They’ve spent years crafting these systems to function for PoS, L2 support, sharding, rollups, etc., at scale.
And all that time, they are still ponzi schemes that do none of the above very well. We’ve had all of that in the merchant payment systems for decades now, all without the need to consume more electricity than many small nations, just to approve a transaction.
What do they “make”? They control for the risks in social economic interaction with potentially adversarial parties. Ethereum is proof of stake, it doesn’t burn up tons of fossil fuels. And the contracts aren’t subject to human interpretation after being authored, they’re deterministic at the protocol level (save for the entire network deciding to revoke the contract).
Why are you making fundamental mischaracterizations of the technology while acting like an expert? What you’re doing is dishonest.
What do these “smart contracts” make? And why do we need to burn up tons of fossil fuels, just to have contracts like we had before?
And how is this better than a typical contract?
https://www.zdnet.com/article/hackers-hijack-smart-contracts-in-new-cryptocurrency-token-rug-pull-scams/
Both are simple ponzi schemes.
And all that time, they are still ponzi schemes that do none of the above very well. We’ve had all of that in the merchant payment systems for decades now, all without the need to consume more electricity than many small nations, just to approve a transaction.
What do they “make”? They control for the risks in social economic interaction with potentially adversarial parties. Ethereum is proof of stake, it doesn’t burn up tons of fossil fuels. And the contracts aren’t subject to human interpretation after being authored, they’re deterministic at the protocol level (save for the entire network deciding to revoke the contract).
Why are you making fundamental mischaracterizations of the technology while acting like an expert? What you’re doing is dishonest.
So, they make nothing, and really serve no purpose but to insulate grifters from risk?
You’re not making a good case here…