This is your reminder that every crypto"currency" using a transaction fee is fundamentally a scam and everything that is happening using them is merely hype to get you involved in them.
That's a bit like saying that every public toilet that charges a fee is a scam. Surely there are scams and hype in this industry.
Fees are for inclusion of a transaction in a block. And some pretty clever game theory was implemented as part of eip1559 in Ethereum to make fees efficient and fair.
No, it's not, read Jorge Stolfi on this. While he insists the scam should be called a Ponzi, I am not sure of that , but the name doesn't change anything at all, we could call it a Nakamoto scheme as Preston Byrne did to avoid that particular debate.
That sounds like black-and-white catastrophizing lacking nuance.
Some semi-centralized infrastructure and development is needed and costs money to run, but the questions unique to each circumstance are: "What do revenue and EBITA look like?" and "How efficiently are CapEx and OpEx used?"
OTOH, if a social venture nonprofit ran a coin with survival in mind rather than get-rich-quick fintech profiteering, it could make a promise to keep overhead low and any sort of profit margins for reinvestment in robustness, stability, features, and auditing controls to a small, fixed %.
I'm all for bashing crypto bros, but really? The fundamental benefit of crypto currencies is being independent of central authorities. Do you think it has failed in that regard?
Comments
This is your reminder that every crypto"currency" using a transaction fee is fundamentally a scam and everything that is happening using them is merely hype to get you involved in them.
That's a bit like saying that every public toilet that charges a fee is a scam. Surely there are scams and hype in this industry.
Fees are for inclusion of a transaction in a block. And some pretty clever game theory was implemented as part of eip1559 in Ethereum to make fees efficient and fair.
No, it's not, read Jorge Stolfi on this. While he insists the scam should be called a Ponzi, I am not sure of that , but the name doesn't change anything at all, we could call it a Nakamoto scheme as Preston Byrne did to avoid that particular debate.
That sounds like black-and-white catastrophizing lacking nuance.
Some semi-centralized infrastructure and development is needed and costs money to run, but the questions unique to each circumstance are: "What do revenue and EBITA look like?" and "How efficiently are CapEx and OpEx used?"
OTOH, if a social venture nonprofit ran a coin with survival in mind rather than get-rich-quick fintech profiteering, it could make a promise to keep overhead low and any sort of profit margins for reinvestment in robustness, stability, features, and auditing controls to a small, fixed %.
I'm all for bashing crypto bros, but really? The fundamental benefit of crypto currencies is being independent of central authorities. Do you think it has failed in that regard?
The fundamental benefit of crypto is to enrich those who collect transaction fees. There's nothing else.
I thought the fundamental benefit was giving certain HN commenters something to whine about, constantly.
Someone needs to keep the ember of sanity burning in this vast darkness