Not one mention of Bitcoin in that article.
Unfortunately many people still confuse Bitcoin and "crypto".
The "problem" issue seems to be getting worse and even more convoluted - because in recent times, it is starting to feel more difficult to figure out what kinds of matters are causing BTC's price to experience so many downward pressures, and it might not even seem like a bitcoin versus crypto problem, and instead seems to be a problem that is embedded into the fiat debt system that allows for gambling on BTC and gambling on "crypto" and the fact that BTC and crypto are relatively liquid, some of the "crypto" aspects start to seem as if they might be innocent - because the weakness seems to be coming from a slightly different angle in which even the supposed "responsible" bitcoiners (such as miners and financial institutions like GBTC some others) had gotten wrapped up in various kinds of debt relations in which bitcoin ends up appearing to be part of the problem because people are playing around with bitcoin that they do not have and some of us bitcoiners had been thinking that some of those practices were potentially o.k (at least something that we are not so easy to escape such usage).. but then now we see contagion everywhere... .
....but still I am not going to be giving up on the need to at least clarify what the fuck they are talking about when they refer to "crypto." Are they talking about bitcoin or not? And if so how much of it is related to bitcoin and how much is some other topic, that might not be irrelevant, but they still should be trying to clarify what the fuck they are talking about exactly, because even if they might think that we know what they mean, if they do not define it then how are we going to know because many of us bitcoiners realize that there is no such thing as "crypto" even if really smart people insist on using that term.
I recently had someone (in real life) go a bit ape shit on me because I asked him what he meant by "crypto," and when I told him that I did not know what he was talking about, he told me that he would "use whatever word that he likes," even if I don't like it. So I did not give up even though he was bordering upon actual violence, even though he was being quite confrontational about his wanting to use that word, and I continued to say that I am not going to know what he is talking about if he keeps saying "crypto" merely because everyone else uses the term, but he is actually talking about bitcoin or something else. If he is talking about "bitcoin" then he should say that is what he is talking about. He did give in somewhat.. but really seems to not want to use the word bitcoin for some reason.
It seems to me that there are some people who are starting to fight back in terms of their insistence upon using vague words and refusing to use the word bitcoin, and so I suppose if they continue to say that they are going to keep using those kinds of vague words, and we do not know what they mean, then it seems that we have a duty to make sure they specify what they are talking about.. even if it might lead to violence and we might not be able to walk away.. what if we start getting beaten until we allow them to say what they like? Should we continue to insist so that if they use the term crypto and define it, then we know if they are talking about bitcoin or something else, and if they are talking about bitcoin, then why not just use the word, "bitcoin"?
If we do not insist, then we are also going to get lured into such sloppy references, and even we will not know what we are talking about either if we are using such term without specifying it on a fairly regular basis. There is no real short cut if we really want to have some kind of a meaningful conversation rather than just spouting out vagaries.
If lying about Pow vs Pos was properly punished the Piece Of Shit that wrote this would suffer the torment of Prometheus 3 fold in that their liver and their testicles (or ovaries) would be devoured and regrown every day for all eternity.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prometheus the story is on wiki
I read somewhere very early that PoW and PoS are two ways of climbing the same mountain. May be someone agree too or correct me.
If I am following you WatChe, you lost me.... How could it be that POW and POS are merely just different but similar systems?
Bitcoin's POW is an invention of something new.. so probably you need to understand what POW is and what it invented if you are going to compare POW to some random other system in order to understand if the other random system (in this case POS) actually brings any value or is comparable.
It seems to me that there is nothing new with POS. It is not really inventing anything - except perhaps trying to convolute matters and to appear as if there is some kind of an innovation when it is just largely perpetuation of various status quo systems, but instead shifts power to people who are staking.
....and how does that empowering of stakers do anything except for maintain a status quo group that is in power or just switch the group in power in status quo institutions to another group that is created under the POS system (which if we are referring to ethereum, then that group of centralized stakers get control).
The whole POS thing seems like a kind of digital pyramid program in which the early stakers are nearly impossible to change.. .. it is like a self-referencial oracle that refers to the status of truth to the incumbent power holders (the ones with the most stake) including that with ethereum specifically, there is a lack of transparency in terms of the total number of ethereum that had ever been in existence in the first place, so it is quite difficult to even know what the value of the numerator is (staked versus circulating) when we cannot even know how many coins existed in the first place... and then if you do not know the starting point of how many coins were invented, then how are you ever going to be able to establish if coins are not just being created randomly at various strategic points in time and benefiting the early-stakers (coin holders) as compared to the late arriving patsies (suckers, gullible ones)... you never know because you cannot even verify the whole number of coins.. so that non-verification goes beyond the idea of POS..
It's giving me a headache.. again to feel that there is any need to even go down this road.. .. there is no there there, but you (WatChe) still want to somehow suggest that POS is actually adding something of value?
@ JJG don't bother complaining that btc is not crypto.
Why would I complain
(do I look like a complainer?) about a true statement (in the form of a question) that you just made?
Or you are saying that you can say whatever the fuck vague thing that you want and expect people to understand, recognize and appreciate what you are talking about?
I would suggest if you feel that you "need to use" the word "crypto" that you at least clarify what you are talking about. Once you clarify what you are talking about, then you have conquered at least half the battle, and one you have clarified what it is that you are talking about, then you might decide that you might not even need to use that vague-ass word, aka "crypto," in order to say what you are wanting to say. Go figure.