▲ 1298 ▼ Please Stop (jlai.lu) submitted 2 years ago by ElCanut@jlai.lu to c/lemmyshitpost@lemmy.world 412 comments fedilink hide all child comments
[–] ThermoToaster@exng.meme 11 points 2 years ago (2 children) Yeah let’s use the computing power of an entire country to pay for a small coffee. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 4 child comments replies: [–] MentalEdge@sopuli.xyz 35 points 2 years ago* (2 children) While that is an inherent component of how proof-of-work cryptos work, and utterly stupid, it's not an inherent part of how to do blockchains. You can have a blockchain without consuming stupid amounts of energy. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 4 child comments replies: [–] kameecoding@lemmy.world 26 points 2 years ago (1 child) Yeah it's called a database.... permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] wise_pancake@lemmy.ca 4 points 2 years ago (1 child) There aren’t a lot of distributed databases with no single owner and all writes are signed. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] kameecoding@lemmy.world 12 points 2 years ago (2 children) Yeah, but not having an owner is actually a fucking terrible thing for a banking system, how do you not grasp this? permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 4 child comments replies: [–] Knock_Knock_Lemmy_In@lemmy.world -1 points 2 years ago (1 child) No owner is great for a banking system. It stops the owner printing money whenever they feel like it. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] kameecoding@lemmy.world 0 points 2 years ago Bruh permalink fedilink source parent [–] wise_pancake@lemmy.ca -4 points 2 years ago I do grasp it. I don’t really know what situation it makes sense for. It seems like a tool for cases where nobody can agree who should own the records of something so now everyone should. permalink fedilink source parent [–] Vilian@lemmy.ca -4 points 2 years ago exactly, you have others methods of proof-of-work permalink fedilink source parent [+] pupbiru@aussie.zone -15 points 2 years ago (2 children) you’ve just demonstrated your lack of depth of understanding of blockchains. congratulations, your opinion was correct about 15 years ago. the technology has moved on permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 4 child comments replies: [–] vrighter@discuss.tchncs.de 8 points 2 years ago (1 child) and the "solutions" are all objectively worse security wise. And by thinking blockchains need proof of anything, you too misunderstand what a blockchain even is. Proof of whatever is needed by the concensus algorithm, not the blockchain. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] pupbiru@aussie.zone -1 points 2 years ago (1 child) no; they all have trade-offs and that’s different… you can have trust less proof amongst semi-trusted parties like a consortium of banks: they don’t entirely trust each other, but trust each other enough to keep an eye on the other members of the consortium there are plenty of situations like this that are non-public permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] vrighter@discuss.tchncs.de 2 points 2 years ago (1 child) they are objectively, mathematically weaker. Joining ethereum now implies trusting a complete stranger to get you up to speed. It is objectively subjective. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] pupbiru@aussie.zone 0 points 2 years ago (1 child) i wasn’t talking about ethereum, and i don’t think anyone was saying they don’t have TRADE OFFS. in the world of consensus protocols, there are many different trade offs that build a network that suits your needs however the consensus protocol has little to do with how mathematically secure a network is: the security of the consensus protocol comes down to a lot of complex things it also has nothing to do with how you bootstrap a node these things are all different, albeit interconnected things permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] vrighter@discuss.tchncs.de 2 points 2 years ago* the consensus algorithm is the only thing that contributes to the network's security. That, and because it's trying to solve an impossible problem, it also needs the psychological element exploiting humans' greed (and therefore want to hoard currency). permalink fedilink source parent [–] eskimofry@lemmy.world 5 points 2 years ago You say so but I guess it's hard to convince a lot of people who recognize it's folly to try to fix a social/human problem with a technological solution. Git is a merkle-tree based system like a blockchain. People have no problem with the tech. They're just tired of the hype train. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] MentalEdge@sopuli.xyz 35 points 2 years ago* (2 children) While that is an inherent component of how proof-of-work cryptos work, and utterly stupid, it's not an inherent part of how to do blockchains. You can have a blockchain without consuming stupid amounts of energy. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 4 child comments replies: [–] kameecoding@lemmy.world 26 points 2 years ago (1 child) Yeah it's called a database.... permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] wise_pancake@lemmy.ca 4 points 2 years ago (1 child) There aren’t a lot of distributed databases with no single owner and all writes are signed. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] kameecoding@lemmy.world 12 points 2 years ago (2 children) Yeah, but not having an owner is actually a fucking terrible thing for a banking system, how do you not grasp this? permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 4 child comments replies: [–] Knock_Knock_Lemmy_In@lemmy.world -1 points 2 years ago (1 child) No owner is great for a banking system. It stops the owner printing money whenever they feel like it. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] kameecoding@lemmy.world 0 points 2 years ago Bruh permalink fedilink source parent [–] wise_pancake@lemmy.ca -4 points 2 years ago I do grasp it. I don’t really know what situation it makes sense for. It seems like a tool for cases where nobody can agree who should own the records of something so now everyone should. permalink fedilink source parent [–] Vilian@lemmy.ca -4 points 2 years ago exactly, you have others methods of proof-of-work permalink fedilink source parent
