"They are doing it too" is a favorite argument of crypto-enthousiasts. I'd argue the answer here is not more madness (crypto), but a serious attempt to fix the traditional financial system.
We basically have low inflation and a savings craze as a driver of a housing bubble in 2008 as people were looking for perfect, risk free bonds (no such thing can exist outside government bonds and even those are just best effort).
The people behind Bitcoin were basically thinking: Ok, our banking system failed because of low inflation and a savings craze. Let's make both of those worse so that it will never become possible to run an economy on top of Bitcoin.
Fiat banking failed because an aging population has a strong saving preference to the point that it chokes out businesses. The idea behind saving is that you release production capacity in the economy so it can be used on something else. The population isn't going to stop aging. The problem is going to get worse over time. There won't be a something else unless the government artificially uses the savings on that something else.
Is TFA specific enough for you? It appears to be about the inevitable outcome of imitating banks in an unregulated context. A top level comment here is about the outcry for regulation that this then produces.
I think the point is that starting over will just create a new equally broken system. So then we'll have two broken systems. Humanity could've instead used all that time/effort/capital to continue improving on traditional finance as we have been doing over the past century.
The current financial system becomes more robust every time a black swan event like 2008 occurs.
I wrote Skepticoin as a serious parody of Bitcoin. Articles like these about the "state of the art" of cryptocurrency make me wonder: would a parody of a more "modern" cryptocurrency even be recognizable as such?
I can't imagine it'd be possible. There're a whole lot of Andy Kaufman-esque / kayfabe / "the most entertaining outcome is the most likely" things going on.
Literally no conceivable parody could work as an actual parody, I think. There are coins people are getting rich off of with names and logos like "Pregnant Butt", "CumRocket", racial slurs, etc.
There's absolutely no doubt in my mind that if it hasn't already happened, coins named "Scamcoin", "Rugcoin", "Ponzicoin", "This is a scam coin, please ignore", "If you invest in this you will lose all of your money and be the laughingstock of your friends, family, and communitycoin" could probably quickly reach million/billion-dollar market caps.
You could make a token with a smart contract which self-destructs itself at a random time, and explicitly disclose this fact, and it'd still probably get a huge market cap and retain it up until the day it explodes. Or you could make one that does this, don't disclose the fact, have millions of dollars flow in without a single person ever looking at the code, and get the same result. (Doesn't matter if you do or don't publish the verified source code; if you do, no one will look at it, and if you don't, no one will notice/care that you didn't before investing their life savings in it.)
Poe's law doesn't even quite describe it, because it's not that you can't distinguish between parody and sincere absurdity. There's just no difference between the two in terms of actual real-world outcome. Whether you make an intentionally or unintentionally terrible coin, and whether or not you're open about it and whether or not people are aware of it, it's still going to receive a ton of investment.
And it pretty much makes sense why this is and will be the case (unless the US government starts cracking down). People are buying because they find it entertaining and think other people will find it entertaining and buy and that they'll think other people will find it entertaining and buy, etc. And then they just wait until their initial investment multiplies a bit and they try to get out before the inevitable collapse. It's a fast-paced psychological arcade game. In some sense it's a distillation of Wall Street to its purest essence, for better and worse.
Scamcoin hit a $70 million market cap within an hour, and PonziCoin absolutely would have hit a multi-million dollar market cap if the dev hadn't pulled the plug.
>Scamcoin hit a $70 million market cap within an hour, and PonziCoin absolutely would have hit a multi-million dollar market cap if the dev hadn't pulled the plug.
Fantastic. I genuinely was just coming up with those on the fly and did no research to see if any existed, but added "if it hasn't already happened" because I was still confident enough that some very likely did exist and very likely were successful.
My post with your reply feels a little like movie scene dialogue. (Perhaps Aaron Sorkin.) What a time to be alive.
> Doesn't matter if you do or don't publish the verified source code; if you do, no one will look at it, and if you don't, no one will notice/care that you didn't before investing their life savings in it.
As someone who doesn't know much at all about crypto, it seems insane that apparently coins can be closed source? But how? How does the chain know what code to execute?
The Ethereum interpreter bytecode is stored on the blockchain, but the source code isn't. (It'd be inefficient both for storage and CPU cycle reasons.) Basically like storing a Python .pyc or Java .class file.
There's pretty much a rule of thumb that tokens should always be open source, in part because it's much easier to hide a backdoor if you don't publish the source, and also because cryptocurrency communities generally share the open source, high-transparency ethos. The #1 Ethereum blockchain explorer site has a system that lets you submit source code for a contract, and they verify that the source code compiles to the exact same bytecode.
You can very safely assume that if there's no source, it's malware. For every single instance I've seen where a project doesn't publish the verified source code, it's always been because the code is backdoored.
