Ethereum finally goes POS, marking the end of gpu mining era

[tikker]

35 minutes ago, BabaGanuche said:

No, it is not hard. I have had fraudulent charges on my credit card and all I had to do contact the company and the reversed the charge and issued me a new card the same day no other questions asked. I don't think I could be easier.

I am not talking about credit cards, we don't use those here for purchases or subscriptions except if there is no other option (so usually foreign companies). If I wire money to some bank account, that cannot be undone by me and neither will it be undone by my bank simply because I ask. If I would request the bank to get it back, they would contact the recipient and ask them to pay it back on my behalf.

 

If something charges my account then yes, I can charge it back (and deal with however the company or entity that charged me chooses to respond). Crypto doesn't have this particular issue AFAIK, however, since you can't charge wallets of any coin that I've heard of. The equivalent situation is if you conciously wire money to some account and then try to claim it back as fraudulent afterwards.

[05032-Mendicant-Bias]

1 hour ago, tikker said:

Blockchains, or more the consensus protocols behind the various blockchains around, do have the concept of fraud.

You are partially correct. The consensus mechanism, be it PoW or PoS ONLY cares that the ledger is consistent, with success. Unfortunately, this is the only safety in place, all other consumer protections are absent by design. E.g. When BAYC Fred Simian was stolen, the only way to get it back was to pay a 300K$ ransom. The thief is the owner according to the law of the code, the only law Blockchain abides to.

 

Satoshi wanted a system where the government was cut off to prevent potential government abuse, at the cost of also cutting off users from any and all forms of consumer protections provided by the government.

58 minutes ago, tikker said:

 Could you provide some examples of what laws it can't adapt to?

The Blockchain cannot abide to Government mandated AML regulations. E.g. The USA had to ban Tornado Cash wholesale to stop NK from using it to launder money. Bullying everyone that wants to do businness with the USA on not using Tornado Cash.

Developers of Tornado Cash had no ability to vet transactions or freeze accounts.

58 minutes ago, tikker said:

Fradulent transactions would be a harder to undo due to the system's nature, but as I mentioned in a reply above it's not very different the current banking system in my country. A transaction that was not an automatic charge is hard to get undone. You cannot undo it yourself and the bank will not reverse it without good reason, which in most cases will come down to authorisation from either the receiving account owner or legal order (wrong number is not a good reason and will require these hoops).

Linus was target of a wire fraud, he explained pretty well the failings and success of the system. Banks were ultimately able to trace the founds, freeze the account, and presumably, return the money to Linus. All because banks need to abide to KYC and AML regulations, and if government says: "Freeze that account" the bank will comply, providing some measure of user protection and impeding criminals. All things sorely missing from Blockchain by design.

 

[tikker]

31 minutes ago, 05032-Mendicant-Bias said:

You are partially correct. The consensus mechanism, be it PoW or PoS ONLY cares that the ledger is consistent, with success. Unfortunately, this is the only safety in place, all other consumer protections are absent by design. E.g. When BAYC Fred Simian was stolen, the only way to get it back was to pay a 300K$ ransom. The thief is the owner according to the law of the code, the only law Blockchain abides to.

 

Satoshi wanted a system where the government was cut off to prevent potential government abuse, at the cost of also cutting off users from any and all forms of consumer protections provided by the government.

I have never argued that the crypto system is consumer-friendly. I have said in other threads that that is a major reason why I don't see it gain major adoption in its current form, because people want/need those protections.

31 minutes ago, 05032-Mendicant-Bias said:

The Blockchain cannot abide to Government mandated AML regulations. E.g. The USA had to ban Tornado Cash wholesale to stop NK from using it to launder money. Bullying everyone that wants to do businness with the USA on not using Tornado Cash.

Developers of Tornado Cash had no ability to vet transactions or freeze accounts.

They banned a mixer, which aims to make the coin's more obscure. In other words, they banned a potential money laundering risk. That is not something inherent to blockchain or crypto and similar to rolling up a real-life business that is supsected to be a money laundering front.

31 minutes ago, 05032-Mendicant-Bias said:

Linus was target of a wire fraud, he explained pretty well the failings and success of the system. Banks were ultimately able to trace the founds, freeze the account, and presumably, return the money to Linus. All because banks need to abide to KYC and AML regulations, and if government says: "Freeze that account" the bank will comply, providing some measure of user protection and impeding criminals. All things sorely missing from Blockchain by design.

Exactly, if government says. You yourself do not have the power to do it and will usually have to argue with the bank or through legal means that a transaction was indeed fraudulent and that it needs to be reversed. My point wasn't that banks can or cannot do that, my point was that you as a person don't have that much more control over your transactions in the current system.

 

The big(ger) crypto exchanges are now also bound by KYC and AML regulations for a while. Yes, that's not all, but it's not a lawless wasteland. There are plenty of stories of people that can't get their stuff out of an exchange because something triggered on their account and customer service sucks, exacerbating those issues.

 

People are comparing two inherently incompatible systems. If you want a stable currency and the ability to reverse transaction etc. to help customers then you inherently cannot have a free and unregulated system, because those aspects require regulation and to certain extents centralised authorities. I don't think the current form of crypto is what will see global adoption for those reasons, but I can see aspects of it making its way into the system.

