What's fascinating about the proof-of-stake vs. proof-of-work debate is that there's sometimes (not always) a tinge of anti-government sort of sentiment.
The ultimate irony, though, is that even with proof-of-stake, the entire crypto-economy becomes owned by a bunch of pseudo-anonymous elites. The end result is the exact same as our current system. At least with our current system we can pretend to have a democracy and kick out people who are being too visibly corrupt.
i assert there is no scenario in which cryptocurrencies, or any economy, doesn't devolve into what we currently have. as long as people are involved it is impossible to not have a government, in one form or another.
the question is - do you want to be governed by a bunch of anonymous people or do you want to have some modicum of ability to hold them accountable?
The ultimate irony, though, is that even with proof-of-stake, the entire crypto-economy becomes owned by a bunch of pseudo-anonymous elites. The end result is the exact same as our current system. At least with our current system we can pretend to have a democracy and kick out people who are being too visibly corrupt.
i assert there is no scenario in which cryptocurrencies, or any economy, doesn't devolve into what we currently have. as long as people are involved it is impossible to not have a government, in one form or another.
the question is - do you want to be governed by a bunch of anonymous people or do you want to have some modicum of ability to hold them accountable?
ugh