Enjoy your thought process and story-telling ability, especially with how you incorporate charts to give the whole picture. Have been avid follower on Twitter and RV member since Nov 22.
I wanted to post to give the "steel man" on one take, and ask a question re: eth.
First, to think about Bitcoin from the other side - you describe as resistant to innovation due to strict adherence to a principled approach, comparing to the church.
Though I see the point, I would also point to the innovations embraced by many (not all) of the BTC community - Lightning & Ordinals, to name the most prominent (to me).
In this regard, I would rephrase to say BTC is resistant to innovation for the sake of innovation, and has strongly adhered to the philosophy that the first and only priority should be the security of the supply, and a faith in future developers to improve utility and speed. I believe we have seen examples of that.
Second, to ask about ETH, and this is very simple:
How can the supply of ETH be secure under Proof-of-State?
I cannot get my head around it, and have not heard a coherent position (or any really, it seems to be purposely avoided) to reassure investors.
Am invested in both, with my position being BTC is the better technology, and ETH is better than playing with stocks...but only slightly.
Would be grateful for your attention to the question, and thank you as always.
If your genuinely interested in reading great content on why bitcoin is resistant to innovation, highly recommend following him and reading through his tweets
I read about 50 tweets, a bit of a Substack article, and then moved over Justin’s website for his fund, CryptoCapital, and clicked on “articles”.
I have to admit being quite disappointed, as the first article I clicked on was the one I hoped to answer my question, which I found to be lacking.
There is an argument that POW is a useless waste of energy compared to POS, which would be true if the security of POS was equal or exceeded POW. Clearly it is not, as we’ve seen numerous examples of POS power accumulating into consolidated hands in a way that is impossible, and perhaps is designed to, be invisible to the users on the network.
The very next paragraph of the article uses circular reasoning to promote the security of POS over POW by saying it uses less power and is therefore more secure.
The proper framing of the question must take into account the current energy expenditure required to “secure” what we use as money, which is the implicit threat of force by the US military. Arguments can be made as to what percentage of the budget of dollars, lives, natural resources, and more go toward securing the dollar vs “keeping the peace”, but “keeping the peace” restated is “defense of assets”, which is what energy cost of POW does.
I truly appreciate you sharing, but found such little validity in the first two paragraphs that I struggled to push through and finish the article. It ended on a comparison of an attack, and made the case that POS was more secure b/c it would cost less b/c there are options within proof of stake that allow for unilateral movement against an attacker.
That this option exists within POS is the inherent insecurity. It cannot be known when one or a small group of stakeholders control enough power to carry out this act, there is financial incentive to make unilateral moves in their own interest, and there is no financial disincentive to attack the network.
Security has a cost. The legacy system, the USD, is far from secure and costs the user a massive amount, in excess of 30%. Take the cost of inflation/currency debasement (depending on who writes the article) which avg about 7%/yr and rising, add taxes (federal, state, local, sales, property, capital gains).
Again, I truly appreciate the share, but the argument proposed for POS over POW is so poorly constructed that I could see through it in the first four lines.
Using the same logic, focusing on crypto as a network of economies, look for a nascent crypto ecosystem which is bridging web2 with web3 and can grow without limits using revolutionary tech
A new angle to look at crypto. I like the analogy. Excellent. Thanks Raoul
Nice writing mate
SOL analogous to South Korea. Nice analogy there Raoul!
Very informative article! Thank you!
The Monthly timeline on that Shows the real truth. Very well thought article that can behoove even the everyday retail cryptocurrency trader.
Enjoy your thought process and story-telling ability, especially with how you incorporate charts to give the whole picture. Have been avid follower on Twitter and RV member since Nov 22.
I wanted to post to give the "steel man" on one take, and ask a question re: eth.
First, to think about Bitcoin from the other side - you describe as resistant to innovation due to strict adherence to a principled approach, comparing to the church.
Though I see the point, I would also point to the innovations embraced by many (not all) of the BTC community - Lightning & Ordinals, to name the most prominent (to me).
In this regard, I would rephrase to say BTC is resistant to innovation for the sake of innovation, and has strongly adhered to the philosophy that the first and only priority should be the security of the supply, and a faith in future developers to improve utility and speed. I believe we have seen examples of that.
Second, to ask about ETH, and this is very simple:
How can the supply of ETH be secure under Proof-of-State?
I cannot get my head around it, and have not heard a coherent position (or any really, it seems to be purposely avoided) to reassure investors.
Am invested in both, with my position being BTC is the better technology, and ETH is better than playing with stocks...but only slightly.
Would be grateful for your attention to the question, and thank you as always.
If your genuinely interested in reading great content on why bitcoin is resistant to innovation, highly recommend following him and reading through his tweets
https://twitter.com/Justin_Bons/status/1635999496273375233?s=20
Thank you, Andrew.
I read about 50 tweets, a bit of a Substack article, and then moved over Justin’s website for his fund, CryptoCapital, and clicked on “articles”.
I have to admit being quite disappointed, as the first article I clicked on was the one I hoped to answer my question, which I found to be lacking.
There is an argument that POW is a useless waste of energy compared to POS, which would be true if the security of POS was equal or exceeded POW. Clearly it is not, as we’ve seen numerous examples of POS power accumulating into consolidated hands in a way that is impossible, and perhaps is designed to, be invisible to the users on the network.
The very next paragraph of the article uses circular reasoning to promote the security of POS over POW by saying it uses less power and is therefore more secure.
The proper framing of the question must take into account the current energy expenditure required to “secure” what we use as money, which is the implicit threat of force by the US military. Arguments can be made as to what percentage of the budget of dollars, lives, natural resources, and more go toward securing the dollar vs “keeping the peace”, but “keeping the peace” restated is “defense of assets”, which is what energy cost of POW does.
I truly appreciate you sharing, but found such little validity in the first two paragraphs that I struggled to push through and finish the article. It ended on a comparison of an attack, and made the case that POS was more secure b/c it would cost less b/c there are options within proof of stake that allow for unilateral movement against an attacker.
That this option exists within POS is the inherent insecurity. It cannot be known when one or a small group of stakeholders control enough power to carry out this act, there is financial incentive to make unilateral moves in their own interest, and there is no financial disincentive to attack the network.
Security has a cost. The legacy system, the USD, is far from secure and costs the user a massive amount, in excess of 30%. Take the cost of inflation/currency debasement (depending on who writes the article) which avg about 7%/yr and rising, add taxes (federal, state, local, sales, property, capital gains).
Again, I truly appreciate the share, but the argument proposed for POS over POW is so poorly constructed that I could see through it in the first four lines.
Great read
Using the same logic, focusing on crypto as a network of economies, look for a nascent crypto ecosystem which is bridging web2 with web3 and can grow without limits using revolutionary tech
$DAG is where it's at