I see this as a plus for proof of Stake.
hmmm so everybody to cardano thats great then
Libertarians are right about a lot of things but from my perspective wrong on certain things. One error they make is to assume what they view as a lesser form of money never gaining adoption over a better form of money. For arguments sake lets assume BTC (proof of work coin) is superior to ADA (proof of stake coin). Assume that for sake of argument. The historical reality is that Governments, political systems, always interject themselves into the financial systems. Add to this democratization across the world and the fervor of Catastrophic Climate Change among the masses.
ADA (proof of stake coin) will gain political backing against BTC (proof of work coin) because politicians, liberal elites, want Greta Thunberg to win the Nobel prize. And Greta Thunberg and her fellow youth now indoctrinated to fear a coming secular Noah’s Ark Story and a Great Flood will approve of ADA over BTC.
Enraged by the sins of man bringing about a Great Flooding on Earth and the End of the World… the facilitators of this plagiarism will help us place political pressure globally for the adoption of the far more energy friendly ADA.
“Save the Polar Bears only buy your Gucci bags and plane tickets with ADA coins.”
“Don’t drown your children, shop with proof of stake.”
“Don’t let Floridians drown buy your groceries in Michigan with ADA.”
“Putin loves BTC. Don’t help the Russian’s interfere in America, shop using ADA.”
“Climate Justice people help Wisconsin stop having summer months. Their farmers love it when the ground is frozen. Buy your corn with ADA.”
“Don’t let Wisconsin warm or Florida sink. Spend using proof of stake.”
All sarcastic humor aside… it is logical and practical to implement the most energy efficient systems. And the most viable systems will be tied to consistent, long term, financial incentives. Proof of work is showing it will fail against proof of stake in both. That’s not even taking into account the ability of proof of stake advocates in mustering emotionalized, political propaganda, if need be, to achieve our goal.
IMO the philosophy of Cardano is nothing if not rational. “Emotionalized, political propaganda” is by far the biggest cause of trouble in the world today. Evidence-based rationality, exemplified by Cardano, is a major part of the solution.
I can’t disagree with you, Rob, but as part of my autobiography I believed–for over a decade–in the existence of a specific biological type coined “crack babies.” I was fooled by the science immersed in the emotional hysteria, political propaganda of politicians, and financial incentives of the prison industrial complex of the USA. I also supported the invasion of Iraq due to their supposed Weapons of Mass Destruction threat. Due to my error in the latter I had to improve my understanding of why and when the US Government will make a logical decision to take military action against another country. I discovered then that if a country has nukes or poses a real chemical warfare threat to invading US ground forces then odds are extremely high the US Government will never launch and invasion. So, if the US Government claims a country has nukes, and we must therefore invade, the odds are overwhelming that the US Government really does not believe said country has nukes–say a country like Iran or something.
So the errors in my autobiography has nudged me to be more skeptical. I lived through the crack baby hysteria, scientifically proven that would send the USA into a zombie apocalypse today. But that zombie apocalypse never occurred. The War on Drugs still occurs–modified due to upper-middle-class families placing political pressure on local, state, and federal governments not to treat opioid addicts from white suburbs like the governments treated impoverished crack addicts during the crack epidemic. The War on Drugs is what Libertarians refer to as “morality policing” but morality policing without direct victims (e.g., a drunk man at a NFL game is not a crime even if immoral, a drunk man that rapes a 13 year-old girl while drunk is not only immoral but directly victimizes someone.) and the War on Drugs is in effect a war on the citizens of the USA. Consequently, the USA incarcerates more of its own citizenry than either the Russians, Chinese, or Assad of Syria. This all goes into the philosophical issue of whether “freedom” is to be conceptualized as “negative liberty” or “positive liberty.” I’m not going to into all of that except to say that the Libertarians are supposedly the harbingers of “negative liberty” and commie China long with Democrats and Republicans join all religions in conceptualizing “freedom” as an internal, interior construct of “positive freedom” and the goal of elites (e.g. Soros, Hollywood, the rich) and of governments are to bring people to “freedom” via self realization, and part of that method is incarceration.
So, while what you say may be true, I’m cynical and doubt emotionalized propaganda will ever stop being effectively used against we in the masses.
Crack babies never existed. It was a fiction created using the scientific method and scientific papers to help promote a biased political agenda and enrich the American prison systems. Some Brits would even say it empowered the US Government to recreate the slave trade of blacks (e.g., slave wage labor in US prisons, powered by a black majority prison population).
