The mirrors refer to the interface. They interact with the same smart contracts and all share liquidity.
1,347 karma · joined January 22, 2013
There needs to be a statuary right to be serviced by the banking system. This is in addition to escape valves such as cash and crypto.
The miners don't agree with Ethereum switching to Proof of Stake, and yet, watch what happens this autumn. Important insight: The users control the network, not the miners. Specifically, it's the users who would be buying the miner's freshly minted coins.
The DAO fork was not driven by the miners.
These sanctions tend to be narrow, targeted and in general do not prohibit trade relationships.
It's an entirely different ball game than the immoral US secondary sanction regime.
> How is this even close to true. There are multiple exchanges right now that have locked up people’s money and don’t allow them to access it.
There is nothing wrong with the existence of custodied services, but - give your money to someone else and you are relying on them (and the legal system) to get it back. So what?
> Cryptocurrency is banned in China and is basically inactive there. How did it evade censorship? > To the extent it’s “censorship proof” in some areas right now is because the censoring entities simply don’t give a shit about it.
It is guaranteed that there are Chinese citizens holding and transacting in crypto everyday. To confiscate these assets or to block these transactions poses certain challenges to authorities. This is what the decidedly non-garbage tech ensures.
It is also challenging to find individuals who have USD under their mattress, which is why cash is extremely useful and civil libertarians should fight for its survival.
> USD requires only 1 side to have gone through a much easier process to acquire it. Whereas crypto requires both sides to go through it.
Note that this is not correct. Wallet-creation is not a physical action; a wallet is merely a sufficiently random number you pick for yourself, in your head if necessary.
The goal is to build a permissionless and censorship-resistent financial network. This has been going extremely well. People referencing their engineering credentials and arguing that the "tech is garbage" always have lots of opinions on the usefulness of such a permissionless and censorship-resistent financial network (not a tech question), but are notably silent as to which technical decisions where incorrect, and what the correct ones are. The latter is key, because unless there is a better way to build for the desired goal, there is no tech-deficiency here.
And to put the timeline into context: Note that AMMs like Uniswap, a key infrastructure innovation in the space, are about 4 years old - before this, it was basically impossible to exchange two tokens in a decentralized way. Other key pieces like cross-chain communication systems and rollups are still being built.
I'm pretty sure that if we researched the origins of the "git is a blockchain" meme we'd track it back to the community of crypto currency sceptics which I know you closely follow.
"A blockchain can be a useful data structure like the one git is using" isn't intended as a helpful clarification. It's an attempt to push for a change to the meaning of "blockchain" as originally (and currently) understood, to advance slight-of-hand arguments such as "blockchain was invented in the 70s, there is nothing really new here".
e2e encryption is in danger as is, and the strongest arguments against both are rooted in the same ideological substrate (criminals vs those needing protection); as are the arguments in favor.
Yet, the reaction to this in no-coiner circles is characteristically devoid of substance.
The token was airdropped to the victims of Luna 1.0, with whales largely being capped / subject to vesting and cliffs. The small-time bag holders of the old token are the ones selling, to recoup a small amount of what they have lost.
The fact that the price is dropping so fast just means there is in fact almost no one who wants to buy the replacement coin that was airdropped to the holders of Luna 1.
This is not a case of "how does this keep working?" - its evidence of it not working in fact, exactly the outcome critics are asking for.
The "law is law" response to "code is law" is terribly uninteresting. It's just semantic shuffling.
The government is all of us. A society self-organizing by whatever rules suit itself. If we want Bitcoin, we can keep it.
The government is an oppressive force that will squash dissent. This makes Bitcoin a moral imperative maintaining a semblance of transactional freedom in the face of that force.
Likely the same is true on the Australian stock exchange. Not that this is a bad thing. There is a person behind every bot - and in the case of Uniswap, the arbitrage is what makes it work in the first place.
Arguments about when/if Ethereum will switch to PoS are different, because neither you are I can do anything about it either way; it comes an argument merely about predicting the future.
If you are talking with your elected presentative who wants to vote against a PoW ban who is holding out for a switch, then that is a different story.
We have seen no such thing. The claim is not that the government can't put your wallet on a blacklist in an attempt to ban local companies from serving you. Nor is the claim that the government can't come to your home and arrest you, nor that they can't have your server taken down where you store your private keys.
These things happen, but it is unreasonable to ask cryptocurrencies to protect you from real world violence, anymore than encryption is useless because someone can use a hammer.
