Post AMbfMUm8yTJgoGaZzE by natecull@mastodon.social
(DIR) More posts by natecull@mastodon.social
(DIR) Post #AMbfE9mH9zEJMxfsum by natecull@mastodon.social
2022-08-17T02:12:32Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
I wish outlets like Slate could be *slightly* more tech-aware when they say things like this about crypto mining:https://slate.com/technology/2022/08/crypto-mining-texas-power-grid.html<< All day long, computers solve complex math equations in order to earn new crypto coins, using a ton of energy. >>No. That's not what's happening. NOBODY in crypto mining is "solving complex math equations". None of that energy is going into "equations".They're literally GUESSING RANDOM NUMBERS. That's it. That's all. GUESSING RANDOM NUMBERS.
(DIR) Post #AMbfEBeCCzxHATuSbA by natecull@mastodon.social
2022-08-17T02:17:06Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
Just rolling vast truckloads of the electronic equivalent of dice. Using the electronic equivalent of entire factory floors of engines.To roll dice.To beat *each other*.Just so that the one who rolls fifteen sixes, or however many, gets to play in the casino. And then the mob boss next door says "I'll raise you SIXTEEN sixes" and all the other mob bosses go "no you don't I'll see that and give you seventeen"That's literally all it is.
(DIR) Post #AMbfEC7GSvCucdVfuK by b_cavello@mastodon.social
2022-08-17T02:50:17Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@natecull well, even if they’re solving complex math equations, they’re still not useful equations, but rather deliberately Rube Goldbergesque systems designed to be hard to compute not to do anything really helpful
(DIR) Post #AMbfECXqs4TTx5wuLg by natecull@mastodon.social
2022-08-17T02:53:01Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@b_cavello True.It's literally just "a computational tax designed to prove that you possess >$X worth of computing hardware, on the assumption that people who own >$X of capital are Trustworthy People"and then Proof of Stake thinks about that for another second and just jumps straight to the conclusion, "If rich(X) then make_richer(X)"
(DIR) Post #AMbfECwJP82ZAxORTU by b_cavello@mastodon.social
2022-08-17T02:54:31Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@natecull that last formula 🔥🙃🔥
(DIR) Post #AMbfEDNbldsIXcAF1M by natecull@mastodon.social
2022-08-17T02:56:45Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@b_cavello Stands to reason, Rich people are Good people; Richest people are Best people. That's Capitalism 101, which has been time-proven to create the Best people in the world, therefore is only opposed by the Worst people (see complete and irrefutable logical proof above).
(DIR) Post #AMbfEDhSZpkpXBS5xo by john@liberdon.com
2022-08-17T03:35:14Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@natecull That's not the logic of PoS. The argument is that people with more to lose are less likely to undermine the whole system and cause it to collapse.DPoS allows folks to pool their stakes together, more closely resembling a shareholder-meeting-style "democratic" vote.But in a system where there's no way to distinguish "poor person" from "my 100th alt account", one can't treat all accounts equally. There are plenty of other consensus algos, but none of them achieve equality.
(DIR) Post #AMbfMUm8yTJgoGaZzE by natecull@mastodon.social
2022-08-17T03:36:45Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@john "The argument is that people with more to lose are less likely to undermine the whole system"Yes, that's the logic that reduces to "rich people are good people".
(DIR) Post #AMbfR1p239amSb6M08 by john@liberdon.com
2022-08-17T03:37:35Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@natecull No, that they're self-interested. Most people don't equate "good" with "looking out for #1"
(DIR) Post #AMbfcwYFTKGfaXvswK by natecull@mastodon.social
2022-08-17T03:39:44Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@john The problem, you see, is that in actually existing capitalism, very rich people ARE undermining the whole system, for two reasons:1) because their relentless drive for accumulation causes, eg, social and ecological dysfunction which is moving us to total system collapse.2) the richer a person is, the more their irrational whims can influence the whole economy
(DIR) Post #AMbfnCc8bdHMImdyIi by john@liberdon.com
2022-08-17T03:41:36Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@natecull I think you're referring to a broader sense of "system". I was referring to one particular distributed ledger. One can be generally destructive (to others in particular) while still protecting a thing that's holding _your_ money.
(DIR) Post #AMbg3xvCUAsnemYMlM by natecull@mastodon.social
2022-08-17T03:44:36Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@john The behaviour of actually existing large players in the crypto token and exchange space shows that actually they are not in fact protecting anyone's money but their own, and often not even the latter.So no, I think it's quite clear that even the very weak form of "people invested in a platform will not engage in behaviour that destroys that platform" has been comprehensively refuted just by observing the crypto landscape.
(DIR) Post #AMcauPSExW6JXXajFQ by john@liberdon.com
2022-08-17T14:21:34Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@natecull That can happen. Especially if things are not designed quite perfectly. Or if an ecosystem is small enough to be thrown around. And those sorts of problems are not limited to cryptocurrencies: see the exploit with Calpine syndicated loans combined with CDS (back in, I think, 2005/2006?).Not saying the argument for (D)PoS is always/ever correct. Just that it is a certain logic that doesn't require believing anyone in particular is moral.