/biz/ - Business & Finance

>>49949787
AVAX > ETH

>>49949787
XMR > all of these shitcoins.

>Verification not required.

>>49949816
be serious

>>49949787
til people take this midwit seriously

>>49949845
>is hardcapped
>fees are burned
>staking has no slashing
>actually decentralized
>all Validators participate in consensus because its leaderless
>can not just run the EVM but any VM

Whats not to like you dumb fucking Nigger?

>>49949787
I am an eth maxi, but hate these niggers from the bottom of my heart!

no cap
fr fr

>twitter

>what are transaction fees

>>49949871
>ghostchain

>>49949871
no slashing is a con you midwit
look up "nothing at stake problem"

>>49949976
100% this. Sassano and the Bankless weasels being at the top of that hate list for me

>>49949816
no one cares about your scamchain

>>49949816
Based. ETH hasn't done anything innovative since 2019, completely left in the dust. Cue the midwits coping in 3.. 2.. 1..

>>49950135
Avalanche handles more traffic than ethereum dumb Nigger.

>>49950177
The rewards are at stake. Slashing not needed.
>>49950231
Soon everyone will. But it will be too late for nigger laggards like you.

>>49949787
it's not emissions themselves that are the problem. if fees > emission rate, network activity would be enough to sustain miners securing the network. the real issue is the upper limit on hashrate as emissions become more competitive over time because of halvings. as bitcoin mining pushes competitors to computational extremes just to break even, there will be miners who stop validating blocks and instead devote all resources to hashing. with enough non-validators winning blocks in a row, it becomes easy to destabilize the chain, intentionally or otherwise. it also opens up the possibility of adversarial behavior rewarding bad miners who regularly take payment to deliberately insert bad blocks

>>49949787
They'll create Bitcoin2.

>>49950135
Even I will hand it to the roaches. Their tvl is like over half their marketcap. Far from ghostchain

>>49949787
I hate how 99% of crypto holders are dumb fucks don't understand decentralization or any technical detail of cryptos.

>>49949844
Tail emissions was the true answer all along.

>>49949787

He's not wrong. The BTC supply cap is a serious, serious concern. Not only because of collaborative 51% attacks as the coins become more consolidated in fewer wallets over time, but also because the supply cap will remove the majority incentive for miners to mine and validate the blocks. Ethereum is the future. It has smart contracts, it has decentralization, it has security, it has scalability (through L2s, check-ins, and rollups) and with zero knowledge proofs it will soon have obscurity to absorb where there's a gap that Monero is filling. It is incredibly obvious. Those who don't see it and look at dumb shit like ADA will go broke long term. End of story

>>49950513
>Avalanche is the future. It has smart contracts, it has true decentralization (solved the trilemma), it has security, It has sub second finality, it has scalability (through Subnets), rollups and L2s work on it too and with privacy enabling subnets it will soon have obscurity to absorb where there's a gap that Monero is filling. It is incredibly obvious.

>>49950576

Here's one critical thing it's missing - large amounts of users and their community. Take a look at any tech - its not about how 'good' the tech is, it's about WHO IS USING IT. Is Mac better than PC? Is a Ford better than an Aston Martin? It literally doesn't matter. Who's buying the computers? Who's buying the cars? Once you actually think - with your brain - about what makes something successful, you realize ETH is superior. That could change, but right now ETH is where the users are at.

>>49949816
>>49949844
based, ETH maxis get the bullet

>>49949816
>>49949844
>same souless shitty copy/paste image with color change and logo png shopped on
pathetic

>>49950281
What if malicious action yields more profit than current + future rewards?

>>49950513
> 51% attacks as the coins become more consolidated in fewer wallets over time
You shitcoiners are hilarious. This thread is stupid.

>>49950833

explain how the threat of a 51% attack on btc does not become amplified as it hits a supply cap. seriously. do it in a couple sentences even. bet you just reply with some meaningless bullshit like 'its never gonna happen'

>>49950616
>large amounts of users and their community.
Avalanche Community is growing just fine and Avalanche handles more traffic than Ethereum.
>ETH is superior.
Compared to Avalanche its inferior in everything, doesnt even have Sub second finality.
Ethereum finality after the upgrade will be 12 minutes.
Imagine it takes 12 minutes to adjust your loan.
Loser shit.

