ellynu

1

ellynu wrote

i disagree with communism as being definitionally moneyless (unless we mean strictly marxist communism, i guess)

that would be the correct definition, yes.

so: how would you go about implementing that labour voucher? i mean this. i really can't see anything better than a cryptographically secured system for doing this

not an expert but i imagine you could do that just fine and not need a blockchain or anything. especially considering how slow they are at doing transactions and you would expect people to be creating and then destroying one like, once a day or so? billions of changes in state every day when cryptocurrencies seem to top out around a million or so currently, even if they continue improving that's off by a factor of 1000 or so. the cost per transaction seems really steep too.

or, 6,900 people get together and put together $10 each worth of ethereum. it's called pooling and it's been around forever

so everyone gets 1/6900 or 0.014492753% of what ever percent chance of a reward whenever more ethereum is made? seems like a raw deal to me, honestly. why wouldn't rich people have, say, 51%+ of the value of ETH in rich stakeholders split their holdings into 32 ETH chunks, become a ton of validators, then only validate themselves getting anything? the ethereum docs seem to just suggest this wouldn't happen because it would lose value, but what if they just work secretly? why assume that a bunch of people with tons of money are gonna act rationally? i mean... have you seen markets?

in proof-of-stake, extra coins are made by sitting on coins. money is made by buying those coins with money, and then sitting on the coins hoping others will buy them for more money later.

so cryptocurrency is not a currency, it is a commodity you trade money for to sit on in hopes it gains more value? what gives it value that say, beanie babies didn't have?

this isn't a problem with proof-of-stake. this isn't tied to choice of consensus mechanism, and this problem isn't unique to cryptocurrencies.

except it is a problem with it because the value of it is a bubble, and it apparently doesn't even work as a currency? doesn't have to be unique to cryptocurrencies to be a huge problem with them.

1

ellynu wrote

currencies will still be a part of communist economies

this is not true, categorically so. communism being the stateless, classless, moneyless society with common ownership of the means of production. the lower stage would use labour vouchers, which are non-transferable and not currency, then later wouldn't need them any more.

and looking up ethereum's proof of stake model

Proof-of-stake is the underlying mechanism that activates validators upon receipt of enough stake. For Ethereum, users will need to stake 32 ETH to become a validator. Validators are chosen at random to create blocks and are responsible for checking and confirming blocks they don't create.

32 ETH is currently $68,818.56. i will never see that much money in my entire life. money is made by being really rich and sitting on it?

2

ellynu wrote

bees are good because they make hexagons

1

ellynu wrote

tbh i kind of assumed that, given this is a predominately leftist forum, that there would like cryptocurrencies and see them as good

i'm a communist so i'm not really into trying to make new currencies inside of capitalism, or managing current ones either

it'd be silly to dismiss proof-of-stake coins

why? all of my reading on it makes it seem like a sort of defense of ethereum et al, "oh some time in the future we'll invent the way to do the thing that makes it okay".

it's free to make a new cryptocurrency, so if rich fuckers are redistributing wealth a little bit because they won't even pay someone to understand things for them, then that's actually cool and good.

based on my knowledge of marx and cryptocurrency it seems to me like its basically petite bourgeois peeps pushing money around.

1

ellynu wrote

so whoever has the most for the longest is determining who gets more? what is even the point of cryptocurrency then? it all just seems like grifts upon grifts, reinventing the current state of things but even worse this time.

4

ellynu wrote

will they bring henry cavill's mustache back?

5

ellynu wrote

this would mean the speed of light is also slightly off because they used mirrors and lasers to measure this

3

ellynu wrote

more like getting the banned back together am i right

3

ellynu wrote

it's kinda interesting in the sense that when you look at the two big companies making closed source operating systems, they are completely opposite on that. can you imagine if microsoft were to cut 32-bit application support like apple did?

3

ellynu wrote

that's the policy. people don't care why it doesn't work, they just want their software to work and not break. and microsoft has their employees make sure that happens.

5

ellynu wrote

read this pdf for some fun examples of the problems they have had to deal with, here's one of my favorites:

"One card game tried to make changes to the system.ini file but ended up destroying it. The game read the system.ini file a line at a time into an 80-character buffer, made any necessary changes, and wrote the result to a temporary file. If any line contained more than 80 characters, the buffer overflowed and corrupted the next variable on the stack, which happened to be the name of the temporary file! Once the changes were made, the program deleted the system.ini file and renamed the temporary file to system.ini. But the rename operation failed because the name of the temporary file was corrupted by the extra-long line.The result: a system with no system configuration file.In other words, installing this program rendered your system unbootable.The fix from the operating system side was to go through all the components of the system that used the system.ini file and make sure none of them ever wrote lines longer than 80 characters."

3

ellynu wrote

i believe windows using the backslash to this day is the result of an absurd level of backwards compatibility. ms-dos didn't have directories originally, and they used / for switches instead of -. so for file directories, they used \.