FaceDeer

I have little to say about this because it’s basically nonsense.

The top 100 accounts already own 35% of the network and rising … that would give Lido and Coinbase a combined 51% of the stake

These two statements are completely incompatible with each other, for example. Also, the top 100 accounts only holding 35% of the network is remarkably good. And Lido is not controlled by a single individual or organization. And holding 51% of the stake means nothing on Ethereum, it works differently from Bitcoin. And the Gini coefficient is something that applies to national economies, not to blockchains. And I could go on, but this is just nonsense and you clearly have no idea what you’re talking about.

There are lots of uses that don’t depend on external data. The general “digital payments” use case, for example, just requires tokens to be transferred between two accounts on the blockchain itself. People then make use of that information externally however they like.

There are also ways to get external data onto the blockchain in a manner that is reliable enough for some particular purpose or another. A lot of game theory goes into that sort of application. Stabletokens have price oracles, there are prediction markets, “proof of personhood” protocols, etc.

The important things to consider are:

• Blockchains are not ideal for every single application, and that’s perfectly fine. Use the tool that’s best for the job.
• On the flipside, if you’re not familiar with a field then there are probably a lot of nuances and existing applications that you’ll be unaware of. So don’t be too quick to dismiss it either.

This applies to pretty much every field of technology.

Admit what? There are a huge range of possible designs that could be called “Proof of Stake”, and some of them could easily have that flaw. You can always design something poorly. Ethereum, the most widely used Proof of Stake token, doesn’t have that flaw in its design.

And those that do don’t download and run code willy-nilly.

Modern blockchains like Ethereum don’t use ASICs and don’t consume any more energy than a normal database would. They use proof-of-stake rather than proof-of-work.

There are a type of tokens called stablecoins that are specifically designed to have a consistent price over time. Use those for your store checkouts.

There is one core purpose that blockchains solve that traditional databases don’t; decentralization.

If you’re running something that can work just fine with a centralized database, go ahead and do that. Use the right tool for the job.

Blockchains are for applications where you can’t depend on a “trusted authority” to support you. When you want to be sure you’re free of any outside interference in the things you’re doing, that no server can “go down” and take all of your data or operations with it.

An example of a non-financial-related activity I can offer is the Ethereum Name Service, ENS, which is a decentralized version of the DNS system. You can register a domain name with it and never have to worry about it being “seized” or going offline due to a networking failure.

You have to solve the sibyl problem, or else someone can just run 10,000 copies of the validator software on one computer,

That’s solved on Ethereum by requiring you to stake tokens that cost money. You would need an enormous amount of money to afford to spin up 10000 validators.

submit enough votes for a false record that it overwhelms any competing votes

I’m afraid you’re not very familiar with how Ethereum works. 10,000 validators isn’t anywhere near enough to disrupt the system, all you would do is burn your stake and lose all that money if you tried that.

Even if you acquired enough stake to prevent finality - 2/3 of the total stake would be required, costing tens of billions of dollars and taking years to work your way through the entry queue - all you’d do then is cause a huge annoyance to everyone on the system while your tens of billions rapidly burned down to below the threshold and finality resumed again. You wouldn’t be able to insert “fake” transactions.

People have been working on blockchain technology for a long time, these sorts of basic attacks have long ago been accounted for.

Which is completely useless if the data that goes into that blockchain isn’t guaranteed to be correct.

You’re missing the point of this. It just matters that it’s consistent. The transactions that are put into the blockchain just have to follow the rules of the blockchain and be the same for everyone who reads the blockchain. That’s all that “correctness” means as far as the blockchain is concerned.

And if there’s money in it you can bet your ass that someone will try to game the system.

Blockchains depend on everyone involved trying to game the system. They’re built using game theory to ensure that the most selfish actions for any particular actor are the best ones for the blockchain as a whole.

This isn’t anything like how validating in proof-of-stake works (at least not in Ethereum’s version, which is the one I’m familiar with). Validating is permissionless. Anyone can set up a validating account, there’s no authority that can reject you.

Who “authorizes” keys to determine if a particular solarpunk miner is sufficiently solarpunk?

No, that’s not how proof of stake works. Or it doesn’t have to, at any rate. Ethereum’s staking token is not a governance token, holding a lot of it doesn’t give you any “ownership” of the blockchain as a whole.

Quite the opposite in fact, if you’re staking millions of dollars worth of tokens then that means the blockchain has millions of dollars worth of your assets “held hostage” to ensure you follow the blockchain’s rules. If you don’t then the hostage gets slashed.

First we’d need to establish whether there actually is a “why.” That’s an unspoken assumption you’re making, not something we know to be true.

It probably wouldn’t be much of a “civil war”, pretty much everyone would just say “that’s nice Charles” and then go pass a law explicitly removing that ability.

Yes, that’s me, and it’s not blaming. It’s describing the problem. I’m not saying whether these things should be law or regulation or whatever, I’m explaining why these things are being overturned in court.

I’m really baffled by what the point of this argument is. Are you trying to say that things are working as intended?

I’m not “blaming” anyone. I’m describing what’s happening. The reason why it’s happening is irrelevant.

We’re saying the same thing. The government is not operating according to how the constitution says it’s supposed to be working.

So you’re saying that it’s the courts that are behaving incorrectly according to their role in the constitution? If so, that doesn’t change the underlying point I’m making here.

“.glb file specification” gets that as its first hit on Google, too. OP was just being incredibly lazy and ironically was expecting the search engine to figure out what she wanted without telling it explicitly.

Over an hour into the video. Not going to be seen by anyone who doesn’t already buy in to the headline.

Ironically, I just asked an AI to tell me what the video’s justification for the title was.

The speaker clarifies that they are using the terms “parasite” and “cancer” in a precise way to describe generative AI. ● Generative AI is parasitic because it relies on human communication and creativity for training data but simultaneously erodes and destroys those very things. The speaker compares it to a parasite that drains resources from its host without offering any benefits in return. ● Generative AI is cancerous because it spreads rapidly, replacing authentic human content with AI-generated content, and dealing with it will likely be difficult and have unintended consequences. The speaker acknowledges that addressing this problem, much like chemotherapy for cancer, might inadvertently harm “healthy cells” as well.

The speaker chose this title to emphasize their serious concerns about the negative impact of generative AI on human creativity, communication, and the internet. They believe generative AI is harmful because it deceives users by presenting AI-generated content as human-created. The speaker clarifies their word choice to preempt potential criticism and ensure their message is understood.

I just wish they were interesting NPCs.