>>49950746
Fees dont go to miners, they are burned.

>>49950877
BTC is not a shitcoin like ETH. It’s actually decentralized. How many coins you hood doesn’t give you voting power.

>>49950880
> traffic

manipulated metrics. don't be dumb. we can argue over tech all day and who's superior but eth is where the users are at. i have no issue with avax but you're being disingenuous. avax has to earn the users eth already has. that's just being real. also at least we can both be smug that btc will eventually implode on itself because its maxis arent even willing to have conversations

>>49950616
network effects work are an enticing circular logic (#1 because #1) that always seem to be set in stone up until they crumble apart(myspace and facebook are classic examples). You can't expect users to stick around when they are paying $51 gas fees with 10 minute wait-times in crypto because crypto a near frictionless environment literally designed to decentralize(in this case pull users away from ETH). Users have a limit. We are seeing this in real-time as the diehard loyalists of ETH twitter loses it more reasonable supporters to the original Nakamoto's multi-chain decentralized ethos. The only people left dedicated to ETH is a insular cult of rabid 0x and .eth bugmen. They also tend to be the biggest parasites of the ecosystem, so it's questionable to even call this dedication. Like you wouldn't say a tick is dedicated to a dog's ass.

>>49950177
>nothing at stake problem
You're the midwit, slashing won't prevent the attack at all if the attacker had it in the bag
The only use case of slashing is to provide a false sense of security and fuck people over when some edge mistakes happened (mass slashing)

>>49950877
Give up bro! "BTC IS NOT A SHITCOIN LIKE EVERYTHING ELSE", I dont even know wtf is an 51% attack, but I am a good go.... btc maxi!

>>49950918
Avax has plenty of users and its getting more everyday, unlike Ethereum Avalanche can actually scale.

Also all the innovation is happening on Avalanche now.

>>49950987
Or some hardware/software bug, then say your Stake goodbye.
Meanwhile on Avalanche you dont have that problem.
Staking on Avalanche is completely stress free, I never have to worry about my stake.

>>49951028
Cringe. The guy thought BTC could be 51% attacked by who holds the coins. That’s not possible in POW. Maybe now you might to get why ETH sucks.

>>49951163
You still dont get it, miners wont mine the chain if it is not profitable anymore, ergo hash will drop and bad actors can attack it with 51%.
>but since you still didnt bring up any argument, so I dont know why I am answering you, go post something with laser eyes!

>>49951229
You still don’t get it. This is literally what he said. You shitcoiner are hopeless.
> 51% attacks as the [BTC] coins become more consolidated in fewer wallets over time

>>49949816
fpbp

>>49949816
Based

>>49950880
>Fees dont go to miners, they are burned.
Okay I'm a brainlet who hasn't done his reseach on AVAX. What's the purpose of the fees if they're just burned? Seems they would only serve to limit transaction volume.
How do miners get paid, minting new AVA tokens or what?

>>49951229
you could do 1 minute of research and figure out that miners would be incentivized by transfer fees. instead you talk out of your ass, typical eth maxi retard

>>49951386
Fees are burned because of Deflation

>>49950177
Slashing hurts decentralization and scares people away from getting validators faggot nigger cuck, we already discussed it to death

>>49949845
ETH current monetary policy is pretty much a copy of Avalanche policy from 2020.

Avalanche is the all encompassing platform we need (Not claiming the fat protocol thesis should remain, The future is multichain):
>Innate superiority due to Snow consensus family
>Scale horizontally through Subnets
>Scale vertically through the C-Chain+Rollups
>Similar monetary policy to Ethereum
>Validators economy that strengthen the network robustness by design
>Ultimate flexibility
>Only protocol that can scale to 1B+ users level of decentralisation

The market is retarded and ETH cartel control most of the price action across the whole space so i doubt they'll let Avalanche prevail

>>49950918
dont waste your time
avax was notorious for getting paid shills
now is paid shills + drones repeating marketing points

>>49951386
>How do miners get paid
Avalanche Validators get paid by providing uptime with their nodes, they also get 2%+ from the rewards of Delegators + they can also validate other subnets and get paid in their tokens.
Its a genius system.

