Re:In defense of cryptocurrency
by yellowapple on Friday June 10, 2022 @11:02AM
(#31695163)
> Mine and everyone else's who holds important information in databases.
If your opinion is that your information warrants less redundancy and resiliency than what Zoomer cryptobros get with their sad monkey NFTs, then maybe your information ain't all that important?
> Up to some size.
That size being more than sufficient to store a land parcel's coordinates, address, and other identifying data.
> The current system scales with the number of home transactions. Your proposal scales with the number of homes - a much bigger number.
They both scale with both. Or do you propose that the current system instantaneously sprung into existence without spending centuries distributing paper deeds beforehand?
> Sure, but then it's just a whole bunch of extra work for no benefits for 10-20 years.
If you don't consider the greatly improved auditability and resiliency to be a benefit then that's further reason to question whether your opinion is actually representative of people with important information needing stored.
> not only will they still need to process the existing requirements, they would also have new requirements to obtain and prove ownership of their ETH/other crypto wallet
That doesn't logically follow. It's quite possible for it to be a "one or the other" deal.
And ownership is pretty trivial to prove: you either can initiate transactions with that wallet's private key or you can't.
> Well, there are exactly two block chains that are somewhat noteworthy outside the crypto bubble: Bitcoin and Ethereum.
There are a lot more than only two which are noteworthy. That you believe otherwise is itself reason enough to disregard your comment as thoroughly misinformed...
> And any other block gain that becomes even mildly popular quickly explodes in values and transaction fees just like the other two.
...as is this. There are multiple NFT-capable blockchains that have demonstrated better scalability both in theory and practice by virtue of them using a consensus method more sane than burning energy on useless SHA256 hashes.
> There are still some important differences I feel, mainly related to the fact that today's systems enforce knowing the legal identity of parties to a transaction for something like a house, even if the sale is done in cash - which wouldn't be guaranteed if the house could be traded by selling an NFT on a chain.
It wouldn't necessarily need to be guaranteed, because the information is already in a public ledger. If you want to get fancy you could address that further with NFTs representing personal identification (which has other applications, like tracking licenses and certifications and other endorsements, but I digress).
If your opinion is that your information warrants less redundancy and resiliency than what Zoomer cryptobros get with their sad monkey NFTs, then maybe your information ain't all that important?
> Up to some size.
That size being more than sufficient to store a land parcel's coordinates, address, and other identifying data.
> The current system scales with the number of home transactions. Your proposal scales with the number of homes - a much bigger number.
They both scale with both. Or do you propose that the current system instantaneously sprung into existence without spending centuries distributing paper deeds beforehand?
> Sure, but then it's just a whole bunch of extra work for no benefits for 10-20 years.
If you don't consider the greatly improved auditability and resiliency to be a benefit then that's further reason to question whether your opinion is actually representative of people with important information needing stored.
> not only will they still need to process the existing requirements, they would also have new requirements to obtain and prove ownership of their ETH/other crypto wallet
That doesn't logically follow. It's quite possible for it to be a "one or the other" deal.
And ownership is pretty trivial to prove: you either can initiate transactions with that wallet's private key or you can't.
> Well, there are exactly two block chains that are somewhat noteworthy outside the crypto bubble: Bitcoin and Ethereum.
There are a lot more than only two which are noteworthy. That you believe otherwise is itself reason enough to disregard your comment as thoroughly misinformed...
> And any other block gain that becomes even mildly popular quickly explodes in values and transaction fees just like the other two.
...as is this. There are multiple NFT-capable blockchains that have demonstrated better scalability both in theory and practice by virtue of them using a consensus method more sane than burning energy on useless SHA256 hashes.
> There are still some important differences I feel, mainly related to the fact that today's systems enforce knowing the legal identity of parties to a transaction for something like a house, even if the sale is done in cash - which wouldn't be guaranteed if the house could be traded by selling an NFT on a chain.
It wouldn't necessarily need to be guaranteed, because the information is already in a public ledger. If you want to get fancy you could address that further with NFTs representing personal identification (which has other applications, like tracking licenses and certifications and other endorsements, but I digress).