[Avocado Diaboli]

6 minutes ago, tikker said:

Exactly, if government says.

That's actually a pertinent point I want to highlight vis-à-vis my previous comments about people condemning the government and claiming that crypto is putting the power back with the people. A big problem with crypto is actually its detachment from any sort of accountability to any government. If you are the victim of a financial crime, you can go through the courts and depend on law enforcement to, you know, enforce any ruling made by a court. If someone on the Ethereum blockchain violates your copyright, you can't do a rollback of that, the chain is eternal. It's all well and good to tout the big mean government as the problem here and that we need some kind of liberation from the tyrannical clutches of stuffy old white men in their conference rooms in Washington demanding a percentage of the sweat on your brow, but the reason why crypto bros love attacking the government is because it's the safeguard against fraud itself.

 

In essence, people who demand complete detachment from the government and are very vocal about total freedom must also relinquish all other protections granted under the law. You (not directed at you personally, @tikker, generic "you") can't say "government bad" but then rely on all the comforts of living life in a society where you enjoy a modicum of security that your neighbor doesn't just bash your head in if they please or rob you blind because access = permission (which is the maxim crypto operates under) and you didn't put all your possessions under lock and key without fear of repercussions. 

[ewitte]

On 9/19/2022 at 12:21 PM, Avocado Diaboli said:

Ah yes, I absolutely hate all the public infrastructure paid for with my taxes. I totally agree with you, we should abolish taxes and instead instate an objectivist utopia where every square centimeter of land is privately owned and if you want to pass over it, you'll have to pay a fee to the owner.

 

Listen, once you arrive in the real world, you might notice that "government" and "the people" are literally the same thing. I have no idea where this notion comes from that many delude themselves into believing that "government" is something wholly separate from "the people" and some kind of force outside of your reach. Crypto gave you what you currently have in more concentrated form. If you're unhappy with the status quo, you don't hate the government, you hate free market capitalism. And the only reason you're not blaming capitalism as a concept is because crypto promised you you'll be the one ripping others off.

Your love of government is based on lies

[ewitte]

On 9/20/2022 at 8:19 AM, Jito463 said:

Not always.  Even in the US, where this was literally the driving force behind the Constitution and our founding documents, it doesn't always work out exactly like that.  It should, but not necessarily.

 

Thats because while the ink was still drying on the Constitution, they started researching ways ("legal" vs "lawful") of violating people's rights.  That and so many in high positions have taken bribes over their duty to serve the people (their bosses).  Plus, nobody researches anything people don't even know the "Grace Commision" showed that absolutely ZERO taxes went to improving anything (yes I "understand" a bit has changed since the 80's).

 

What we have is mob rule where 51% (democracy) will force you out of your job for not allowing yourself to be experimented on vs the original design of protecting EVERYONE's rights (republic).  That is a 100% real example we just lived through.  Fortunately we weren't so screwed over like those in Australia or parts of Europe that became a prison and started beating old women and putting them in the hospital nearly dead.

 

[05032-Mendicant-Bias]

2 hours ago, ewitte said:

What we have is mob rule where 51% (democracy) will force you out of your job for not allowing yourself to be experimented on vs the original design of protecting EVERYONE's rights (republic).  That is a 100% real example we just lived through.  Fortunately we weren't so screwed over like those in Australia or parts of Europe that became a prison and started beating old women and putting them in the hospital nearly dead.

I'm curious, in your ideal government-less world, who would build roads, electric lines, water pipes, police and hospitals?

[ewitte]

1 hour ago, 05032-Mendicant-Bias said:

I'm curious, in your ideal government-less world, who would build roads, electric lines, water pipes, police and hospitals?

Society doesn't have to be ruled over, used and abused to be productive.  Mostly for government being what it is supposed to be (administratively), minimal, being held accountable for its actions, FOR the people and not violating rights.

[Lightwreather]

17 minutes ago, ewitte said:

Society doesn't have to be ruled over, used and abused to be productive.  Mostly for government being what it is supposed to be (administratively), minimal, being held accountable for its actions, FOR the people and not violating rights.

If I may,

Statistics show that wherever there is chaos and/or anarchy, order will emerge. The reverse is also true to an extent.

And what you're suggesting is highly idealistic. If there is no law, no regulation, you WILL end with what is essentially Rule of the strong. Someone WILL take advantage of others, all it takes is one bad apple. Sadly, this is the biggest problem with any and all forms of governance (or lack thereof), the nature of humanity.

[ewitte]

11 minutes ago, Lightwreather JfromN said:

If I may,

Statistics show that wherever there is chaos and/or anarchy, order will emerge. The reverse is also true to an extent.

And what you're suggesting is highly idealistic. If there is no law, no regulation, you WILL end with what is essentially Rule of the strong. Someone WILL take advantage of others, all it takes is one bad apple. Sadly, this is the biggest problem with any and all forms of governance (or lack thereof), the nature of humanity.

The problem is people let it and choose the paths of least resistance.  Even make jokes about it like its funny and something inevitable.  People are living in a permanent state of Stockholm syndrome.  We are so messed up more now than ever because they weaponized Freud's work and turned everyone against each other.  People left alone don't act the way we have its not "nature" its manipulation.