[flagged]
Are you using "crypto" here to mean "cryptocurrency", rather than "cryptography"? Because if so, that's not obvious considering you just mentioned cryptographers in the previous sentence.
If, on the other hand, you mean "all of cryptography is a fraud", then I'm curious to know what makes you think that.
Yes, all cryptocurrency is basically a scam, but that's independent from whether the Ethereum foundation's experts know X or not.
You're deducing a lot from this one quote lol
It might, but in this case it is preceded by "This is why", which makes the sentence as a whole simply wrong.
both of those are obviously false and both have already happened.
blockchain is stupid. it is insanely inefficient, it burns power solely so you can say that you've burned power. it is stupid beyond belief.
The most probable outcome being a rapid fork and rollback as already with e.g. Ethereum over a relatively negligible amount of money relative to what you'd need to get a 51% on Bitcoin. You'd likely end up losing a massive amount of money, as well as look at possibly spending the rest of your life in prison. So the only real purpose in doing so is for attention or trolling, but the costs involved generally preclude this motivation.
There are other use cases, like it or not. And its popularity - don't blame tools for basic human greed they only allow to be manifested, that's not a smart approach to get anywhere apart from endless complaints how this and that sucks.
it's how banks prevent someone from withdrawing money from your account without your permission, everywhere across the entire globe at once, all the time.
it's the same reason that I, a normal user, can't delete people from active directory at work, or change their passwords to mess with them.
you've dealt with this kind of permission system your entire computer-using life. you know how it works. you know what it is. being distributed doesn't matter at all.
We live in a time where any form of centralized authority is increasingly abused. Blockchain prevents this. It also prevents incompetence as we also live in a time where centralized data and credentials are regularly leaked or hacked with no recourse available.
take as much time as you need.
Bitcoin was made to solve problems that exist only in the minds of those who wish to make money with bitcoin. Other blockchains serve the same purpose. Zero people use it as a ledger, except as a joke or to prove how stupidly limited and inefficient it is.
Bitcoin also has created problems that didn’t exist prior to the invention of the blockchain.
So, aside from the myriad negative effects of the blockchain, it is wholly and completely pointless unless you think it will make you money. If that’s how you think of yourself, you are a parasitic scammer spreading ransomware trying to make people think you are a legitimate human person with a right to live.
Hmm. The blockchain is actually a very clever solution to a very old coordination problem. In that sense it is not BS at all.
But I agree that it is an open question whether it can directly support a useful economy the way a currency can. It doesn’t seem to have the throughput for that, to start with. But maybe it could be useful for interbank settlements, if for some reason traditional methods weren’t working.
Banks have already started exploring using it as the clearing house and recent US policy has cleared the path for more.
blockchains as an immutable ledger should be the dumbest thing anyone has ever heard of. but somehow people saw dollar signs and put aside all their reservations and are using it to try to get rich quick.
as if a set of banks are going to secretly conspire to remove your money from you specifically, without a paper trail, or something. it's a nonsense premise to begin with.
It seems more like the project was doing due diligence?
I guess I'll bite, what are they then? If they're focusing on the cryptography of a project, doesn't that make them cryptographers? Or you mean they aren't "real cryptographers"?
> It's a wish club of technical yes people.
Isn't that basically one of the ways doing innovation? Instead of saying "No, that's not possible" when someone asks if they can build something faster than a horse and carriage, a bunch of people get together to see if there any way of doing that, trying to avoid any per-concieved ideas about if it's actually possible or not.
Yes, but if people graduate from engineering schools that explicitly teach the concepts of the combustion engine, and the carriage manufacturers claiming to be engineers are unaware of basic principles like the 4 stroke cycle, you have a completely different kind of problem.
Yes, sometimes you need to break out from pre-conceived notions, evaluating whether conditions have changed and earlier assumptions are maybe not valid anymore. But that's no excuse to be ignorant.
This does not take real-world limits into account. There are limits to information theory (which includes crypto), thermodynamics and mechanics that make certain things generally impossible. Like a perpetuum mobile. Social or intelligence factors do not matter. Knowing your field also includes understanding those "hard" limits.
Are you qualified to speak on this topic?