this post was submitted on 20 May 2024
1598 points (97.2% liked)
Technology
59575 readers
3418 users here now
This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.
Our Rules
- Follow the lemmy.world rules.
- Only tech related content.
- Be excellent to each another!
- Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
- Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
- Politics threads may be removed.
- No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
- Only approved bots from the list below, to ask if your bot can be added please contact us.
- Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed
Approved Bots
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
I actually considered a non-governmental, community regulated currency as a pretty good idea.
Problem is, crypto is too ecologically expensive and wasteful to fit the bill.
While there were some interesting ones, that actually used the processing power for something useful, most are not. So for now, I'll just go with governmental currencies.
That goes against the entire history of currencies. Every successful currency in history has been controlled by either the state or a religion (which was effectively state-like).
How come? Decentralized currencies were in place long before the dictators enforced their own private currencies on to all their subjects.
Uh huh... like when?
It does go against the history of currency. And most of that history tells us why it’s a good idea to democratize currency.
It’s also an impractical idea because most governments would not be happy about it.
How come?
Energy production companies would be happy no?
Shouldn't that make at least some govt. happy?
It’s because they can’t control it in order to adjust the economy.
No... that history tells us that currency only exists when there's a state / religion in control. There's no reason for currency without a state / religion. Not only would it not work, it's also unnecessary.
Yeah, it's bad at being a currency. I don't think it's a scam or was ever intended to be. It does however suck. Currency serves convenience. Crypto sucks at that.
Only some (proof of work) crypto is ecologically expensive and wasteful.
Oh there's other's? Guess I haven't read enough.
But how to they manage to be decentralised?
Proof of stake is one method I've seen, but I'm sure there are others.
Interesting, but, giving it a quick scan, some of them look like based on personal trust and others feel kinda chicken/egg-ish.
And I may need to read it properly first, but "holdings" feels like you probably need to buy some of it first, presumably using some other currency.
Yes, that's the usual criticism. To be able to stake, you need to have currency, promoting a rich get richer kind of scheme.
As long as they use energy they are wasteful, considering they don't provide anything constructive for that wasted energy which could have been used for better things.
By this argument any website is wasteful. There's always a "better thing".
Banks also use energy, so banks are wasteful too