mjnaus

You mean widely known amongst a handful of dusty TV dwellers?

From my personal experience, I have found that most fanatical crypto opponents either have no money to invest or do have a position in crypto which they're keeping a secret. Or, final option, they don't invest because their hand puppet doesn't allow them to.

I have a better question: how many chickens would it take to kill an elephant?

It probably is ???? Don't give up on me though...

It sure is, my friend ????

Fair enough. Yes, in theory this would be possible. However, in practical terms, it's extremely unlikely (under PoW, under PoS it becomes even more unlikely). If someone would want to launch a succesfull 51% attack, they'd have two options: rent existing hashrate or build their own. For the first option, you'd have to convince more than half of the miners to participate in the attack. Compensating miners to the extend they'd participate would likely mean the organizing attacker giving up most of their gains. Furthermore, organizing all the different mining entities and aligning them to perform the attack is just nearly impossible to organize. The second option, building the infrastructure from scratch, is also extremely difficult. The amount of hardware needed to make this work, and the capital requirements, make it such that only nation states or large corporations would, in theory, be able to pull this off. In addition, Ethereum has a trick up their sleeves, if someone would launch such an attack. A protocol has been put in place where the Network can do a 'quick merge' where it would switch over to the PoS chain. Although 51% attacks are possible, and have taken place on smaller chains, successfully executing one on larger networks like Bitcoin or Ethereum is practically near impossible. As is evident by simply looking at these chain's history; the gains to be had are huge, if it could be done, it would have been done.

Hey, I am not attacking anybody. I'd never. I am just looking out for my pals. Wouldn't want you to miss that nap as it might impact your abilities to engage in these intellectually challenging back-and-forth's ???? I think we all stopped taking this serious, my friend. At this point, it's just silly banter.

Ah, there he is! Was already starting to miss your "contributions" to this thread. Started to worry you may had wandered out the gate, but happy to see you're back. Almost time for that afternoon nap, eh?

Lol yeah, that must be it. I probably don't understand... nor does anybody else probably, except of course yourself ???? See, I could again try and explain how ETH is a productive asset, as well as a SoV asset. But we have been down that road, haven't we? So let's not bother and move on with our day.

This was explained to you, in detail, at least twice. Very well articulated as I remember. But again, you simply ignored half of it, and dismissed the rest. Lol, ok. You think you should get browny points for repeating people's posts and providing unsubstantiated dismissals? Sorry to burst your bubble there bud, but that's not how arguments are won. Again; we don't have to agree. You don't see the value in crypto, believe its existence isn't justified, etc. All good. Let's leave it at that and move on. Surely we can agree that this discussion is getting beyond pointless and has just turned into a waste of time.

Yes, of course. If you can cough up upwards of 51% of the hashrate, you could in theory attack the network. On both Ethereum and Bitcoin, sustaining a 51% attack for one hour would cost roughly $2.5mil.

Lol.... that just exactly proves my point. We can keep on going round in circles like this forever. As I said before; waste of time. You do not see the value in crypto/blockchain. Great! Let's move on.,

No, we're not in agreement. This is not how securing a blockchain works. A chain's security budget (let's stick with Ethereum for now), is detached from the data it is securing. You can think this is good, or bad, for a variety of reasons. However, this is the reality. The security budget is simply there to secure block data, whether it's ETH transactions, stable coin transactions, NFT's or any other data. So that claim goes out the window right there. In the case of Ethereum, the security budget has two components: 1) block rewards (direct issuance) and 2) transaction fees. The former is, while we're still under PoW, is determined in relation to the costs of mining blocks (it's typically determined by community consensus and has been reduced several times over the years). The latter is determined by an auction mechanism, and therefor is based on supply/demand balance. Both components are 100% unrelated to the data they're securing. It's very possible you're paying more in transaction fees for a transaction that has zero monetary value then you'd pay for a transaction moving 100ETH from one wallet to another. It makes much more sense to look at a holistic security approach where every single transaction is as secure as any other, no matter what the monetary value of those transactions are.

You, and several others, have been given dozens of examples of how crypto and blockchain tech is used TODAY and of how it is solving problems TODAY. You simply choose to discount, dismiss or ignore these. At this point, it is painstakingly obvious that you have dug yourself into your position of "all crypto is useless, a scam, etc" like an Alabama tick. Nothing any of us can say or do is going to change your mind. If the World Bank would tomorrow announce they have embraced crypto/blockchain, you would pull some mind-boggling mental gymnastics to somehow make that fit with your chosen narrative. You might as well just give it a rest. Granted, you're not as big a troll as GrandPa @GrandPapillon, but it's getting up there. This might be unintentional, or not. However, it would benefit everyone in these threads to be aware of the above. Including yourself. Asking people to continue to give you examples, etc is a waste of time, for everyone. Let's just all accept that there's always going to be people, such as yourself, who will continue beating the "crypto is useless/scam/<flavour-of-the-day>" drum while the rest of the world has simply moved on. Agree to disagree. I, for one, couldn't care less. I rest easy knowing I gave it my best ????

