I can create as many Bitcoin/eth/etc wallets as I want.
The whole point of proof of work is Sybil-resistance. Because your voting power is tied to your hash rate, you can't just conjure up a bunch of voting power by creating as many wallets as you want. Ethereum's move to proof of stake keeps Sybil resistance but trades the power consumption of PoW for some amount of centralisation (because you need to hold funds to vote).
My point was that the reason that people are doing all this work on the blockchain because no other solution has been shown to be better. Anyone that says "blockchain is not needed for that" should at least provide a better solution, or say "I actually prefer to keep the status quo".
We actively see this all the time on smaller scales (credit cards, global franchises, FAANG), but the idea of someone doing it at a larger scale should make us hesitate.
- You do realize that the comment was tongue-in-cheek?
- There is no "resource draining" here. Even if someone found a way to solve the problem of distributed consensus without using a blockchain and found a way to make money out of it, they would be rich by wealth creation: new products, new services, new business.
Real innovation is a lot of hard work. Recently I read a book by this guy
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lenny_Lipton
because I am teaching myself to make stereograms. Lipton spent a few years in the 1970s figuring out how to make quality stereo movies with the goal of developing a better system for exhibiting stereo movies. In 1980 he wrote a book (that book) which was a lot like a PhD thesis, he then invented the modern system for 3D movies with circular polarized light and sold his company in 2005. In the end he "got rich" but it wasn't quick.
The blockhead ideology is a lot like the Amway ideology... Really working, creating something, building something, serving customers, is a lot of work for not enough remuneration. There's got to be some magic secret to riches without effort, and once you've got people to believe it exists, you can exploit them.
> Web3 is often more interested in moving money around (e.g. "Ponzi Schemes") than really creating anything.
And "Web 2.0" was more interested in taking some Unix utility and turning them into a web service that could be walled off and monetized. There hardly was any ~real innovation~.
See how ridiculous it sounds?
Why would I? It's well-established that tone does not come across through text.
> There is no "resource draining" here. Even if someone found a way to solve the problem of distributed consensus without using a blockchain and found a way to make money out of it, they would be rich by wealth creation: new products, new services, new business.
While I see what you're saying, I don't think I properly explained my point as yours is not a counter to it. By "resource draining" I mean that overall the creators could get richer compared to everyone else. Even if they took say $0.01 from every transaction those pennies slowly add up. A dollar 'spent' by changing hands 10 times is actually $0.90. A dollar 'spent' 100 times has been effectively drained of all it's value with that value funnelled to the hands of those running the system. In a scenario like that, wealth creation as you've defined it actually pours fuel on the fire. Every business uses a huge amount of transactions to pay operational costs, and all of their customers generate transactions every time they pay.
We currently have this playing out in various ways (for example franchise markups) and even though it's so highly fragmented it's still an issue where wealth is concentrating at the top. So it follows that if the rich get richer, the rest must get less rich by comparison.
Bitcoin was effectively invented 'today', yet you don't have to buy into a pyramid scheme to use it.[1] For example, you could simply use it for cross-border remittance to avoid paying Western Union's high fees, without ever holding bitcoin, by using an app like Strike to send dollars from the US to El Salvador (using bitcoin's instantaneous lightning network as the payment rails behind the scenes)[2]. Or you could prove the existence of a digital document at a certain time by using Peter Todd's Open Timestamps[3], which simply puts a hash or your file into an Op Return on bitcoin's blockchain. Or, you could work on developing software or providing support or writing tutorials for the bisq protocol, get paid for your work with their bisq token (which is simply colored bitcoin), and cash out to have you national currency dumped in your bank account using the bisq software which has been developed and supported by a decentralized community with its governance built directly on bitcoin.[4]
If you really still think bitcoin is a pyramid scheme, there's plenty or ways one could benefit from it without having to "buy in" or hold it. But if you put in the time and learn, you'll discover bitcoin is innovative technology, distinctly separate from the crypto space awash with scams and rug-pulls, like the fiat world already is.
[1] https://www.lynalden.com/bitcoin-ponzi-scheme/
> but at least it means that I have a recourse if something goes wrong
Have you actually tried it out? I lost several domains through no fault of mine (2 times fault of registrar, 1 time fault of national TLD manager) and absolutely nobody helped me. Even tried suing - in 2 cases (the registrar fault) I got small monetary compensation for lost profit (so good luck with personal domains) but the domain was always lost forever. And when it was the TLD's fault I got nothing whatsoever.
BitTorrent suffers from this problem; they even have a term for it: leeching. It's managed to survive despite this purely off of the generosity and goodwill of a community of dedicated users, but if BitTorrent were to ever have its eternal September moment I suspect the problem would quickly be felt rather acutely.
With other systems like decentralized cloud storage[1] or decentralized DNS[2] where there are no inherent practical limits on how many resources a single user can consume, the consequences of not including a currency component would be even more severe.
As for the "no recourse" problem, that's inherent to the very idea of self-sovereignty. Yes it's a weakness with decentralized systems, but it's also their greatest strength.
[1]: https://sia.tech/
If bittorent was invented today you'd have to buy into some pyramid scheme to use it.
Beyond that having a trusted third party does suck for some things, but at least it means that I have a recourse if something goes wrong. With cryptocrap I'm one hack away from losing my life savings, my domain, the history of all my transactions and even my monkey pictures!