>>49951430
>so i doubt they'll let Avalanche prevail
Avalanches goal is to tokenize ALL the assets in the world and it can actually achieve that goal thanks to Subnets.
Generally speaking there is more money that can flow into Avalanche than into Ethereum and eventually we will overtake them.

>>49951386
AVAX gives validators a decreasing amount of stake rewards, which will gradually decrease from 10% to 0% over the next 20 years. Like BTC there is a hard cap to the number of AVAX that can ever exist. 720M max, currently 280M exist.

>what keeps validators staking 20 years from now?
combination of subnet rewards and deflationary nature of AVAX(unlike inflationary PoS coins, you won't lose value keeping it locked up)

>>49951456
Anyone can use Avalanche and test it for themselves, its all true.
Sub second finality is real
the Decentralization is real
the users are real
the traffic is real
all the new forward pushing dapps are real
has the best AMM (Trader Joe)
has the best stablecoin (yeti and YUSD)
has the best Stableswap (Platypus)

And niggers like you still cope and pretend there is nothing.
We also have the better aave and the better curve.
I pay 12 cent for a swap and its finalized in a second.

>>49951099
you write like a fucking bot

>>49950915

lmao. you're actually a brainlet. thanks for confirming. you don't understand anything about how a blockchain is validated or how the incentive structures are set up. do you even know what a 51% attack is? do you realize if you have a supply cap it's a lot easier to get to 51%? it's not a moving target

>>49950970

hot take, i actually agree with you. i'm not saying anything bad about avax, i don't even know enough to, but i am saying that right now ETH has the users. it isn't sitting on its laurels, it has zk rollups, it has scaling solutions (with more coming), and it is also working on zero knowledge proofs for privacy. It is doing everything. Maybe it's not the best but it's moving. Myspace, Facebook, etc. stopped moving at some point because they got complacent. ETH isn't complacent

>>49949844
checked, based, gonna make it

>>49951301

It's two-pronged. The coins become more consolidated and so does the hashing/validation power as people drop off due to lack of incentives. None of this shit exists in a vacuum. BTC is taking itself to the grave

>>49951603
Thats all you have to say you stupid nigger?
>>49951620
Avalanche can do all of that but better and its already working.

>>49949871
Closed source you stupid cuck.

>>49951665

i'm gonna echo what the other dude said, you write like a bot. are you just copying and pasting in talking points from a notepad? you don't even read the shit you're responding to and talk in platitudes about "avalanche is better though and its already working" when i didn't even mention any of that. typical shills

>>49951673
Why are you lying you dumb nigger?
Avalanche is open source.

>>49951673
How the fuck is it closed source, just check Github

>>49951703
It already works you retarded nigger while Ethereum losers talk about hypothetical shit Eth might be able to do in the future I can already do it today on Avalanche.
Whats not to understand about this ? Explain yourself nigger cattle.

>>49950044
fee targeting is imo the goat but we all know orange coin will not have its block size changed. to be clear tho i think it remains unknown (and will remain unknown for some time) that there is a problem - its entirely possible base chain will be absolutely hammered 24/7 and thus sustainable fees if we get major traction at some point in the future. i wouldn't be surprised when (yes, when) orange corn has smart contracts on lightning or some other layer2 zkrollup type deal if that produced sufficient fees rendering the entire debate pointless.

>>49951751
Just Bridge BTC to Avalanche and use it in DeFi, their Bridge uses new improved SGX tech that makes it trustless.
Why be stuck with BTC when you can have BTC.e

>>49951665
all i need to say, dumbfuck
eat my shit and speaks for itself

>>49950987
the issue i've always had with slashing is that imo it could potentially incentivize validators to attack one another to get their competitors slashed

lol avax isn't even truly a contender for eth competitor long term. sol is, but avax is the fantom of this cycle, soon to be a ghost chain. look at where the devs are. eth and sol.

