communism being the stateless, classless, moneyless society with common ownership of the means of production

glad you brought this up. i disagree with communism as being definitionally moneyless (unless we mean strictly marxist communism, i guess)

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

32 ETH is currently $68,818.56. i will never see that much money in my entire life.

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

also, staking is not necessary -- at all -- to participate in ethereum. it only matters if you want to act as a validator and make a tiny bit of profit.

money is made by being really rich and sitting on it?

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. 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.

sounds bad

my favorite archimedean solid is the truncated icosidodecahedron. the best part of it are the hexagons, which come from the truncation

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

currencies will still be a part of communist economies. even then, most of us are still living in a capitalist context.

ironically, venezuela is probably the most interesting example here. citizens are using bitcoin for every day transactions (despite the issues that make bitcoin suck for that), and the government even launched its own cryptocurrency (petro, but there are issues here and it kind of sucks)

why [is it silly to dismiss proof-of-stake]? 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".

ahh, that's just totally inaccurate though. i'd reconsider those readings and i wouldn't trust whoever's saying that, unless the writings are from 10 years ago or so.

proof-of-stake protocols already exist, they've existed since 2012 and they've only gotten better since then (addressing security concerns, getting rid of hybrid pow/pos needs, etc.)

with ethereum specifically: the PoS chain is already live. you can transact on the 2.0 chain. all that's left is to force everyone else to move over, which is the tough part, and has active ongoing development. the work is on git repos so it's all public

someone once told me "it's not gendered, there are male karens too," in full sincerity

so whoever has the most for the longest is determining who gets more?

that roughly describes many proof of stake protocols for open and decentralized coins. except that it is distributed randomly across holding nodes, e.g. a party with 5% of stake will have a roughly 5% chance to mine the next block and get a lil bit of money.

many cryptocurrencies, such as bitcoin, have a supply cap. when it runs out, block miners get no payout for mining the block, and they only profit from tips.

there are other currencies with other models, e.g. with Diem, Facebook gets to decide who gets more money. i don't think that's better.

with paper dollars, whoever can make a convincing enough bill (legitimate or counterfeit) decides who gets more of that money.

what is even the point of cryptocurrency then?

tbh i kind of assumed that, given this is a predominately leftist forum, that there would like cryptocurrencies and see them as good, but dislike being labelled with the gendered n dismissive term "crypto bro." this post was meant to be "it's okay to like cryptocurrencies" but it seems i'm alone :(

these problems aren't inherent to cryptocurrencies. for the ecological impact, bitcoin ofc should die, but it'd be silly to dismiss proof-of-stake coins. it'll be an improvement on the ecological footprint of (1) digital banking and all the garbage that goes into it and (2) the global arms race of anti-counterfeit measures on paper money.

it all just seems like grifts upon grifts

i mean yeah there's a lot of digital scams out there and that's not new? it's not like get-rich-quick schemes first appeared after bitcoin hit $200. i don't have any sympathy for people with lots of money to invest anyways, and i don't care if they lose it because they put their money into some random datastructure they don't understand.

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.

proof of steak

big agreement

i luv jstpst

crouton.net

yes

Tbh even IRC has a high barrier of entry for technical people who want message logs and basic privacy (i.e. ZNC).

I'm kind of shocked there isn't some free or very-cheap ZNC service out there, I'd much rather pay $5/mo to a service that does all the hard work than $5/mo to manage my own VPS.