I love how everyone assumes that the ETH blockchain is immutable and there is nothing that can happen to undo any of this. Did everyone simply forget when the Dao had a contract bug and the ETH devs literally just rolled back the transaction?
After reading Moxie's blog post on web3 [1] I feel it is a stretch to call anything Ehtereum-based decentralized anymore when this many applications use Alchemy or Infura as providers for their Ethereum nodes.
[1] https://moxie.org/2022/01/07/web3-first-impressions.html
- exchanges
- mining pools
- mixers
- oracles
Also, core devs and all stable cryptos are "centralized" by definition. This whole ecosystem is just cancer to a traditional society. It's not an evolution.
It certainly puts words to my feelings around current "crypto" trends as someone (probably like moxie) that still remember the first wave of cypherpunks[1] and dreams of digital currencies.
It feels strange when a lot of smart people insists on something that's obviously false in a practical, real-world sense - and it's nice to see someone else shine a light on that, and explain in simple, correct terms what's actually going on.
I wonder if there are any emerging systems that are more likely to realise the idea (ideals) of digital currencies and smart contracts?
I had hopes for etherum, but now I'm thinking that if we'll ever get there, it'd be in the next generation (call it third generation, bitcoin being first, etherum second - and earlier things generation zero).
I'm thinking it would be proof-of-stake, and somehow viable as real peer to peer, or split in a more sane way between infrastructure and "wallets".
[1] See eg this for a summary and some pointers https://nakamoto.com/the-cypherpunks/
A bug and reversal occurred in the first few years of Bitcoin's existence that has effectively meant that Bitcoin won't reach the stated 21m coins exactly.
It's guaranteed at this point that there won't be any further reversals.
What if a new bug is found and someone moves all coins to some impossible address?
Bitcoin has the same problem, and cryptocoin enthusiasts are fooling themselves if they think that miners won't raise the 21m cap when the end of Bitcoin rewards start looming.
We found out with previous Bitcoin forks, how influential companies and miners are. 21M is non negotiable, and which stakeholder would want to dilute themselves?
When it comes to miner prerogatives the day is never done, they are the sole arbiters of what "winning chain" means, and when they are incentivized to act in unison their will is indomitable.
> and which stakeholder would want to dilute themselves
Miners. Based on your definition, "stakeholders are diluted" every time miners make money, so if the choice is between continuing to make money or not, it's pretty obvious what decision they will make.
I suppose there's a possible future where the miners do nothing and bitcoin transaction fees skyrocket in response. At that point I would expect a mass exodus to altcoins with cheaper transaction fees, but I don't see the miners acquiescing to this future.
This has actually already happened with Monero. The mining reward schedule was much more aggressive in it's diminishing returns. Once the mining returns cross a threshold of not being able to sustain the cost of mining things dried up very quickly. Devs jumped in and added Tail Emission [1] so that all blocks have a fixed reward of 0.6 XMR that will never change or go away.
[1]: https://www.getmonero.org/resources/moneropedia/tail-emissio...
If your response is “oh well you should have been more careful about that”, congratulations on endorsing the very same defense crypto enthusiasts were giving and validating that they’re not all that different.
I guess my take is that all crypto transactions have properties strictly worse than the worst type of bank transfer. In addition to being irreversible when you initiate them, they are also irreversible if someone fraudulently initiates them on your behalf. And there is no more secure option that you can use with crypto. There is to my knowledge nothing in the crypto space with security properties similar to an ACH transfer.
It’s kind of missing the point to focus on the narrow issue of “can you accidentally destroy money in the conventional banking system?”
No it isn't. That's a huge difference. On the contrary, focusing on “Shit happens in the conventional banking system too!”, that's missing the point, IMO.
In both conventional banking and crypto, yes, there are situations of “sorry, you’re fucked, but like, you’re just supposed to know not to do that” (where “that” is send wires you’re not 100% sure of or guard your physical cash carefully).
No offense, but you really seem to be drawing the abstraction boundaries poorly here.
But that's an accident or intentional vandalism by a user of the system; it isn't built into the system itself.
> In both conventional banking and crypto, yes, there are situations of “sorry, you’re fucked, but like, you’re just supposed to know not to do that” (where “that” is send wires you’re not 100% sure of or guard your physical cash carefully).
In conventional banking the “sorry, you’re fucked” situations don't destroy the money banking is all about handling.
> you really seem to be drawing the abstraction boundaries poorly here.
My "abstraction boundary" (if I understand the term correctly?) is: A system that can have parts that do this -- destroy the very thing it's supposed to handle, "money" -- is a crap system. "Yeah, but you can burn cash!" (vandalism) or "Mistype an account number and the money is lost (to you)!" (not destructive) are not system critiques but whataboutism.
Currency-changing ATMs (do such things exist? If not, why not?) or vending machines like for petrol don't have built-in banknote shredders.
[Edit: Left off half a sentence, screwed up emphases.]
That's when some of them were themselves invested in the Dao...