First of all, the hype of different blockchains has garnered attention. People who fall into the hype hasn’t learned about the financial literacy and the risks of investing into those.
When Axie Infinity became popular in my country, influencers have started promoting the game and so-called scholarship, which is to refer to a new player. Within a few months of playing, people lost money. Influencers haven’t spoken about the players losing money.
Remember, investment into such blockchains carries a risk. Those are called the digital Ponzi scheme by some people.
I doubt this. With crypto, the ledger needs to be repeated multiple multiple times, it’s incredibly wasteful. There’s no improvement over a central server.
I think it’s super dangerous to take the developers’ word on their product. Probably it’s literally POS, but I’m not gonna believe all the hype without a disinterested confirmation.
If you believe a coin on the scale of Ethereum can lie about whether it’s proof of stake or work, you have no idea what you’re talking about.
Would be helpful to explain why you think deception is impossible in that context. Crypto and NFTs have a lot of con artistry going on and it’s reasonable for people to be skeptical.
It’s a fundamental part of the blockchain. In PoW you have to constantly run a mining program on your computer. In PoS you designate an amount to stake (by smart contract, if I’m not mistaken) and that’s it. How would the ethereum devs (or whoever else) run PoW without telling anyone? Who would pay the electricity bills?
People should be skeptical, but within reason. No investigation, no right to speak and all that.
You don’t sound very confident on the details. I do appreciate the explanation and I am not trying to be snarky or dismissive here. But if you are trying to hold people to a standard of no investigation, no right to speak, I would expect a little more than this for being the one who has done investigation.
Here is part of the quote:
The full thing can be found here for discussion: https://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/mao/selected-works/volume-6/mswv6_11.htm
My takeaway as relevant to this is that it’s more about people who hypothesize and invent wildly from nothing and resist going among the masses to learn what they need and how it can be done rather than being about people who are skeptical in the year 2024 in encountering anonymous claims made to them about technology on the internet.
I’ve been in situations before of having investigated something quite a bit and facing stubbornness from people who haven’t. I can empathize on that level. It’s frustrating when you’ve done the work to learn and people act like their knowledge is equal to yours in spite of having spent little to no time on it at all. But I think there is a line we can cross where it’s going to sound like we’re saying “turn your brain off and take my word for it” instead of “let’s educate the masses so they are better informed.”
In this context, for example, how are we defining what “within reason” is for skepticism? Skepticism is more or less a kind of wariness. I’m having trouble working out where you’d draw the line for reasonable or unreasonable skepticism if we’re starting from the premise that the whole reason a person is being skeptical is because they lack the information to confidently draw a conclusion.
I don’t ask a detailed reply here, just consider it as food for thought and if you want to dig into it, you’re welcome to of course.
I will not spend hours of my time researching and writing a detailed reply for someone that thinks PoW can be masked as PoS. I know the fundamentals of software engineering and blockchains, and those are enough to explain why you should take the devs word about ethereum being PoS. How the staking mechanism works is irrelevant for this discussion.
Maybe I should’ve included the small explanation in my first reply, but given the other commenter’s attitude I doubt it would matter.
It’s capitalist apologia when I correct you on something? Give me a break.
I stand by my original tone, I stated that you have no idea what you’re talking about, which is true, without attacking you with names, expletives etc.
Defending a capitalist projects without evidence or justification is pretty much capitalist apologia.
I didn’t say that they lied about pos. I said it’s probably pos but we needn’t take them on they word about everything, and you’re continuing to insist I said that. And being “you have no idea what you’re talking about”.
You didn’t downright say that they lie about being PoS, but you said that a third party must confirm it, which is an equally bonkers statement. You can check my reply to the other commenter for a small explanation on why that’s true.
Asking for second party to confirm something is “equally bonkers”. Great job with the ableist slut. Comrade, you went to personal insults after the first comment.
you’re asking a third party to confirm the equivalent of ‘water is wet’