>>49951783
>Why be stuck with BTC when you can have BTC.e
dont you mean btc.b with the b suffix denoting that it comes from the orange cone chain? at least shill for the red triangle correctly ser.

>>49951796
Kill yourself dumb fucking nigger

>>49951812
Slashing is dumb shit, Avalanche has proven for 2 years now that Proof of Stake can easily work without Slashing.

Also the risk of slashing in ETH will lead to people outsourcing that risk to a 3rd party which makes ethereum eventually centralized.

>>49951620
that's a good take. I think we mainly disagree on the degree to which
>ETH isn't complacent
while it's true that ETH has a lot of great devs who are working earnestly, I think there are structural issues which are wasting a lot of this talent and good intent.
zk rollups have a lot of potential, and I am cautiously optimistic about Arbitrum(I'm a biased link holder). Of course L2 has its own risks and issues and I don't think we've even scratched the surface. Not to mention the crypto-economic questions about L2s that can't be tested in lab.
To be fair Avalanche consensus is also a novel tech with it's own potential risks, but it's been exposed to the wild for long enough that it seems most of those unknown unknowns and black swans were never there.

>>49951856
>hit my word filter
>didn't read
lmao

>>49951842
Solana cant even achieve 100% uptime.
Dead garbage pushed by the FTX kikel. Will get raped by Avalanche like all the other centralized ghostchains.

>>49951843
Yea my bad, its BTC.b

>>49951878
Why bother with centralized L2s when you can launch a customized and decentralized Subnet instead?

>>49951163
/thread
>>49951229
Still doesn’t realize what this price action is and how it won’t/cannot last. ngmi
//thread
There is no second best, rip

>>49950915
Kek. DAOs are important because of this. Right to ownership, own identity and of course ones like SPOOL would add BTC and ETH dependent on DAO votes.

>>49951842
>sol
top kek

>>49949787
>bitcoin is the replacement for fiat currencies
>but it'll only work if we keep printing more and also let a centralized body manipulate it
the absolute state

>>49950513
>He's not wrong. The BTC supply cap is a serious, serious concern. Not only because of collaborative 51% attacks as the coins become more consolidated in fewer wallets over time,
51% attacks are not related to wallet storage. perhaps if BTC was PoS you would make some sense, but you don't.
I've been out of the crypto game since 2013 and I still know you're retarded.

>>49950513
>51% attacks from whale wallets
you're an extreme midwit

>>49951842
>be SOL whale
>network crashes
>lending dapp 'votes' to takes over your account
>network crashes again
kek, solbaggie please

>>49952079
This
There is no second best for a reason, believe it

>>49949787
Alts will concern troll about btc security budget until the end of time (even though they dont actually want to fix the issue but instead just add uncertainty to btc) but it's a pointless debate at this moment for a few reasons.
1. It won't change today because the problem may never actually manifest itself. It is possible fees increase and this was pointless worrying. The supply cap won't increase until it is verified that the fee market won't develop.
2. You can wait for additional confirmations for the same security or amount of work.
3. What is sufficient security budget? Even if we add tail emission no one can say what is enough without knowing where the fee market settles. This circles back around to point 1 of changing it now being a nonstarter.
4. This won't be an issue for another decade at least. If fees aren't developing and btc isn't used 1 decade from now did it already fail?
5. Minimum fees can be implemented.
6. Variable block sizes can be implemented.
7. More mining used for its heat generation can be used as incentive for higher base hash rate that makes it harder for an attacker to obtain enough hash to outnumber everyone heating their pools/water heaters using asic chips.

I'm sure there are other solutions as well. Raising the supply is an easy way out that is mostly the response alts that hate btc give because they want to ruin its value prop of unchanging monetary policy. This will be used over and over for the next decade to FUD but is largely a distraction.