To bring this back to proof of stake blockchains… even BTC was not immune to accusations of being a Russian Gate asset. LMAO.
I love Dan Pena. But I don’t subscribe to his view that Putin created Bitcoin and the Russians are using Bitcoin to financially collapse both the USA and the entire world. LMAO!
To BTC’s credit it has been resistant to smears against it as being a Russian conspiracy tool that threatens to the USA with total financial collapse. Similar to the crack baby zombies that were supposed to have collapsed the USA economy today as young adults. Just like by 2015 Al Gore suggested the Polar Bears would all be dead and Earth would be in an apocalypse. The problem of course is grown scientists, grown politicians have never learned the moral lesson taught in the fictional story of “The Boy who Cried Wolf.”
Fiction has value for moral lessons. Non-fiction are not the only informative sources of literature. So, lets say we take the Bible as total fiction. There are still concepts and themes and moral lessons in the Bible. One is the theological difference between the “supernatural” (God) from the “preternatural” (angels of good and fallen angels known as demons) the two share a common trait that they are not bound by the laws of physics and chemistry nor bound by human limitations (intellectually or otherwise). I’m bringing this up because the greatest of CEO’s and the greatest of dictators or presidents can’t be at all places at all times nor micromanage all of Earth. To do that requires preternatural qualities. Or I think the “Anti-Christ” character in the Bible is said or interpreted as being a human being, but a human being empowered by Satan (preternatural being), and said humans is capable of doing what no other human aside from Christ can do. And I’m suggesting American elites ascribe either preternatural qualities to Putin or they draw from the Biblical narrative of the Anti-Christ to construct a story about Putin’s world-wide power at all times in all places. And people get emotionally caught up in this.
So, in a war between ADA and BTC we could (not that we should or would) join Dan Pena in spreading FUD that BTC was created by Putin to destroy America and cause world wide poverty, whereas ADA flies the American flag.
In theology, the term is often used to distinguish marvels or deceptive trickery, often attributed to witchcraft or demons, from the purely divine power of the genuinely supernatural to violate the laws of nature. In the early modern period, the term was used by scientists to refer to abnormalities and strange phenomena of various kinds that seemed to depart from the norms of nature.
Retro Report: In the 1980s, many government officials, scientists and journalists warned that the country would be plagued by a generation of “crack babies.” They were wrong.
What some scientists say is not science. Even what the majority of scientists at any given time say could well be wrong. But when an extremely high majority (say, 97%) of scientists in the relevant discipline continue to research and draw the same conclusions for decades, then only those with reason to lie (usually for money or power or both) and those fooled by them will say otherwise. The system of research, replication and peer reviewed publication is by far the best to get to the truth, or as near as it’s possible to get.
ADA flies the American flag.
Another of Cardano’s fundamental virtues, alongside the science, is its truely international basis.
As author Matt Ridley of the book Genome points out not a single, not 1, biologist on all of Earth opposed Eugenics when both the USA and Germany subscribed to it. The science of Eugenics brought the world to WWII and caused the Holocaust of Jews. What 97% or 100% of scientists–or theologians–any peer review conclude does not indicate any “truth” if some of their fundamental beliefs, starting points, are flawed.
I took some philosophy courses on biology and on science as well as majored in the science of biology (in a lesser science than physics in my view but a greater science than psychology in my view) while in university and what I was taught was that science does not propose “truths” or “proofs” (that would be logic as a branch of philosophy and mathematics as well) but instead builds increasing confidence scientific laws and scientific theories unless otherwise over turned.
I’m also influenced in my thinking by the American Thomas Kuhn who was an actual scientist as well as philosopher of science and historian of science. He coined the term “paradigm shift.” All scientific de facto (de facto = not official but rather in unofficial practice) dogmas are zealously defended and the heretics ridiculed. Thus it was during the 1930s with the applied science of Eugenics. People back then spoke exactly the same way they do of people today who call BS on the approaching end of the world due to Climate Change. This is why reflection on history can be beneficial.
One of the major goals of all natural sciences is to increase their power of predictions, accurately. If a science routinely fails to accurately predict (say… what Milwaukee’s weather will be 90 days from now) then its ability to predict Milwaukee’s weather (via stable climate) 90 years from now out be viewed as dubious.
But assuming Climate Change is happening it does not mean all life on Earth will come to and end and that no species of life will thrive. This is another leap and one far worse in logical coherency from the much better science of Eugenics–which at least was logically coherent from its fundamental propositions. Humans as it is are not a frozen desert species but more of a tropical species. Not all species thrives in frozen deserts of low precipitation and low temperatures. The Amazon jungle, as hot as it is, is full of life and all sorts species of life.
