huh, that raises another interesting point. China has the power to carry out a 51% attack. If those are government owned servers then China controls the block chain.

How do people still think this is valuable again?

eth uses a proof of work that can only be done with generalized hardware, so that's better. But the whole concept of proof of work just means that whoever can buy or build the most hardware or find the cheapest power wins... So they're all bad.

Currency is actually just a bad idea all together. Cryptocurrency is just a different way to implement a bad idea.

I'm curious why you think currency is a bad idea. Could you elaborate?

well, why do you believe currency does or should exist?

No it is not. As humans we’ve killed each other over trifles for thousands of years and it still isn’t a good look.

You’ll have to do better than “this is how we’ve always done”.

@hex@Jan 😷 Wildeboer@Hyolobrika@Steven Roose

> well, why do you believe currency does or should exist?

Isn't several thousand years of existence a sufficient proof?

You are most probably right, but it still isn't a sufficient proof we should do it. There are good arguments in favor of currency but "it's been there for thousands of years" isn't necessary nor sufficient.

@Hypolite Petovan@Jan 😷 Wildeboer@Hyolobrika@Steven Roose@hex Ok, strictly speaking you are right - if the question is "should we ...". We should not kill each other. Will we do it? Definitely yes. For another "trifles for thousands of years" :)

@Hypolite Petovan@Jan 😷 Wildeboer@Hyolobrika@Steven Roose@hex You can't prove you "should" do something. It's a value proposition/statement, unprovable.

You first used "suffcient proof", do you want to retract your earlier words?