>>49950877
The opposite effect will happen, by the time all the coins are mined Bitcoin would be impossible to 51% attack seeing that a majority of Bitcoin will be dispersed among retail, whales, companies, and at the same time lost to time by people who’ve died w their keys or lost their keys. Regardless this thread is actually retarded and has zero understanding of what’s going on.

>>49951620
Ethereum doesn't have any scaling solutions, Rollups are third parties and will work better on instant finality/more capable chains. And just yesterday we got the proof that Rollups aren't suitable for most applications when the biggest Starknet project (DYDX) pivoted to being an appchain on Cosmos (Something Avalanche also offer with Subnet but more in its infancy at the moment).

ETH have only the network effect with mostly come from being an overvalued network, Avalanche got novel consensus+Subnets, Ethereum is unironically THE protocol who gave up completely on trying to scale.

>>49953136
>>49951229
>>49950877
>>49950513

I can't tell if this is bear market trolling or legit retardation about how Nakamoto works kek

>>49952158
I don't have any sol but it's the most serious project next to eth on terms of developer manpower and funding. It's backed by FTX/SBF, who plan on being the top dog in the game next to binance. They won't let sol fail.

>>49952123
>>49952139

y'all are what you call first order thinkers. you think 'hmm wallets dont contribute to block validation' but you never make it to second order thought which is 'how do the incentives as well as the distribution of btc value effect the WILLINGNESS of people to manipulate the chain?' because you're actually a midwit, someone who's smart enough to do the first order thinking, but not smart enough to take it to that second step. i'm done making my points. enjoy your midwit world view

>>49949787
>N8yIETC2
>ETC2
what did OP mean by this?

>>49953946
SOL and CEL are heavily based regardless of what's going on with them currently. I don't see myself selling them any time soon alongside RFOX after seeing the kind of partners and supporters these projects have ATM.

>>49949787
eth rolled back its blockchain. it failed at the whole point of crypto. its centralized and is a tool of the globohomo elites. i aint saying btc is better, who the fuck knows who made it but eth is a tranny.

>>49949816
lmao

>>49949787
Proof of stake is by definition more decentralized than a proof of work coin in which 50% of supply can easily be attained by a state power

>>49949787
Ah yes eth. The coin that exists to perpetuate arbitrarily high gas fees for funneling cash to the autist skeleton.

>>49949787
Actually we don't know and several scenarios can play out:
1. BTC goes to Proof-of-Stake
2. BTC removes supply cap and implements tail emissions
3. Merge-mined SHA-256 incentivizes miners (RSK) - similar to how Doge/Litecoin played out with Scrypt
4. Nothing will happen if the fees alone are sufficient.

You know the same conversation played out in 2012 and BTC is still here.

>>49949787
I hate this basedfed beaded twat

>twitter screencap thread

>>49958037
Yeah not like states can't print money or anything to destroy pos

>>49949787
monero will print 0.6 XMR blocks until the end of time, leading to an asymptote of inflation approaching 0.
there is no second best.

Insider here, all crypto will switch from Proof of Work/Stake, to Proof of Circumcision

>>49949787
LINK>currency.

>>49949816
ATOM>AVAX>ETH

hedera is literally superior to both eth and btc, simply look at the companies joining the hbar economy through the hbar foundation
>hello future

>>49949844
Based and checked

>>49949865
So many newfags don't even realise how much of a basedfaggot this guy is

>>49951657
>year 2150. block rewards have finally ended.
>american empire collapsed long again, along with its shitcoin (ticker: USD)
>the world's elite have long since stored their wealth on the bitcoin blockchain
>1 btc = 1 btc
>millions of btc change hands every day, providing ample tx fees for the miners
>trillionaire aristocrats build bitcoin mining facilities on their gaudish estates
>don't even care about the costs, just trying to one-up their rivals by building the most aesthetic facility
>be me
>great-great-grandson of a bitcoin maxi
>my ancestors were admitted to the pleasure domes back in 2070
>decide to go for a walk through my estate to check on my asics
>the mining facility is surrounded by a massive garden
>flowers, streams, and massive hedge statues of bitcoin maxis from the past
>one of my gardeners is pruning the saylor hedge
>he is from one of the underground tiered cities
>hear him mumbling something
>"...now there are no more emissions, btc will become concentrated and network will be 51% attacked..."
>"then eth can finally flip btc!"