BAYC has a liquid market. It does not matter how many wash trades critics imagine there are - list your BAYC at the floor today, and it will sell within a couple of hours at most. Therefore, anyone not selling isn't doing so because they lack the liquidity. They are holding for other reasons.
You are free to reject such appeals to your patience and choose to use other products and services. Yet, people are also free to ignore your opinion that "blockchain is bad because of X" when they believe they are able to solve X.
Bitcoin is currently issuing at 1.5% and will continue to issue for basically a hundred years. People are really confident that the /deflationary/ nature is the key to their critique, but I don't see how.
The incentives for you being early into a system that will acquire a lot of users down the road (which is what you are betting on) are significantly more impactful to you financially then 2% inflation. For this reason, crypto currencies that do. not have a limited supply narrative are equally as volatile.
That doesn't mean it can't function as a currency, just that it maybe isn't a good one.
This is an important distinction, because critics have adopted this talking point of "not a currency" or "can't be a currency" as some kind of binary, but then have terrible arguments backing this up. The difference between 2% inflation and 0% inflation is just that - 2%.
Mind you - Bitcoin is currently issuing at a rate of 1.5%. The reason it is volatile has absolutely nothing to do with it's "deflationary" nature.
We are not talking about capital; we are talking about access. It is undeniably true that access to the legacy financial network is permissioned. But your Ethereum transactions and your smart contracts are no less privileged than those of Goldman Sachs. And if you can create a protocol that generates interest on your users capital, they just might entrust your smart contracts with a billion dollars worth of assets.
This is not speculative; it's the reality today. The reason why you keep hearing about all those DeFi hacks is because random people are building financial infrastructure (interacting with financial protocols built by other random people) without having to ask for anyone's consent or approval, and anyone in the world can use these products.
You can say that this is a terrible idea, but to say that it isn't something new that blockchain has enabled is simply denial.
(Crazy but true: under the EU's "Open Banking" API initiative, you are not even able to access your own account data in read-only mode, without going through a third party provider; it's only "open" to regulated entities.)
> No it does not and no it is not, this is more terribly wrong mythical thinking that I hear people repeating. The design is not set in stone and there is no "nature" to it.
The claim is not that there is no design space; the claim is that you are bounded by what we simply might call physical reality. You can design your messenger with end to end encryption, or without it, and that decision may be influenced by your value system. However, the decision might impose restrictions on how you can approach the problem of making multiple devices work, or a chat history, or interoperability.
If you want to make it impossible for regulators to censors the financial protocols written by random teenagers (the design requirement), but you also want certain actors to be able to revert transactions, then you may find that those two goals are in tension with each other.
Smart Contracts were mentioned by Nick Szabo in 1997 (https://journals.uic.edu/ojs/index.php/fm/article/view/548). Satoshi literally added a scripting language to Bitcoin (https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/Script).
> Do you think your bank couldn't allow you to upload random code into their internal database? But there are many, many reasons why they shouldn't and they don't.
Yes I would like that ability please. What are the reasons they don't?
Also, you are seemingly making the mistake of getting lost in technological minutiae; yes, you can call it a stored procedure. In the end, it is all just zeros and ones being shifted around anyway. The financial network created on Ethereum is in key ways, in its /outcome/, fundamentally different from the existing bank network. It is one where an Iranian teenager can design a financial protocol on equal terms to Goldman Sachs. This is a desirable feature.
This design brings with it other consequences. Transfers are hard to reverse; you can consider that a benefit or a flaw, or either at different times. It is simply part of the the nature of the thing.
The match your rhetoric, this is a best an outrageous slight of hand playing with semantics, at worst you are the one not understanding how they work.
/I/ have control which smart contracts I interact with - no one else.
Number one, the miners cannot force me to interact with anything. It is a common source of confusion - miners cannot force invalid transactions, not even if 100% of them work together. The users of the chain (and their delegates, i.e. exchanges) make the rules, not the miners.
The miners have a single job, for which they get paid: to order transactions. And with that job comes the the power to /not/ pick a transaction. Miners could possible /prevent/ me from interacting with a smart contract.
A large point of blockchain design is to ensure that this will not happen in practice, i.e. the censoring miners are in the minority.
It is all entirely benefiting criminals. /s
In fact, the file is itself only one if many representation of thr artwork. Reencode the jpeg, you get a different file, but we still think it and the NFT are linked.