[–] kameecoding@lemmy.world 26 points 2 years ago (1 child) Yeah it's called a database.... permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] wise_pancake@lemmy.ca 4 points 2 years ago (1 child) There aren’t a lot of distributed databases with no single owner and all writes are signed. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] kameecoding@lemmy.world 12 points 2 years ago (2 children) Yeah, but not having an owner is actually a fucking terrible thing for a banking system, how do you not grasp this? permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 4 child comments replies: [–] Knock_Knock_Lemmy_In@lemmy.world -1 points 2 years ago (1 child) No owner is great for a banking system. It stops the owner printing money whenever they feel like it. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] kameecoding@lemmy.world 0 points 2 years ago Bruh permalink fedilink source parent [–] wise_pancake@lemmy.ca -4 points 2 years ago I do grasp it. I don’t really know what situation it makes sense for. It seems like a tool for cases where nobody can agree who should own the records of something so now everyone should. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] wise_pancake@lemmy.ca 4 points 2 years ago (1 child) There aren’t a lot of distributed databases with no single owner and all writes are signed. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] kameecoding@lemmy.world 12 points 2 years ago (2 children) Yeah, but not having an owner is actually a fucking terrible thing for a banking system, how do you not grasp this? permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 4 child comments replies: [–] Knock_Knock_Lemmy_In@lemmy.world -1 points 2 years ago (1 child) No owner is great for a banking system. It stops the owner printing money whenever they feel like it. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] kameecoding@lemmy.world 0 points 2 years ago Bruh permalink fedilink source parent [–] wise_pancake@lemmy.ca -4 points 2 years ago I do grasp it. I don’t really know what situation it makes sense for. It seems like a tool for cases where nobody can agree who should own the records of something so now everyone should. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] kameecoding@lemmy.world 12 points 2 years ago (2 children) Yeah, but not having an owner is actually a fucking terrible thing for a banking system, how do you not grasp this? permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 4 child comments replies: [–] Knock_Knock_Lemmy_In@lemmy.world -1 points 2 years ago (1 child) No owner is great for a banking system. It stops the owner printing money whenever they feel like it. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] kameecoding@lemmy.world 0 points 2 years ago Bruh permalink fedilink source parent [–] wise_pancake@lemmy.ca -4 points 2 years ago I do grasp it. I don’t really know what situation it makes sense for. It seems like a tool for cases where nobody can agree who should own the records of something so now everyone should. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] Knock_Knock_Lemmy_In@lemmy.world -1 points 2 years ago (1 child) No owner is great for a banking system. It stops the owner printing money whenever they feel like it. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] kameecoding@lemmy.world 0 points 2 years ago Bruh permalink fedilink source parent
[–] wise_pancake@lemmy.ca -4 points 2 years ago I do grasp it. I don’t really know what situation it makes sense for. It seems like a tool for cases where nobody can agree who should own the records of something so now everyone should. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] Vilian@lemmy.ca -4 points 2 years ago exactly, you have others methods of proof-of-work permalink fedilink source parent
[+] pupbiru@aussie.zone -15 points 2 years ago (2 children) you’ve just demonstrated your lack of depth of understanding of blockchains. congratulations, your opinion was correct about 15 years ago. the technology has moved on permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 4 child comments replies: [–] vrighter@discuss.tchncs.de 8 points 2 years ago (1 child) and the "solutions" are all objectively worse security wise. And by thinking blockchains need proof of anything, you too misunderstand what a blockchain even is. Proof of whatever is needed by the concensus algorithm, not the blockchain. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] pupbiru@aussie.zone -1 points 2 years ago (1 child) no; they all have trade-offs and that’s different… you can have trust less proof amongst semi-trusted parties like a consortium of banks: they don’t entirely trust each other, but trust each other enough to keep an eye on the other members of the consortium there are plenty of situations like this that are non-public permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] vrighter@discuss.tchncs.de 2 points 2 years ago (1 child) they are objectively, mathematically weaker. Joining ethereum now implies trusting a complete stranger to get you up to speed. It is objectively subjective. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] pupbiru@aussie.zone 0 points 2 years ago (1 child) i wasn’t talking about ethereum, and i don’t think anyone was saying they don’t have TRADE OFFS. in the world of consensus protocols, there are many different trade offs that build a network that suits your needs however the consensus protocol has little to do with how mathematically secure a network is: the security of the consensus protocol comes down to a lot of complex things it also has nothing to do with how you bootstrap a node these things are all different, albeit interconnected things permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] vrighter@discuss.tchncs.de 2 points 2 years ago* the consensus algorithm is the only thing that contributes to the network's security. That, and because it's trying to solve an impossible problem, it also needs the psychological element exploiting humans' greed (and therefore want to hoard currency). permalink fedilink source parent [–] eskimofry@lemmy.world 5 points 2 years ago You say so but I guess it's hard to convince a lot of people who recognize it's folly to try to fix a social/human problem with a technological solution. Git is a merkle-tree based system like a blockchain. People have no problem with the tech. They're just tired of the hype train. