|
|
|
|
|
|
by ben_w
577 days ago
|
|
|
> This holds equally for AI and Cryptocurrency which both get criticized for having a lack of utility The argument against cryptocurrency specifically is different: the security measure for anything proof-of-work based is the claim that one cannot reasonably afford to spend 51% of world resources to break it, which means there's no upper bound to consumption — if we Dyson sphere'd the sun and ran 51% of the power through BTC nodes, there would be no difference to how much value that BTC system could provide relative to the one today, and that's also true for any other PoW system. Many of the the criticisms are also specific to BTC, which is designed to not be able to scale even as far as just serving the transactions of people eating lunch in Berlin. The suggestion at this point is layers on top of BTC, but (1) that makes it look like normal currency handled by a bank, and (2) BTC also can't scale to all the purely inter-bank transactions worldwide. Proof-of-Stake may be meaningfully different, or not, I don't give it much thought. |
|
|
BTC’s counterparts are treasury bonds and gold. Not cash. Many non-econ background tech people misunderstand the difference. Try buying lunch with gold or treasury bond.