/biz/ - Business & Finance

>>50550165
I am against this whole narrative, it's a massive cope and since this thread is dead I'd like you to explain yourself a bit.

I get that it says "it's centralized but still censorship-resistant" all over the place, and motivates the claim by saying there's a bunch of future tech and mitigations to avoid censorship...
and yet at the end of the day we're still talking about taking a multibillion-dollar payments layer that's unregulated due to being decentralized and centralizing its payment processing layer (not validation/settlement), to the point that the layer becomes smaller than VISA. And somehow expecting a reg hammer to not drop on it once it goes live.

I get that it's maybe possible to keep production censorship-resistant, yet all the "technically" arguments in the world can't stop a regulator with a small, finite list of payment processors to target My big question is this. Back when ETH 2.0 was first proposed, how to shard a POS blockchain was a completely unsolved problem. Now, however, there is NEARProtocol, which is in production. At least one of the following is true:

A: NEAR makes worse trilemma-addressing tradeoffs than Endgame (e.g. Vitalik thinks NEAR doesn't work)
B: ETH2 sharding isn't ever actually meant to ship and Endgame is the latest 5-year research project to placate the ETH community.
C: ETH2 is suffering from "not invented here" syndrome and won't use NEARs approach because of vanity.

I'm having a hard time coming up with other explanations. For the record, if ETH were sticking with POW for scaling, I'd be saying the same thing but swap NEAR for Kadena's Chainweb.

>>50456756
nuwu shilling, I must be in heaven.
>>50456843
weird reply, you should rethink your life.