Stablecoin is a thing. So is a system to control inflation.
The more pressing issue to me is the core premise: a totally anonymized but publicly recorded financial system makes no sense, especially when the user generally won’t grasp it. It’s just begging for thieves and scammers, and that’s what it got.
Doesn’t it use proof of work? Why the hell would anyone torch the planet for crypto?
If they switch to something like proof of stake then maybe… like Nano, but anonymized sounds great.
Doesn’t work when the valuation goes up and down like a yo-yo. You need same currency.
Stablecoin is a thing. So is a system to control inflation.
The more pressing issue to me is the core premise: a totally anonymized but publicly recorded financial system makes no sense, especially when the user generally won’t grasp it. It’s just begging for thieves and scammers, and that’s what it got.
Monero exists. https://www.getmonero.org/
Doesn’t it use proof of work? Why the hell would anyone torch the planet for crypto? If they switch to something like proof of stake then maybe… like Nano, but anonymized sounds great.
And proof of stake provides yet another advantage to the already wealthy.
But if you can’t get rich, no one wants to buy it or use it. This is the conundrum of crypto.
Yeah, and that toxic idea has completely poisoned the well.
Unlike fiat currencies most of the credible cryptocurrencies have increased in value over the past 10 years.
These were the most credible cryptocurrencies 10 years ago. How many of them do people today recognize?
Beware survivorship bias.
But you can use the technology behind it
Afaik, not really.
CBDCs & IPFS are a thing (even GNU-Jami uses it too)
Seriously? Blockchains are only useful for cryptocurrencies?