You can decompile bytecode, but scam projects will often add a ton of obfuscation or even specific things to confuse the decompiler and make it fail to decompile certain parts. Better decompilers will keep getting written, so you theoretically won't ever be able to truly hide what your code is doing even if you don't publish source, but it's sort of moot because verified source code is bare minimum "table stakes" for anyone (competent) to interact with your project.
The caveat being that most investors are non-technical and don't have a clue what any of what I just wrote means and will just invest in whatever if it has a name and a logo. But in that case, they'll invest in a scam project whether or not they publish the source code. And for the percentage who do at least know that no source = scam, they'll still invest in every scam that does have source code, which is most of the scams.
My understanding is it's always reproducible if you submit the compiler version and flags you used. The (EVM compiler version, flags, source code) tuple should always generate the same bytecode.
(Though I guess it would be hard to imagine how that wouldn't be the case, if you're assuming the same reference compiler is used and that each release, no matter how minor, has a different version. A non-deterministic compiler is probably a bad idea, unless you're trying to make a Malbolge-type language or something.)
In theory perhaps you could discover some major compiler issue where benign-seeming source code generates malicious bytecode for a certain version, and then use that specific version to deploy and verify your contract, but I'm not aware of any such issues. I imagine there would probably have to be an incredibly big fuckup for that kind of bug to occur.
Most chains have a low-level representation which higher-level smart contrast source code is compiled to. E.g.,have a look at the "contract creator creator code" section on this contract:
Ethereum apps are typically written in Solidity before being compiled to EVM bytecode. The EVM bytecode must be public, but one could keep the (more readable) Solidity code private, like distributing an executable without the source. I think it would be unusual though.
That reminds me of a discussion a while back on whether or not "Snow Crash" was a parody. The main character was named "Hiro Protaganist" who worked delivering pizza for the mafia and there was a character who could take on pretty much any number of people completely unarmed, plus had a nuclear bomb wired to a dead-man's switch which caused quasi-governmental organizations to leave him alone.
That's two items, but there's more. However, cyberpunk in the early 90s was so gonzo that it was not an obvious parody to many readers.
I think it's one of those things that's more complex than being one or the other. It's simultaneously a parody and also a somewhat earnest prediction of a not-super-far-fetched potential future world.
completely unusable as a currency, even maximalists cant seriously tell people to use it as such. "cryptocurrency" at this point means less useful than any currency in any mmo
Bitcoin totally failed as a currency, but it's still something. I'm not necessarily arguing Bitcoin is useful or valuable period, but the issue you refer to is more with the "cryptocurrency" name and public conception that that's what all this technology is. The core idea is reliable, secure decentralization and the things it can enable.
Coins that support smart contracts show that "cryptocurrency" isn't a great term. Even if you never try to use ether as a currency (and indeed, most people don't), Ethereum can and does still do lots of things completely unrelated to finance in any way, with ether just serving as computational fuel.
The interesting part is fully trustless peer-to-peer networks, not e-currencies. E-currencies are just an example of one thing you can run atop such a network protocol. They've already existed to some extent for a long time via protocols like BitTorrent, and these just expand on those ideas.
Some people see it that way. And it probably does serve that purpose to some extent in areas with very unstable governments, like some developing countries. But I'm doubtful that by the year 2121 Bitcoin or any other cryptocurrency will have kept the US government "in check" in any way. It's not impossible, but I'd heavily bet against it.
They may very well make/adopt some cryptocurrency as the new primary fiat by then, but I kind of see the idea of Bitcoin keeping the US government in check similarly to the idea of gun ownership keeping the US government in check.
Out of curiosity, can you describe an example of how it could potentially serve such a purpose, even in a hypothetical contrived scenario?
I recently needed to buy something from a merchant, who was not able to acquire a traditional credit card merchant account, or a business checking account. I had three options to pay to that merchant: cash in the envelope, money order, bitcoin (merchant also run a promotion for bitcoin method of payment, discounting the total of the order by 20% when paid by bitcoin).
Bitcoin turned out the best option out of these three.
I'm quite skeptical of Bitcoin in general but I can't deny that Lightning Network has really started to take off as a means of payment, it's even a common sight in El Salvador to see Bitcoin accepted through LN, where transaction costs are in the fraction of a cent.
Are all the people saying "hold it, we will get rich!!!" on Reddit joking? I honestly can not tell, but I'm not sure it's not a parody up to this day.
I mean, there are some people there basically saying "yeah, I brought $0.10 worth of it, now I just have to wait until I'm a millionaire", even those I can't decide if they are joking or not.
'To own the SKEPTI from this transaction or any derived transaction is to "own" 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20500. (AKA the White House). #metaverse'
This seems like a dangerous bet to make... my take on the NFT "market" is that it's money laundering, wash trading (inflating prices to attract suckers to the market) and perhaps in a small part conspicuous consumption. Mostly fraudulent... but would you bet against a fraud?
