• @hark@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          810 months ago

          That those with more have more control. It’s a reinvention of fiat currency. PoW also had that problem since people with more money could afford better mining hardware, but PoS is even more direct. That’s not even getting into tether printing and other bullshit. The claim is that cryptocurrency is a move away from our existing financial system, but the reality is that it’s just another arm of it.

          • @zergtoshi@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            110 months ago

            How would you construct a consensus in which contributors don’t have a stake in the game?
            How would it work and based on what incentive?
            Why would they stay honest? Because as soon as there’s any stake in play, those with money will be able to get more of it.
            I’m honestly curious and interested in viable alternatives.

        • @vrighter@discuss.tchncs.de
          link
          fedilink
          310 months ago

          it is now provably not secure. Because pos is provably not objective. Making the whole thing moot. Also, it is literally a system explicitly designed around “the rich get richer”.

        • @SuckMyWang@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          2
          edit-2
          10 months ago

          Isn’t ethereum a centralised shit coin with a money printer attached, controlled by the owners of the “foundation?”

          • @zergtoshi@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            210 months ago

            In what way is Ethereum centralized?
            The owers of ETH contribute to the consensus.
            How would the foundation control any of that?
            Mybe you confuse Ethereum with IOTA?