Eugenics is ethically wrong, not factually, so not comparable.
There’s a big difference between weather and climate.
I never, in the forty years I’ve been interested in this topic, heard anyone suggest all life on Earth would come to an end.
The major objections are all ideological, which amounts to saying “I don’t like it so I won’t believe it”. I pray for the day (jk) when all ideologies, political, economic and religious, are seen as the pitiful substitutes for real, evidence-based rationality that they are, and this current time of ours, when ideologists have so much power, is seen as the dark ages.
This is way off-topic, and I suspect that anything I say will have no effect anyway, so I’m going to leave it there.
Eugenics is ethically wrong, not factually, so not comparable.
Eh… part correct and part incorrect. Eugenics was “applied science” just the practice of medicine or mechanical engineering are part of the “applied science,” and eugenics is know viewed as “unethical” although it was always viewed as unethical among the official views of the Holy See of the Catholic Church. Catholic intellectuals like Belloc and G.K. Chesterton opposed eugenics publicly. Eugenics was embraced by American liberals (and conservatives too) and by Black-American intellectual liberal elites as well. But during the 1930s and '40s eugenics was viewed as the most ethical thing and was viewed no differently than homosexual marriage is today or the pontification from unethical scientists that Bruce Jenner was always a biological female due to biological sex being mysteriously located in the brain.
However, you are incorrect that eugenics is “factually correct.” Your biological science is outdated. Circa 2010 the science of biology underwent a paradigm shift and genetic determinism was given its last rites and buried. Although, like Frankenstein some like to resurrect it in a mangled form. Particularly in neuroscience as this is a life science most aligned with “determinism.” But within the science of biology scientists are less attached to genetic determinism–not to the same degree as those in neuroscience.
The science of biology is today in an era of “epigenetics.” Which basically means “above or beyond genetics.” Now, epigenetics is not a proposition than genetics have no influence on say… the human individual but rather it is to say that environmental have far more effect on our genetic expression than we once believed or knew. So much so does the environment have an effect that we can actually alter our genetic expression. But none of this is entirely well understood.
Having said that… cops, scientists, politicians, humans as a whole are ALL biased (just look at the contempt and tribal camps between various cryptocurrencies from BTC to EOS to ADA) and prone to ad hoc their hypotheses. So, in epigenetics most choose to overemphasize the genetic inputs over the environmental inputs for even complex human behaviors like sexual arousal to certain things.
You’re assuming to too much as to why I don’t subscribe to Catastrophic Climate Change. Tulsi Gabbard certainly believes in it and I don’t yet I still highly admire Congresswoman Tulsi Gabbard and support her becoming President of the USA. She believes in a number of things I don’t actually.
One problem here is you seem to be operating under a view usually associated with a belief system known as scientism. I’m not an adherent of scientism. I appreciate science but my belief system is not scientism. I appreciate artists, novelists, and although I HATE doing philosophy in an academic sense, I do respect philosophy as a field.
You brought up “religion,” I’m guessing, because you think observational science has something to say about morality? Is that like a mechanic that fixes cars has something to teach the masses on heart surgery? Having sat in a lecture in anthropology I listened to the professor speak about how mother bonobos will have sexual relations with their sons until their sons turn about age 5 or so. Then it becomes taboo among bonobos. The bonobos also engage in homosexuality. But among humans a mother having sex with her 5 year-old son would be considered incestuous pedophilia. Is it bad? Well it is observed in nature via “observational science.” Rape, incest, pedophilia are all amoral issues in observational science.
You brought up religion I take it because you object to their objections? When Catholic theologians say homosexuality is “unnatural” they do NOT MEAN by an intellectual method of ascertaining morality through observational science. What they mean is an intellectual method using philosophical reasoning. Theology is basically philosophy that has to be tied back to dogmas. So, for the Catholic theologian what they are saying is that pertaining to BOTH Catholic dogmas AND human ability to reason what the primary purpose of the sexual organs and sex cells (sperm and egg) are one can ascertain sodomy and homosexuality are unnatural. Catholic teaching would say the same about a 30 year-old mother giving oral sex to her 5 year-old son irrespective of what the bonobo species does.
There is a place for philosophy (even among atheists) and there is a place for theology among Catholics and Muslims and Hindus. Science is not the only field that has something to teach a person or community. And there is a place for artists and poets.