What a hypocrite
In case anyone isn’t aware, all professional athletes at that level dope. Some countries just take it further than others
Would honestly be better than the current options
Rich is when you have little to no taxable income, and your wealth is mostly unrealised captial gains that you borrow against to fund your lifestyle, and you use various other strategies to offset whatever salary you do get with expenses or make it otherwise untaxable
The rich don’t have income, they take out loans against assets
All first world governments have some degree of corruption from money in politics, but don’t kid yourselves: USA is much worse than most
Hmm I don’t think that’s necessarily what OP is proposing. There are cryptos where transactions are anonymous.
Banks are already paying for servers to process and store information.
Yes
A few validators or collators (quite cheap for a private network) provided by several banks would cost a fraction of what they pay now
How? They’d be doing extra compute work for no reason (validating already valid transactions), and storing extra data (lots of hashes) for no reason, so it can only make infra costs more expensive. Plus the added complexity meaning you have to hire an extra team just to understand it.
Don’t mix blockchain with the speculative world built on top of it. That’s only an unfortunate use of the technology.
That speculative world as shitty as it is, is the only proven use case of the technology, if you take that away then blockchains are even less useful
All my points? That’s a bit rich
You make a good point that PoS would solve one of the issues I raised which is electricity usage.
In theory it could also increase throughput and reduce costs, but: a) in practice that hasn’t happened yet despite years of development, b) it’s never going to be as efficient as a centralised system because of the extra overheads necessary to decentralise it, so that point still stands
All my other points still stand as well, plus the additional problems PoS creates to do with centralisation of power
Ok so firstly you’re not the OP I was replying to, so neither of us know for certain whether they were talking about replacing the banking system with a decentralised currency vs keeping the existing centralised private banks and just having them use a blockchain as their database. I assumed the former because of their wording (“replace the banking system”), and because the latter offers no advantages that I know of.
Secondly if you think a blockchain would offer some advantages over other more efficient write only databases, I’d be interested to know what those are, because to me if you’re not running a decentralised system then you’re only getting the downsides of blockchain (such as it being single threaded, slow, and space inefficient) without any of the upsides.
For some background, I’m well aware of how both blockchains and crypto work, having been obsessed with them for a little while in 5 or 6 years ago like many of us were before becoming disillusioned. I’ve also got professional experience as a developer on both immutable databases and banking ledgers.
WebP was barely competitive with JPEG
Citation needed
So what, we’re not supposed to use any library that’s ever had a vulnerability? You better go uninstall literally everything on your computer then
Can we get a non Murdoch source on this?
This is not a tax on the rich, it’s a tax on the upper middle class.
It’s just the typical Lemmy hivemind hating anything made by a large tech company, purely because it’s made by a large tech company, even when it’s actually really good
JPEG-XL is better
Citation needed
A banking system running on Blockchain
Is an astronomically terrible idea. It:
Paywall
Yeah or alternatively just use the free service that already has all the data
Oh right I didn’t mean that I mean the PEDs that all top level athletes use