BitShares Forum
Other => Random Discussion => Topic started by: speedy on May 12, 2015, 10:37:05 pm
-
Hes like a cult ring-leader:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?t=3053&v=lIgjogLipvk
-
Bitcoiners are just like that. A horse that only sees forward and can't see to the sides. It's a shame, however, that a person so respected and looked up to in the crypto community claims that.
It seems Bitcoiners don't accept the fact Bitcoin is not flawless and that there can actually exist a better technology. The ones defending this new revolutionary technology are the ones denying the possibility of a better one. The irony.
-
He says that mining is a necessary risk, but mining simply rewards block validators that waste energy. Is his argument that the mining market "entices" new users to join? That holds true at first, but eventually fades away as it becomes unprofitable at a non-commercial scale. The benefits and services the network provides in and of themselves should be the source of that user adoption. I don't understand the argument against more efficient block validators... those efficiency gains can be felt by all users of the network, making it more "enticing" to use. Also isn't the risk in buying and holding the volatile crypto-asset itself?
Also the comparison to reinventing physical goods doesn't hold up in the digital realm, where recombinant innovation is cheaper and easier. You can do the blockchain without Bitcoin because the foundational concepts are open and free for anyone to learn about, clone, modify, and use.
-
He does make a point but hes arguments to back that point are flawed. The reward<->risk exchange is not what makes mining necessary. Its the decentralized and TRUSTLESSNESS of bitcoin that makes mining necessary ... and (very) expensive.
For me BitShares, in contrast to Bitcoin, increases efficiency, due to no mining, but theoretically reduces the trustlessness of the network because you predefine (elect) those that construct blocks. Hence you cannot participate in the block production but just setting up a machine and doe some stuff (e.g. mining).
However(!!!), Andreas fails to see that the trustlessness in bitcoin is gone for years already because solo-mining is useless and people have to pool together their hardware constructing guilds of miners (i.e. pools). These pools are, by the very definition, centralized and can be controlled (at least in theory) by a single entity. And what is even worse is that with the mining-reward and the "luck" required to find a block, profitable businesses around mining are forced to join the biggest pools(!!!) to make the biggest profit from their electricity. This inevitably leads to having just "a few" pools.
What really disappoints me is that Andreas tells the MIT students "whenever someone tells you .... they don't understand"! For me this is a absolute no-go. Either you have the arguments or you don't. But stating that someone else does not understand just because they dislike (or only disagree) on this is plain wrong. Sorry to say this Andreas, but for me you became a puppet in the very moment you tried to influence these students. I hope they are intelligent enough to find their own opinion and do their research.
-
He does make a point but hes arguments to back that point are flawed. The reward<->risk exchange is not what makes mining necessary. Its the decentralized and TRUSTLESSNESS of bitcoin that makes mining necessary ... and (very) expensive.
For me BitShares, in contrast to Bitcoin, increases efficiency, due to no mining, but theoretically reduces the trustlessness of the network because you predefine (elect) those that construct blocks. Hence you cannot participate in the block production but just setting up a machine and doe some stuff (e.g. mining).
However(!!!), Andreas fails to see that the trustlessness in bitcoin is gone for years already because solo-mining is useless and people have to pool together their hardware constructing guilds of miners (i.e. pools). These pools are, by the very definition, centralized and can be controlled (at least in theory) by a single entity. And what is even worse is that with the mining-reward and the "luck" required to find a block, profitable businesses around mining are forced to join the biggest pools(!!!) to make the biggest profit from their electricity. This inevitably leads to having just "a few" pools.
What really disappoints me is that Andreas tells the MIT students "whenever someone tells you .... they don't understand"! For me this is a absolute no-go. Either you have the arguments or you don't. But stating that someone else does not understand just because they dislike (or only disagree) on this is plain wrong. Sorry to say this Andreas, but for me you became a puppet in the very moment you tried to influence these students. I hope they are intelligent enough to find their own opinion and do their research.
this. I'm gutted. Andreas really inspired me.....no longer while he's stuck. Still love his passion. Maybe he'll come around.
-
Sorry to say this Andreas, but for me you became a puppet in the very moment you tried to influence these students. I hope they are intelligent enough to find their own opinion and do their research.
That was for me disturbing too... that he thinks he has an audience of sheep's in front of him (?)
(https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/736x/2d/a3/e0/2da3e0b262757058beb29da484458851.jpg)
-
replacing enthusiasm with rethoric will backfire