Also, it's kind of a weird stance to take? I haven't seen anyone claiming that PoS wouldn't do exactly what it set out to do, that is fix the energy waste issue inherent in PoW-based blockchains. Maybe we just run in different circles, but the main criticism I see of PoS is that it doesn't _matter._ It doesn't make blockchains or defi any more useful or moral, and it just highlights the other externalities more clearly.
I was totally and exactly clear about what I meant about "Inventing new problems" after Ethereum moving to proof-of-stake.
One can move to proof-of-stake, reduce or eliminate the significant environmental issues in their chains whilst also increase centralization which is another major valid criticism brought up after the upgrade to PoS widely discussed here. Like I said before, I don't see anyone here discussing how Ethereum moving to PoS is worse for the environment than PoW and I consider the environmental issues of Ethereum brought up by many critics answered and it will no longer be an issue.
You can still be anti-crypto and welcome this [0] (or not) and still criticise it on the centralization, scams and ponzi enablement and alledged limited use cases etc. But not for the environmental issues, or 'burning up the planet', etc on Ethereum.
> Also, it's kind of a weird stance to take? I haven't seen anyone claiming that PoS wouldn't do exactly what it set out to do, that is fix the energy waste issue inherent in PoW-based blockchains.
I did not make that claim.
> the main criticism I see of PoS is that it doesn't _matter._ It doesn't make blockchains or defi any more useful or moral, and it just highlights the other externalities more clearly.
Right, unfortunately Ethereum or the wider crypto ecosystem in general isn't going to go away that easily. But I know it certainly will be more regulated with a few surviving blockchains.
Where did I say it was the only problem? Why are you strawmaning my comment with such anger?
> ands acting as if solving this one problem should silence all dissenters lest they be considered unserious is disingenuous.
Another strawman and this rhetoric sounds like defeat and denial and my point was (if you've properly read my comment instead of misconstruing it) as soon as it moves to proof-of-stake, there will be no argument on the environmental issues in Ethereum, which was regularly parroted by the critics.
> Look at the comments for literally any popular article about crypto on this site, hell, keep scrolling on this one and you'll probably find plenty.
Look at what? I see no comments about the environmental issues in Ethereum anymore, which proves my point. I already recognise that there are scams, ponzis, etc happening in Ethereum which the regulators will step in and crackdown on them anyway.
> I, for one, am happy that enabling art theft and fraud on a massive scale will shortly no longer ALSO consume terrifying amounts of electricity and hardware
Exactly. All the fraud and scams are visible on a public blockchain which is easily traceable for everyone including the SEC, CFTC and the FBI to see.