>>49960900
I love Cosmos but Avalanche is similar but just better, both economically and performance wise (Tendermint is capped to like 100 validators before seeing serious performance loss). Plus Avalanche provide a great settlement layer for Rollups.

But yes it's probably more dev friendly at the moment (Cosmos is a veteran project), SDK has the most dev tooling available

>>49960899
dangerously based

>>49949816
Based

>>49949787

>>49950225
he looks absolutely grotesque

>>49949787
This guy is a faggot. Quit posting here clout chasing queer

>>49949871
Avax is not leaderless anymore you absolute retard
at least keep up with your own bags
looks up snowball++, eg when they capitulates on the mev flaw and switched to a run-of-the-mill leader based consensus

>>49949787
This is like saying a solid piece of shit is better that a puddle of diarrhea.

>>49949787
This midwit. BTC will be the bored apes of the future, but unlike valueless NFTs in the future, BTC hodlers 20-30 years from now will be rewarded as part of the real MVPs VIP crypto yacht club. Hoes that will be young enough to be my daughter in 2042 be like, "wow, you own BTC???? I can't even afford a fractional coin. You must be rich! Wanna fool around, daddy?"

>>49951751
not bad thoughts, you could also levy a direct tax from every btc holder in times of low fees but that is basically the same as busting supply cap
>>49951783
lol, lmao, etc etc

>>49953136
I agree, I'm not sure how that attack would happen with so many wallets holding btc.

>>49962980
snowman++ only penalizes block spammers (aka MEV fags), but it's still exactly the same leaderless consensus as before in that anyone can propose a block at anytime and there is no single decider/leader that picks. Instead it's up to a metastable consensus based on pseudorandom rounds of voting and sampling.

I mean just think about it for more than half a second, if they made AVAX leadered then MEV would immediately surface, but instead the exact opposite happened. In fact, snowman++ killed whatever small amount of MEV there was in the first place(although it's arguable if that was even MEV in the technical sense). MEV needs leadered consensus to work and AVAX clearly doesn't have that.

>did AVAX even have MEV initially?
technically speaking no, it wasn't MEV because it wasn't validators extracting value from validating the consensus, they were extracting value from spamming the gossip protocol, so GEV(Gossip Extracted Value) would be a better term to describe what was occuring pre-snowman++. Hypothetically speaking this would be equivalent to Bitcoin Miners DDOSing each other to block propagation of competing blocks. Some might describe this tactic as "Miner Extract Value" since on a very basic level it is indeed "miners extracting value", but similarly to snowman++ this hypothetical exploit has nothing to do with consensus layer and instead is a exploit of a gossip/network protocol so we wouldn't give it the name MEV which describes a very specific phenomenon of leadered blockchains the extraction of value by manipulating ordering of transactions and contract execution.

>>49949816
based

>>49949787
I sold all my eth and bought HBAR and DAG

>>49950880
> Fees dont go to miners, they are burned.
I'd much rather see fees go to miners than having them extract value via MEV. Fees are an honest, open, free market, MEV is basically fraud.

>>49963641
BTC miner can extract MEV in the same way, they already prioritize transaction with higher fees, just no incentive to do so without all the DeFi stuff

>>49949816
ETH > AVAX
SOL > AVAX
DOT > AVAX

Inflation is so bad on AVAX it makes fiat look like a smart play.

>>49963711
wut?
> they already prioritize transaction with higher fees
Yes, that's the honest market I was talking about.
> just no incentive to do so without all the DeFi stuff
Exactly, since there are not a million tokens on the BTC ledger there really isn't any room for MEV.

>>49949787
Yo!!, normies have got to lie on the ground on which ETH walk coz right there is the real deal.

