I'm not the biggest fan of crypto, but I do acknowledge its success in certain areas. I'm just puzzled why so many people think its the solution to every problem.
Note: I have around 5000 Gridcoin, so I may be biased in my view of the coin :)
This is one issue with crypto. It's hard to tell whether people hyping it own it because you believe in it or whether you believe in it because you own it.
I also mine Gridcoin. I don't know how much I have ATM, but I like that even when I'm away living my life, in some small part I'm helping a scientist find something new. The reward is just there to help with on boarding in my mind.
If the coin ever jumped in price and a few miners see it as an investment, well hey its better than mining bitcoin and producing less useful data.
It's hard to trust people in general, so that's why I left it in for more transparency. I think that's an issue that goes to more than just crypto too unfortunately. I'd agree that it's worse in the crypto world in general, however.
If you want some degree of evidence that I believe in the coin, you can take a look at some of the work I've done[1][2]. None of this can tell you anything with high confidence unfortunately with out any real knowledge of each other, so the best solution is not to take my complete word on everything. Most of the work I've done is on the site and wiki system (208 commits)[1], and I've done a little bit on the wallet itself (19 commits)[2], but my C++ abilities aren't the best, so not as much as the site.
Lastly, 5000 Gridcoin is really not a lot in comparison to most of the network, but still of course raises potential conflicts of interests. I know that it's still hard to trust anyone on this because there's a lot of shill type people in the crypto world unfortunately, so it's best to look at the system itself
[1] https://github.com/gridcoin-community/Gridcoin-Site/graphs/c... [2] https://github.com/gridcoin-community/Gridcoin-Research/grap...
Why does it matter? It shouldn't if you look at their arguments.
The research, even if it leads to something good for humans, does not add any value to the token. The token only has a value because gamblers speculate on a higher price in the future. The higher price can only be reached if more new gambler speculates on an even higher price and so on. We have a finite amount of gamblers so this can not go on forever and make everyone rich. Instead each wave of new gamblers makes the previous rich. But each wave has to be larger which untimely means the last and largest wave will be screwed over. Which Im totally fine with as long as people know the risk of being that last wave.
The problem is on the side line there are people who never risked to be in that last wave because they simply printed the tokens and sold it. Like for example the devs that paid themself with these tokens thus inflating the supply which basically steals value form everyone who holds the token.
So your main problem is with devs, the only ones who are actually doing work not just contributing machine work?
All these 'concerns' are true to a much greater degree for all other economy, yet when it comes to crypto people are so giddy to pile on with their moral outrage based on their superstitions, I find it morally outrageous.
>So your main problem is with devs, the only ones who are actually doing work not just contributing machine work? Its actual programming sure, but it has no real use therefore no real market value. The whole system exists because it pays for itself. Its kinda like a fake financial perpetuum mobile that was started with a money printer, attracted a lot people and convinced them to gable. It now keeps going but it actually sucks money from outside in people just dont see it.
>All these 'concerns' are true to a much greater degree for all other economy, yet when it comes to crypto people are so giddy to pile on with their moral outrage based on their superstitions, I find it morally outrageous.
Well I hold crypto since 2013. I'm not against it at all. I also have no moral problem with people gambling. This is just a useless project. There are plenty more, in fact almost all of them are but the post is about this one coin so I gotta point out the nonsense of this one. And this one is hefty one because it doesn't even try to have a use-case.
>I think what it is doing right is making PoW into actually useful computation...
PoW is used for decentral consensus. Its super bad at this but somewhat works anyway. FBA consensus does not need PoW so in general we dont need PoW for a bitcoin like system. FBA system exist since like 2013 or so. Using PoW for something good is still objective worse than not using PoW for the system at all. Else we could add some PoW to literally everything.
Now even worse than that is using PoS (objectively worse than FBA) and then add PoW/PoR for no reason at all (now you have gridcoin). It doesn't try to be a better bitcoin because if it would there would be no reason to add any kind of PoW since its not needed. The work/research is not used in the consensus mechanism at all. Its a PoS system with a PoW/R money printer attached.
The whole thing obviously doesn't come from bitcoin evolving somehow into something better. It comes form BOINIC devs jumping on the blockchain train because why not. It allowed them to print incentives at no cost to attach people to donate they CPU power. Its literally a money printer to attract donations its ridiculous. If you would say someone that they get a printed griddollar bill for every dollar donation people would laugh. But somehow if you add a bit blockchain flavor it fools people to do exactly that and worse people are even willing to buy the griddollar bill.
The research does bring value because people can like the idea of receiving something that came from the fruits of scientific work. That has some degree of value to people even if not literal value you can exchange for. Speculative prices exist as with many things, but that is not the main purpose nor should be the main purpose of Gridcoin. I'd agree that no one should be trying to enrich themselves in this because that's not what it's about
>The research does bring value because people can like the idea of receiving something that came from the fruits of scientific work.
Thats a nice fairy tale but no, the research adds absolutely no value to the token.
> That's a nice fairy tale but no, the research adds absolutely no value to the token.
Maybe this doesn't make you value it any more personally, but that doesn't mean others don't. Where things come from make a big difference in value of a thing. A famous artist making a painting and someone less known making the same painting will be valued quite differently by people. As well some people value (not talking about price) PoW cryptos less (or even negatively) because of environmental concerns stemming from where the new coins come from. Even just not having the negatives from concerns of energy going to useless work makes its value different
I think this is conversation about value is going to go in circles, so I think we can agree to disagree on this
>I think this is conversation about value is going to go in circles...
I dont think so... you bough no argument at all. The fact that some people somehow see vale in the token is at best anecdotal at worst its just proof of stupid people. It doesn't actually proof that it add value. Its like people who say something that is unique and therefore can not be replaced must be valuable in fact its value would need to be infinite. Its a nice mind game but it's wrong. Scarcity/uniqueness does not create value.