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] vrighter@discuss.tchncs.de 8 points 2 years ago (1 child) and the "solutions" are all objectively worse security wise. And by thinking blockchains need proof of anything, you too misunderstand what a blockchain even is. Proof of whatever is needed by the concensus algorithm, not the blockchain. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] pupbiru@aussie.zone -1 points 2 years ago (1 child) no; they all have trade-offs and that’s different… you can have trust less proof amongst semi-trusted parties like a consortium of banks: they don’t entirely trust each other, but trust each other enough to keep an eye on the other members of the consortium there are plenty of situations like this that are non-public permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] vrighter@discuss.tchncs.de 2 points 2 years ago (1 child) they are objectively, mathematically weaker. Joining ethereum now implies trusting a complete stranger to get you up to speed. It is objectively subjective. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] pupbiru@aussie.zone 0 points 2 years ago (1 child) i wasn’t talking about ethereum, and i don’t think anyone was saying they don’t have TRADE OFFS. in the world of consensus protocols, there are many different trade offs that build a network that suits your needs however the consensus protocol has little to do with how mathematically secure a network is: the security of the consensus protocol comes down to a lot of complex things it also has nothing to do with how you bootstrap a node these things are all different, albeit interconnected things permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] vrighter@discuss.tchncs.de 2 points 2 years ago* the consensus algorithm is the only thing that contributes to the network's security. That, and because it's trying to solve an impossible problem, it also needs the psychological element exploiting humans' greed (and therefore want to hoard currency). permalink fedilink source parent
[–] pupbiru@aussie.zone -1 points 2 years ago (1 child) no; they all have trade-offs and that’s different… you can have trust less proof amongst semi-trusted parties like a consortium of banks: they don’t entirely trust each other, but trust each other enough to keep an eye on the other members of the consortium there are plenty of situations like this that are non-public permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] vrighter@discuss.tchncs.de 2 points 2 years ago (1 child) they are objectively, mathematically weaker. Joining ethereum now implies trusting a complete stranger to get you up to speed. It is objectively subjective. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] pupbiru@aussie.zone 0 points 2 years ago (1 child) i wasn’t talking about ethereum, and i don’t think anyone was saying they don’t have TRADE OFFS. in the world of consensus protocols, there are many different trade offs that build a network that suits your needs however the consensus protocol has little to do with how mathematically secure a network is: the security of the consensus protocol comes down to a lot of complex things it also has nothing to do with how you bootstrap a node these things are all different, albeit interconnected things permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] vrighter@discuss.tchncs.de 2 points 2 years ago* the consensus algorithm is the only thing that contributes to the network's security. That, and because it's trying to solve an impossible problem, it also needs the psychological element exploiting humans' greed (and therefore want to hoard currency). permalink fedilink source parent
[–] vrighter@discuss.tchncs.de 2 points 2 years ago (1 child) they are objectively, mathematically weaker. Joining ethereum now implies trusting a complete stranger to get you up to speed. It is objectively subjective. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] pupbiru@aussie.zone 0 points 2 years ago (1 child) i wasn’t talking about ethereum, and i don’t think anyone was saying they don’t have TRADE OFFS. in the world of consensus protocols, there are many different trade offs that build a network that suits your needs however the consensus protocol has little to do with how mathematically secure a network is: the security of the consensus protocol comes down to a lot of complex things it also has nothing to do with how you bootstrap a node these things are all different, albeit interconnected things permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] vrighter@discuss.tchncs.de 2 points 2 years ago* the consensus algorithm is the only thing that contributes to the network's security. That, and because it's trying to solve an impossible problem, it also needs the psychological element exploiting humans' greed (and therefore want to hoard currency). permalink fedilink source parent
[–] pupbiru@aussie.zone 0 points 2 years ago (1 child) i wasn’t talking about ethereum, and i don’t think anyone was saying they don’t have TRADE OFFS. in the world of consensus protocols, there are many different trade offs that build a network that suits your needs however the consensus protocol has little to do with how mathematically secure a network is: the security of the consensus protocol comes down to a lot of complex things it also has nothing to do with how you bootstrap a node these things are all different, albeit interconnected things permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] vrighter@discuss.tchncs.de 2 points 2 years ago* the consensus algorithm is the only thing that contributes to the network's security. That, and because it's trying to solve an impossible problem, it also needs the psychological element exploiting humans' greed (and therefore want to hoard currency). permalink fedilink source parent
[–] vrighter@discuss.tchncs.de 2 points 2 years ago* the consensus algorithm is the only thing that contributes to the network's security. That, and because it's trying to solve an impossible problem, it also needs the psychological element exploiting humans' greed (and therefore want to hoard currency). permalink fedilink source parent
[–] eskimofry@lemmy.world 5 points 2 years ago You say so but I guess it's hard to convince a lot of people who recognize it's folly to try to fix a social/human problem with a technological solution. Git is a merkle-tree based system like a blockchain. People have no problem with the tech. They're just tired of the hype train. permalink fedilink source parent