>>49949871
32ETH on validators and dem other big moves on it keeps me wide awake. Keep me afloat with them staking of 5-10% p.a.
AxlToken as well giving over 40% APR.
GREEN with over 25% APY. What's there not to love about POS.

>>49949816
Yo!! AVAX boy give it a break and tell dem devs to pamp it.

>>49949844
Holders of this token are so damn determined yet salty. I may just have to join the clan

Both are shit, monero is the way to go.

>>49964174
Then I might just have to buy it then with some OIN and AxlToken for the long run, based and checked. No ass flapping in here.

>>49963588
Hope you don't regret bobo.

>>49963641
First off, AVAX validators are paid via staking rewards so they don't rely on fees. In the future, validators will be incentivized mainly by subnet rewards, of which there will be a dynamic set of subnets(similar to dapps, think dappchains). There will then be a market for validators as subnets will seek to secure and decentralize relative to the size of the value sitting on the subnet. Very different model from ETH which has no market mechanism for security and even the most trivial useless dapps gets the same level of security as the most important effectively forcing 99% of users to pay for crypto-economic security that is magnitude thousands of times of actual user demand. A horribly inefficient system that was not designed from the bottom up with DeFi ecosystems in mind unlike AVAX. I will say you can't blame Vitalik or Gavin as hindsight is 20/20 and they rightfully did not want to deviate too far from BTC since ETH was already highly experimental.

Second off, Avalanche consensus is leaderless and does not have MEV. Also AVAX could have fees in the same sense as BTC since there is no single miner to pay the fees towards since all validators are involved in consensus. It's a fundamentally different from Nakamoto consensus(all other coins) where a single miner is *picked* via a pseudorandom process scaled by hash power(in BTC's case, can be scaled via stake amount in PoS). For both these reasons fees are burned(nobody to send them too) so the incentive is based on a decreasing percentage global staking reward calculated from amount staked over time staked. I will mention that staking rewards go to zero after about 20 years so AVAX is ultimately deflationary. However subnet rewards are highly dynamic and likely inflationary since an effectively infinite number of subnets can be created.

>>49949844
Yup sick of this kyc, sick of traceable blockchain bullshit. Sick of the shitcoiners responding with "i didnt do anything illegal what do i have to hide??" mentality. No morons, its the right to privacy

>>49949787
Eth does everything bitcoin does and more.

Btc is considered a stone age cryptocurrency because of its environmental problems it creates and one day miners won't have enough incentive to secure the network.

>>49949787
Retarded
>>49949816
BNB>Avax

>>49964228
This is why im stock piling XMR, yeah i get it, its got a bad rap with the black market and constant FUD with exchanges delisting it, but its one of the only cryptos out there that actually gets used as currency.

>>49964269

It is useful now and for a certain amount of time (maybe 10 -15 years) but there will be a point where it won't be as useful when mainstream people trust eth more.

I'm sure u can profit off of its future appreciation but I just don't see btc being useful forever. I have a feeling Satoshi was aware of this and knew he was just inventing the kickstarter.

>>49964228
good luck explaining to Jorge that his remittances cost $50 to send this month because some faggot in New York started selling programmatically generated images of cartoon apes to other faggots. Shared security is a joke.

BTC is simple by design and it was well thought out from the beginning. In fact, Satoshi himself considered making the BTC blockchain programmable, like ETH, but given his keen foresight he quickly realized that it would only get in the way of BTC's primary goal which is digital currency.
So ETH tries to do everything and fails at everything, not a store of value, not a good currency, not a good gas token for powering DeFi. Just an interesting experiment that gave rise to better projects like AVAX, SOL, ATOM, DOT, etc. In that way I would call it a very successful failure.

>>49950225
I swear to god, if Ethereum has a dick, sassi will pay to suck it first.

>>49949844

>>49963512
>>49964208
based

>>49949787
my thread is still going? eth > btc confirmed

>>49949787
pick your line homeboys

ETH is more akin to gold than BTC is

ETH is actually used for something. What is BTC used for? NOTHING

>>49950225
Bankless ultrasound retardation

>>49961554
based. Bitcoin is king

>>49955919
There is already maximum willingness to create a fake bitcoin and it's not happening.

