Proof of stake is fundamentally regressive. Literally, whomever has the most tokens also has the most governance weight. It is basically “1 dollar, 1 vote” rather than “1 person, 1 vote”.
On proof of work, whomever has the most tokens (I guess you mean “money”?), can have the best hardware, so also has the most governance weight. But on proof of work, it seems like you get discounts the more money you are ready to invest. So PoW would also be worse in those terms. Anyway, both algorithms work by providing more voting power to the richest, one a little more than the other. So I wouldn’t personally argue about proof of stake being bad because of that reason. Both algorithms are basically shit (in terms of democracy or whatever). I don’t have much knowledge about that, but there might be a better alternative than Proof of stake, don’t know.
I am not aware of any crypto consensus algorithm that is not regressive. This is an argument against all cryptocurrencies and blockchains, not just Proof of Stake.
What has proven far more equitable than any decentralized consensus algorithm is a fiat currency issued and controlled by an institution accountable to a democratic constituency.
All currencies are volatile. Your dollar or euro today does not have the same value it had yesterday, or will have tomorrow. Currencies are merely commodities that have no utility in their own right beyond their fungibility.
Often, your dollar or your euro fluctuates in value due to any number of manipulations that various actors (both government and private) perform. Monero should be more resistant to that.
In fact it isn’t only nonsense it is actively harmful.
There is a long paper trail of monetary theory that only because money is a “superior” trade good compared to anything else, the horrible excesses of capitalism could develop in they way they did.
a currency like Bitcoin credible as a store of value
No
without impinging on the privacy of the currency creator
I think you will have a hard time in any jurisdiction if you want to stay anonymous as a creator of such a system without making a loss
or holders
There are schemes that use cryptographic tokens instead of blockchains that can actually provide some anonymity and they don’t even waste that much energy. (e.g. GNU Taler)
Mullvad actually allows you to generate a random user id number string, write that on a piece of paper, then send that paper and cash through the mail to pay for VPN time. It wouldn’t be quick, but its possible.
Ah yes ProtonVPN, the service that takes the worlds most traceable payment method (BTC) and where my account magically stopped working one day with no recovery.
It’s very unstable at the moment and that’s unattractive for day-to-day purchasing. If speculators would loose interest it would be great for using it more like functional money.
Pretty much every financial system in the world requires you to know your customers. This means the gov’t will eventually catch up with you and either shut you down or you’ll roll. The days where you could hide behind certain banking laws are basically gone now. For a crypto to be a credible store of value, it has to be expected to be so for, well forever. That’s what makes it credible.
Only for larger transactions to prevent money laundaring. Basically regular cash transactions could also be done online anonymously as long as the seller is transparent to tax authorities.
GNU Taler conceptualizes such a system where the buyer is anonymous but the seller is not.
Monero
I mean there is always low tech options like gold and silver. Check out the goldback
I believe that already exists. The real problem is creating a cryptocurrency that doesn’t destroy the planet.
Proof of stake easily solves that
Proof of stake is fundamentally regressive. Literally, whomever has the most tokens also has the most governance weight. It is basically “1 dollar, 1 vote” rather than “1 person, 1 vote”.
On proof of work, whomever has the most tokens (I guess you mean “money”?), can have the best hardware, so also has the most governance weight. But on proof of work, it seems like you get discounts the more money you are ready to invest. So PoW would also be worse in those terms. Anyway, both algorithms work by providing more voting power to the richest, one a little more than the other. So I wouldn’t personally argue about proof of stake being bad because of that reason. Both algorithms are basically shit (in terms of democracy or whatever). I don’t have much knowledge about that, but there might be a better alternative than Proof of stake, don’t know.
I am not aware of any crypto consensus algorithm that is not regressive. This is an argument against all cryptocurrencies and blockchains, not just Proof of Stake.
What has proven far more equitable than any decentralized consensus algorithm is a fiat currency issued and controlled by an institution accountable to a democratic constituency.
The problem is there isn’t a cryptocurrency that is both private and uses proof of stake
People saying “Monero” - How is Monero a store of value if its price is volatile? The whole “Store of value” argument is nonsense
I don’t worry about the DXY when transacting in dollars. The exchange-value isn’t what I’m after. I’m after the hardest, best money.
All currencies are volatile. Your dollar or euro today does not have the same value it had yesterday, or will have tomorrow. Currencies are merely commodities that have no utility in their own right beyond their fungibility.
Often, your dollar or your euro fluctuates in value due to any number of manipulations that various actors (both government and private) perform. Monero should be more resistant to that.
How is Fiat money a store of value if its price is volatile?
In fact it isn’t only nonsense it is actively harmful.
There is a long paper trail of monetary theory that only because money is a “superior” trade good compared to anything else, the horrible excesses of capitalism could develop in they way they did.
Maybe attempt to expand upon it then. So that more people might come to understand it.
Monero.
Yes
this is the way
No
I think you will have a hard time in any jurisdiction if you want to stay anonymous as a creator of such a system without making a loss
There are schemes that use cryptographic tokens instead of blockchains that can actually provide some anonymity and they don’t even waste that much energy. (e.g. GNU Taler)
Today, I learned that the FSF has crypto software.
You mean like monero?
pay with cash, wear a mask
That unfortunately won’t work forever once AI gait tracking becomes better.
Yea let me order my VPN subscription in cash real quick
Mullvad actually allows you to generate a random user id number string, write that on a piece of paper, then send that paper and cash through the mail to pay for VPN time. It wouldn’t be quick, but its possible.
Protonvpn
Ah yes ProtonVPN, the service that takes the worlds most traceable payment method (BTC) and where my account magically stopped working one day with no recovery.
No thanks
It’s very unstable at the moment and that’s unattractive for day-to-day purchasing. If speculators would loose interest it would be great for using it more like functional money.
How would making it stable erode it’s privacy?
Pretty much every financial system in the world requires you to know your customers. This means the gov’t will eventually catch up with you and either shut you down or you’ll roll. The days where you could hide behind certain banking laws are basically gone now. For a crypto to be a credible store of value, it has to be expected to be so for, well forever. That’s what makes it credible.
Only for larger transactions to prevent money laundaring. Basically regular cash transactions could also be done online anonymously as long as the seller is transparent to tax authorities.
GNU Taler conceptualizes such a system where the buyer is anonymous but the seller is not.
Very good to know! Thanks for adding this.