GrandPa, why nobody has offered you a book deal yet is beyond me.

You're hilarious! (and I actually mean that). Now enjoy that cracker and have a nap ????

There there, oldtimer. Have another Werther's. You just let them young folk worry about the "grand profiteering" ????

It's a scary world out there. Best lock your doors! ????

Queue the dusty TV financial experts explaining to us that Chamath: - is clueless / stupid - does not understand tech or money - is only in it for the hype - is part of a Chinese/Ukrainian hacker collective aiming to scam people out of their valuable fiat

I don't mind shining some light on this one. This might sound strange to someone such as yourself, however high gas fees on the L1 is actually GOOD. It's a sign that the blockchain is working. Let me unpack that for you. All an L1 blockchain does is sell block space, ie a secure, immutable place to write data to. This blockspace is sold through free market mechanisms on the Ethereum network; it's determined by supply and demand. The fact that gas prices are high simply indicates that demand is outpacing supply. I, for one, take that as an indication that Ethereum is doing something right. Moving forward, Ethereum's L1 won't be the place where you transfer $100 worth of stable coins to someone, where you mint NFT's or settle other tiny transactions. All those lower transactions will be moving to L2 (real L2's like optimistic or zk roll-ups) or side chains (like Matic) where your transaction fees will be close to zero. The L1 will more and more establish itself as the main settlement layer for roll-up settlement and large transactions. It's been long predicted that every L1 that becomes succesfull, ie reaches product/market fit (as is indicated by having full blocks) will see it's transaction fees rise. This is why most people in the Ethereum community don't see this as a big deal. The ONLY way to keep transaction costs low on the L1 is to increase throughput to such an extend that you'll be sacrificing either scalability or security (the blockchain trilemma). Another interesting side effect of high gas costs.... it actually benefits ETH holders. Since IEP1559, about 80% of the transaction fees is being burned (ie destroyed). This puts deflationary pressure on the L1 asset and therefor tends to drive its price up. Since IEP1559 went live, 699,462.05 ETH has been removed from circulation (just over $3bil with the current price).

XRP is a centralized bag of hot garbage, whereas BTC and ETH are not. Hence the difference in current price action. Furthermore, XRP has a market cap of around $52bil, however it's fully diluted valuation is more than twice that. It doesn't require a math genius to figure out what will happen to the price of XRP when that remaining $52bil hits circulation. Plus the SEC suits aren't going away, which surely does not help.

If you have 32 ETH to spare, running your own validator would be the most secure option. Even without the technical know-how, it's still viable path for larger holders as there are many service providers that'll configure and run your validator for you. If going down this path, choosing a trustworthy provider is important though, since if your validator goes offline, doesn't update to the latest version or does something else that hinders properly validating a block, it is your 32 ETH at stake (doing something not-quite-right can result in you loosing some of your staked ETH). If running your own validator isn't your cup of thee and you're looking to lock up less then the required 32 ETH, joining a pool is the next best thing. When going this route, you've got a number of options, ranging from the large, centralized exchanges to more decentralized pools. Nobody can make this choice for you; and both have trade-offs. Keep in mind that most exchanges provide custodial staking services, meaning THEY control when you get to un-stake your ETH (even though they might claim they do not). I have personally chosen NOT to let a centralized party stake ETH on my behave and went with a more decentralized pool service named Lido. Lido is a so-called "liquid" staking pool. This means that, in return for locking up your ETH, you get a token in return (sETH) which has a couple of benefits: first off, the sETH token can, at any time, be converted back into regular ETH and thereby bypassing the lock-up period (albeit at a slight loss) and the second being that sETH allows you to play in DeFi (you can LP your sETH on Curve for example, opening the doors to yield farming with an APY of around 15%). Lido is not yet fully decentralized, but they're on the right path. Another popular decentralized pool is RocketPool. I guess the order of decisions you'll need to make can be summarized as such: How much ETH am I willing to lock up? If >= 32 ETH, looking into your own validator is good option. If < 32 ETH, are you comfortable with a centralized exchange staking for you? Yes: Coinbase/eToro/BInance/etc No: Lido/Rocketpool There might be more to unpack when it comes to making your decision, but the above are broad outlines of the current staking landscape. Happy to provide more info if wanted.

That's one down, many to follow: https://decrypt.co/83914/sec-vaneck-launch-bitcoin-futures-etf. Bitcoin ETF's, albeit the <deleted>ty futures based kind, are just the beginning. Only a matter of time before the first ETH based ETF starts trading.

Lol. https://decrypt.co/83521/sec-proshares-bitcoin-futures-etf-start-trading Now, who was wrong again bud? Perhaps you should hit up Gensler and tell him what a huge mistake he's making ???? I'm sure he'd listen to a well-informed, knowledgable expert such as yourself.

Bought a couple a few years back, from the manufacturer (be careful with ordering from alternative place) while in Thailand. Not a problem at all.