>>49949844
>Dumbass
I believe in privacy but this is preposterous

>>49949976
Where is the bottom of your heart

>>49950116
Different from gas fees? Seen some platforms with internal fees as high as 10% of the transactions. More reason why I consider mixers to be expensive when trying to stay anonymous. It is better and perhaps more reasonable to stay on chain and pay less fees

>>49950231
AVAX is not a scam chain. Don't be an idiot

They want to control liquidity and sell you paper bitcoin like stocks and gold. Keep it 21 million.

>>49949787
with Polygon's scaling ETH and MATIC will flip BTC in the next bullrun.

>>49950247
Well, a lot of incredible stuffs has beeb built on ETH. Think from that perspective

>>49950425
Probably because there are a whole lot of fuck shits wrong with the current decentralisation. It is contaminated with elements of centralization. How the fuck can centralisation be complete without privacy? Makes no sense

>>49950576
>L2s work on it too and with privacy enabling subnets it will soon have obscurity to absorb where there's a gap that Monero is filling. It is incredibly obvious.
Hmm, the privacy gap left wide open is wider than you can imagine. If not Railgun with its privacy system that works on the chain, it was almost impossible to stay anonymous on the chain without explorer exposing your ass

>>49950667
They don't have a problem with that

This whole thread reeks of cope.
The future is multichain.

How much leverage is considered degen? 2x? 3x? 5x? With something like btc or eth I mean.

>>49964173
>so damn determined yet salty. I may just have to join the clan
all roads lead to monero, anon
you will see

>>49949844
>>Verification not required.
Based and checked.

>>49950044
calling miner fees a 'subsidy' is the most communist, subversive shit ever. I fucking hate these people.

>>49949787
there will NEVER be more than 21 million Bitcoin fuck SASSANO

>>49970682
agreed, but isn't he referring to block rewards (mints) rather than fees?

quite literally the ultimate midwit talking point from hard coping eth maxis that realized their bags are never seeing another btc high ever again

t. bitcoin maximalist with more ether than that fat söy aussie could ever dream of owning

>>49964208
Dangerously based for the midwits on this board.

>>49949787
>billions lost to solidity exploits.
>billions in excess fees charged
in any other paradigm, eth would have been fed to the wolves shortly after birth.

>>49949844
Checked. Plus yes, Ethereum's monetary policy is by no means certain and is subject to change like it has already many times. In time, it can become like a central bank. Monero's money proonter has an entirely predictable (small) emission, and parameters controlling the tail emission + dynamic block size are specifically designed for long term viability. Ethereum is a shallow LARP in comparison. ETH is a gas token. They should stick to smart contracts.

>>49961554
>1 btc = 1 btc
it's not though, bitcoin is not fungible, each utxo has a different history. "suspicious"/"high risk"/"illegal" coins can be discriminated against.

>>49949816
based and red pilled

>>49971383
you're dumb and wrong unless you're trying to say that all of the coins in a wallet become tainted if it receives even 0.000001 BTC from a known "bad wallet"

Both useless without API3
So API3>ETH=BTC

>>49971463
This depends on who does the flagging, and yes, this is entirely possible. You will be on the graph. Also there are many other cases beyond this. Having all your money and transactions publicly visible is fucking retarded. And no, mixers don't help this: The mere act of using a mixer can subject the wallet to get flagged.
Opt-in privacy is not privacy because the knowledge that you wanted privacy will single you out. The users who need privacy least should cover for people that need privacy the most. This doesn't really happen voluntarily, it should be enforces systematically. Both users should be indistinguishable.

>ETH thread
>CTRL + F
>"ava"
>1/63

>>49949787
100%

>>49961554
>eth
>in year 2150
try more like 2030, top stretch

>>49971590
But privacy is not free so that would imply everyone paying a premium so you can buy drugs and dodge taxes.

>>49949844
checked.

>>49950044
Yeah... this is not gonna happen. You can always try creating a shitty fork that does these things but nobody will use it.