Unfortunately, miners benefit from the current artificial limitations. Which demonstrates an inherent issue with crypto currency, miners and users have very different goals yet only miners get a vote.
How new PoS coins will be generated and distributed? The stock has to be generated somehow right? How does this not resemble a central bank?
This is an honest question. It looks like PoS is a full circle towards the same centralized system we have today. Please correct me if I'm wrong.
It is plutocracy, but with emojis.
Would you take M1 Abrams tank to race at Nurburgring? They have a different function.
Lightninig/Payment channels, backed by the same baselayer security guarantees, can operate at literally unlimited tps. The only ceiling is how fast you can send packets back and forth.
Miners do not vote, they are nothing but security guards paid by the network users. Miners do not get paid if they produce a block with rules not accepted by the rest network.
Counterintuitive, but that is the reality.
Either monopoly on violence in the state under whose protection miners operate, or private security for smaller threats.
Miners in China, Russia and Iran are essentially absolutely immune to threats from the West. and vice versa.
It's not designed to gamble and make a quick buck, but to survive even a nuclear war. Just like TCP/IP wasn't designed for streaming porn.
If you’re servers are worth X Billion Dollars that’s attractive to the same sorts of criminals that rob banks. Hell governments have a long history of running drugs and state sanctioned piracy etc. An attractive enough target needs serious security.
If there's one thing I love most about the technology behind bitcoin, it is the permanent, public, unalterable ledger of every purchase I've ever made and every purchase I'll every make, and who I gave the money to. I'm super excited about the complete lack of personal financial privacy that Bitcoin's blockchain enables! /s
Sure there's a lot stored, which does bring privacy concerns that are quite different from our current financial system, I'm not debating that, but it's not as obvious as you put it, as far as I understood it.
It really isn't that nuanced at all for Bitcoin. If I know your wallet I can see all of your transactions. Period. And if you want to trade money with me, you need to give me your wallet. Once I find it, thought, it is game over. [2]
There are "tumblers" that attempt to obfuscate the chain by turning one transaction into millions of little ones, but it is just a matter of tree search to reconstruct.
[1] https://www.rt.com/usa/158460-cia-director-metadata-kill-peo...
For blockchains in particular I think we tend underestimate the amount of information which someone with that kind of analytic capacity could derive, especially if they also have other data sources — for example, I would be quite surprised if the various anonymity schemes are less effective when evaluated as part of a full system against someone who has a lot of visibility into web activity (Google Analytics, Facebook beacons), DNS, email, etc.
https://uniswap.org/docs/v2/protocol-overview/how-uniswap-wo...
Lots of defi products are already live on mainnet. https://better-call.dev/dapps/list
With DeFi, you can increase T because the aggregate value of transaction per delta time increases thanks to composability of money. In the traditional system, locking up money means buying an asset where that value then becomes illiquid (like buying shares of a stock, or a bond). However in DeFi, that same asset can be tokenized and used as liquidity as a tokenized collateral. For example, I can tokenize a TSLA share and then use that as collateral in a contract where I can get a yield. I could also pair TSLA with a stablecoin as a liquidity position (1:1 TSLA/USD) and tokenize the liquidity position which can then be used in other contracts.
The total aggerate value per unit time increases thanks to composability of contracts. You should download Metamask and use DeFi, it'll become clear what I'm talking about.
You want higher velocities of money because then that value is being put to work. When you have low velocities of money it means you have hoarding behavior which leads to deflation and a shrinking economy. With DeFi, the same value is more efficient than the traditional system because that value can be allocated more efficiently (i.e. higher yields thanks to tokenized positions and composable contracts), thus you get more bang for your buck so-to-speak.
Also, just having something like Uniswap with pooled liquidity means assets are more liquid, which also increases velocity of money. More liquidity = higher velocities of money. This is how you bank the unbanked, by giving everyone access to financial markets as long as they have an internet connection.
What you describe as "tokenization" exists in traditional finance, and has existed for ages. For example, money market funds invest funds in money market instruments and then fractional ownership of the fund (and therefore of the underlying investments) in the form of shares can be bought and sold in the market. In short, this is not a DeFi innovation.
"Liquidity" refers to the easiness with which an asset can be converted into money. For example, a share is less liquid than money (because money is the most liquid asset, by definition) but more liquid than a house, because shares are sold easier than houses. Shares and bonds tend to be quite liquid. For example, some government bonds are so liquid that are considered a "money equivalent". And "tokenizing" an asset doesn't necessarily makes it more liquid. Finally, shares and bonds are used as collateral all the time. In fact, any financial and non-financial asset can be used as collateral. For example, a mortgage is a loan that is secured by real estate, even though real estate is relatively illiquid. It still used as collateral.
With regards to the velocity of money, you're misinterpreting something called the Quantity Theory of Money. The velocity of money is linked to the level of economic output but it doesn't really make sense to try to influence the velocity of money through economic policy in order to control the level of economic activity, it doesn't work like that. Also the velocity of money isn't being limited by some bottleneck in the financial sector, and specifically isn't being limited by money not being "composable" enough, whatever that means. Your whole argument about the velocity of money just doesn't make any sense.
I think you have good intentions but clearly you don't know much about finance, and if you're interested in DeFi you should definitely learn a little bit about finance, because right now you don't quite seem to grasp even the most elementary of financial concepts. I'm telling you that in good faith, don't take it badly.
Also, this is early days. A few years ago HN's stance was that smart contracts are completely useless. Oh so now their not useless, but you can't get no collateral loans so it's not real finance. Right....
So what happens when I can get a decentralized identity and mortgage sized loans on DeFi in the next few years? This IS coming as there are at least a dozen projects working on this problem and there are already systems today that work, so it's only a matter of time.
Clearly you and many others in HN have blinders on because you were wrong to say that smart contracts are useless during the last crypto bubble. And over the years, you'll continue to be wrong as long as you bury your head in the sand. I'm absolutely confident about that.
Are DeFi loans coming in the future? I have no idea, but right now it's not clear whether it's even possible to make loans with DeFi. No one has done it, so far. And loans are the most elementary of financial instruments.
Another problem with DeFi has to do with the very concept of decentralisation. For instance, these TruFi loans are approved or rejected by the lenders themselves. Another example, in a Dao, the shareholders assume management roles. Therefore, at least in these instances, decentralisation means replacing highly specialised workers with unpaid, non-specialised, informal labour. I think anyone can see that this is a dumb idea. A decentralised entity that is organised in this way will never be able to compete against a corporation that exploits division of labour and is professionalised.
tia.
I'm betting my ass of that cryptocurrency in a different way might be the future of fiat BUT from the countries themselfs.
I'm not sure why anyone in the long run would trust a system which is controlled by some totally unknown and new individuals who invested in some cryptocurrencies.
There is no need at all to assume that the crypto technology is limited to btc and other current cryptocurrencies.
My thought was that a crypto based system could replace perhaps a sea of different approaches and alignment efforts across banking systems and if a central bank/banks are just need to approve a block, instead of mining it, the basic idea of a transparent cryptosigned blockchain might be useful.
But yes i don't think they need something like this as the current system seems to be very trustworthy. I have never heard of a bank creating money out of thin air.
There might well be ponzi schemes on top of the bitcoin infrastructure, but the technology behind bitcoin is not a ponzi scheme.
It might well be that a lot of people are crazed over it and want to buy bitcoin and push up the price, but that's because there is something here with cryptocurrency. It definitely is a new way of accounting, and it could potentially be a hedge against the fiat system.
There's a lot of IFs, but I still think it is revolutionary technology that may well revolutionise things in 5-10 or 50 years, who knows.