k+ tps on a blockchain is either lying or just running things on a very limited or expensive network. Even then, take a look at Solana and see how many outages they are having lately.
Or perhaps you're saying Vitalik isn't relevant anymore? Perhaps he's only a figurehead now or something. Or perhaps I have something more to learn about how this all works. Again, sources would be great, I'm curious for what the future holds.
Getting 2400tps per shard is already a pipe-dream, but tps does not scale linearly with the number of shards. The more shards you have, the more transactions will require cross-shard communication, bringing total tps down.
Also, the video you linked has Vitalik talking about roll-ups as the main way to scale. With roll-ups, sure, we can get to 100k tps, but like I said in this case we are not talking about base-layer anymore.
Then, please-pretty-please do not put yourself in a position of spreading misinformation. Even if unintentionally. It's hard enough to fight the stigma even when armed with good information, when "critics" see unfounded claims like yours it confirms the bias against crypto even more.
> Happy to read any articles
No articles. Stay away from opinion pieces. Try to get actual documentation about the project. Ethhub has some good material about it (https://docs.ethhub.io/ethereum-roadmap/ethereum-2.0/eth-2.0...). Look at the "Layer-2 scaling" section to learn about roll-ups and the many other solutions.
https://blog.ethereum.org/2021/05/18/country-power-no-more/
It can do this because it doesn't rely on any sort of "work." It's just another internet protocol.
Proof of stake doesn't have anything to do with tps, so that won't change significantly. The solutions to that are rollups (second layers that inherit the full security of the main chain) and sharding (which multiplies the capacity of rollups). Some rollup systems are in production today, capable of a couple thousand tps. According to the most recent plan I saw, sharding would multiply that by twenty, initially.
In any case, currently there are ~300000 validator nodes running the beacon chain, which does not require powerful hardware. For comparison, 13.4M units of the Playstation 5 were sold since 2020. 116.6M units of the PS4 were sold since 2013. I'd like to know the number of servers runnning Minecraft there are around, but you can unarguably say that people waste more energy playing videogames than with the ethereum network.
[0]: https://www.gamesradar.com/why-climate-scientists-think-the-....
[1]: https://www.statista.com/statistics/1265897/worldwide-ethere...