• hark@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      7
      ·
      11 months ago

      That those with more have more control. It’s a reinvention of fiat currency. PoW also had that problem since people with more money could afford better mining hardware, but PoS is even more direct. That’s not even getting into tether printing and other bullshit. The claim is that cryptocurrency is a move away from our existing financial system, but the reality is that it’s just another arm of it.

      • zergtoshi@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        11 months ago

        How would you construct a consensus in which contributors don’t have a stake in the game?
        How would it work and based on what incentive?
        Why would they stay honest? Because as soon as there’s any stake in play, those with money will be able to get more of it.
        I’m honestly curious and interested in viable alternatives.

    • SuckMyWang@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      edit-2
      11 months ago

      Isn’t ethereum a centralised shit coin with a money printer attached, controlled by the owners of the “foundation?”

      • zergtoshi@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        11 months ago

        In what way is Ethereum centralized?
        The owers of ETH contribute to the consensus.
        How would the foundation control any of that?
        Mybe you confuse Ethereum with IOTA?

    • vrighter@discuss.tchncs.de
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      11 months ago

      it is now provably not secure. Because pos is provably not objective. Making the whole thing moot. Also, it is literally a system explicitly designed around “the rich get richer”.

          • zergtoshi@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            11 months ago

            Even if it is (I don’t see your reasoning explaining that) that doesn’t mean the resulting security scheme is objective.