

If a cryptocurrency concentrates into the hands of a few, as assets tend to do in capitalism, then wouldn’t proof of stake mean those few control the cryptocurrency anyway?
If a cryptocurrency concentrates into the hands of a few, as assets tend to do in capitalism, then wouldn’t proof of stake mean those few control the cryptocurrency anyway?
Couldn’t those transactions be cut off at those swapping points to fiat? I assume if a bank doesn’t support a business directly transferring funds for a particular purpose then they’d take issue with indirectly transferring funds for the same purpose and would work to close those accounts.
“It could always be worse” is an excuse to never improve things. What’s really ridiculous is your inability to see how much of our productivity goes toward enriching a few and how easy it would be for them to give back tons of wealth they’ve taken from us and still live like kings, plus it would improve the conditions of those people working 16h a day because they’re being exploited by the same wealthy class.
Take a joke.
Make a joke.
Are plant-based allergies also the earth saying NO MORE?
Yes, but sometimes it’s designers masturbating over their own genius. Like why does UI have to be so flattened that it’s confusing to determine what is interactive and what isn’t (among other issues)?
Quickly making garbage doesn’t make the garbage good.