There are plenty of elon haters around. Some people just can't accept that someone can think outside the box and profit from it. I've seen the same mentality in crypto and other places.
Try using a deflationary currency for daily exchanges and see how it works out. Coins issued on top of a smart contract blockchain are a different story because they can be inflationary. The way it's goin, Ether will soon be just for gas. Crypto's real strength might just be the fact that we can issue tokens on chains that follow either a fixed inflation or adjusted for growth, essentially achieving what modern economic theory recommends, bur backed by code and thus not affected by corruption.
A bad implementation of something doesn't mean the fundamental idea doesn't work. Germany phased out nuclear not coal for political reasons. There are plenty of examples of grid tier battery projects that have worked wonders with reducing peak demands.
Real engineering reviewed a paper that claimed we have cheap enough renewables to do ~80% of electricity from them right now. For the rest 20% we would need massive price drops on the battery side but just that 80% alone would cause a pretty massive decrease in price due to economies of scale.
Spending on credit that you never pay is different. With a smart contract a government would have to release it's collateral. Now they can just keep the inflation up.
>Why do they have to be careful? Are they going to magically going to have to start accepting Bitcoin instead of dollars?
There is zero chance bitcoin with it's current network is every going to be used as money. What might happen however is that more and more transactions could move towards other networks like nano or various stablecoins that are built on top of smart contract platforms.
If governments end up issuing a currency that is only useful for tax payments then they have effectively lost control of the monetary policy. And in any case banning crypto will only help towards redirecting monetary flow towards other countries. So in many ways governments' hands are tied in this.
Assuming a simple PoS system of more stake=more blocks validated achieving a 51% attack is as capital intensive as it would be on a PoW system of the same size. So as far as the most basic notion of security is concerned there's no difference.
This sounds really stupid. No bank allows it here. You get redirected to the bank's site and are asked to confirm the transaction with all the details including the amount of money, plus there's an OTP pin required. Maybe it's the damn socialism protecting it's citizens with regulations again.
A smaller currency would be at risk but the upside would also be smaller. Generally speaking there doesn't seem to be an incentive large enough to justify the enormous costs associated with a 51% attack.
You should look into the altcoin space where a lot of very smart people are trying a lot of different things. Now whether you put your money into them or not is an entirely different discussion.
Bitcoin is an asset, not a currency. Like any other assets, it carries it's own risk profile. Nano is more like a currency, but I feel that if we were to move to a blockchain-based solution it would be a huge waste to not include programmable money on the mix, something that Nano doesn't do by design.
Each NFT is separate. You can authenticate a digital game by owning the nft. The publisher can sell as many tokens as they wish, that's entirely different. The point is that they can't stop you from reselling, because it's on the blockchain, not on steam.
If the artist signs the NFT to you, then you can't track resales. It will always be signed as belonging to the original person who bought it. So basically this "alternative" to NFTs would be impossible to trade. It blows my mind that people still don't understand stuff this basic.
It's peak virtue signaling and the low quality of communication of the internet. Maybe a bit of cultural effect from harry potter. The negative connotations of the word itself are only a portion of it.
I'm sure once this fashion is done academics will analyze it to death. I wonder how they'll mention the word on their titles though. Some future populist politician will also take the findings and abuse them as well.
The value is in reselling the game when you are done with it. Instead of buying it on steam and then being stuck with it, you resell your token( which is the equivalent of having bought the game on steam) to the 2nd hand market. Same as you did with old games but digital.
You really don't understand the value proposition here. If a MP game goes defunct, as they do constantly the game will lose it's value, regardless if you bought it on steam or as a token on an NFT exchange. It doesn't matter. Same with any in-app purchases of items costumes or whatever. NFTs for games aren't trying to provide you will value in perpetuity.