I think etherium's path was the right one. Set it up to transition to PoS after enough buy in has happened on a PoW cluster.

BTC is a disaster because that wasn't built in from the start.

PoW doesn’t magically address the interface problem with the real world.

I have to assume by now that any responses in the crypto world that amount to “this coin will fix it” are made by people that own that coin. No further analysis is necessary at this point.

> PoW doesn’t magically address the interface problem with the real world.

I didn't claim it did? PoW solves the "how can we trust this transaction should have happened" problem which prevents some centralized org from stealing coins from your wallet. However, it does that at a huge power cost (it has to, by design).

PoS solves the power cost problem, but cannot be initiated until there is enough stake holders with enough to lose. Start with PoS and you are basically asking for your centralized management to be trusted. The PoS transition has to be planned pretty much from the coin's foundation.

Of course, there's also traditional banking which I think are generally the better idea. Not because they are more trustworthy necessarily, but there are 3rd party enforcement mechanisms which are hard to stop if a bank becomes a bad actor. (the legal system). That, of course, assumes a functioning gov, but my assumption is that's what most HN commenters live in.

The major problem with crypto is that 3rd party enforcement is not possible (by design). So, if someone steals or scams you out of money, you are SoL.

The usual answer is third party reputation tracking and resultant self-regulation as a silver bullet.

Hopefully the Yelp mafia have disabused people of that notion.

I mean it's nice to have those things but you make it sound like it would be impossible without, which is unrealistic... cash worked (and continues to work) for a very veeeery long time and has mostly the same disadvantages. You can still use cash in most places for a taxi (some cities in China being the major exception where they will outright reject you without wechat).

More generally speaking, fraud is not prevented by digitally traceable transactions. It's still something that happens and businesses have to accept as a cost for ease of use: see "the optimal level of fraud is non zero".

That's ignoring alot of antifraud mechanism in money.

1. face to face transactions are alot harder to defraud someone. 2. coins a hard to make and scales were used too. 3. there's a lot of anti fraud in paper money also.

Anti-fraud in cash is limited to authenticity, something that any half decent crypto currency can accommodate as a fundamental.

There is no conceptual reason why a distributed cryptographic currency could not take the place of cash for in person transactions. In realty crypto has many other issues, but not this one.

Yeah there is? Gold is valuable because it's made of physical atoms that are hard to reproduce, this dynamic doesn't apply to information.

The value of information is realized through other means that make a distributed information based currency impractical. Even Ethereum recognizes that some, non-zero, degree of centralization is required.

I did not compare it to gold.

Lack of intrinsic value applies to both cash and crypto. The main difference is that one is backed by a government and is globally recognised whereas the stability of crypto's value is beholden purely to the market. Centralisation is actually incidental here, the government makes certain guarantees that makes it's cash currency more stable.

FYI, I'm just playing devils advocate here, I think all crypto so far has utterly failed at providing an alternative to cash even though in theory it's entirely capable, and that's because the main barrier to entry is government recognition... it's a classic failure of "we can solve this with tech and sidestep regulation", but when replacing one piece of information (as you put it) with another, then it turns out that recognition by authorities and regulation is integral to it's success regardless of any technical advantages.

Cash is also made of physical atoms that are hard to reproduce, I chose gold because it's intuitively obvious to everyone whereas some folks may think it's easy to counterfeit cash.

It's much more difficult to copy cash then copy information.

For crypto, copy != counterfeit.

So? The statement that cash is a lot harder to copy than information still stands.

High resolution color printers are orders of magnitude more difficult to access then similar tools for information.

Yes, and the sky is blue. You keep bringing up straw men and then pivoting. I'm not sure what you are trying to achieve.

> It's much more difficult to copy cash then copy information. > The statement that cash is a lot harder to copy than information still stands.

My last two comments do not seem to be 'pivoting' at all. Nor do they appear to be bringing up 'straw men', a non-substantiated claim isn't credible.

> I'm not sure what you are trying to achieve.

I was trying to achieve a response to your comment that: 'There is no conceptual reason why a distributed cryptographic currency could not take the place of cash for in person transactions. In realty crypto has many other issues, but not this one.'

There is in fact at least one conceptual reason 'why a distributed cryptographic currency could not take the place of cash for in person transactions'.

> How do you prevent fraud?

By principle, you want the government doing this.

lol