What a great conversation. How often these days do you see four people on screen with this much knowledge allowing each other to talk at length and express their ideas without talking over one another or getting defensive? Kudos to all involved.
There's a bit much talking and not very much arguing. No doubt she's a great representative of PoW but I'm missing the "here's why this is better than this" and not just "consider this. This means that this and this and this and this".
@@acv5700 at many points it sounded like she was explaining why PoW is good but not necessarily why PoS is bad in comparison. Arguments like Bitcoin is a good load balancer for the grid while the argument is completely destroyed with how PoS uses 99% less power in the first place or arguments like PoW pushes people to cheap power however with PoS you can stake wherever and not worry about this variable of “finding cheap energy” which only a few people can do in the first place.
Something I've noticed with many developers and engineers (as I used to be an engineer) is that they are unable to see the bigger picture. They become so lost in the specific technicalities of a product that their view on macroeconomics is often extremely poor. This is common among most Ethereum advocates. They're all technically very savvy but their knowledge on economics is poor. This is why developers generally tend to enjoy proof-of-stake systems since they're much easier to deploy and they can be a part of the whole web3 movement. Bitcoin advocates have a much more integrated world view, and look at technology in the context of the bigger picture rather than getting lost in the most minute details which are often irrelevant. This helps explain why Lyn is much calmer than Justin, since Justin is in his own world, and starts getting anxious (you can see it from his tone) as Lyn starts to explain the economic realities of PoS systems.
Agree. I know loads of software engineers who fall for stupid stuff. Eg. one guy I knew lost 4k in Bitconnect, one of top devs in the office, got caught out by the most obvious ponzi ever
Just the title itself is bad. Then the 5 questions in the introduction are the wrong ones. They are just bad questions to ask. Proof of Stake is a family of consensus protocols. 51% attack only applies to a subset of these protocols, based on what type of consensus they use. For instance, in a true Proof of Stake protocol, you require more than 51% control to attack it. To put it simply, all proof of stake protocols, apart from one, simulate the way how our pseudo-democracy works today. So it is bad. But there's one proof of stake consensus, PPoS, that imo is just outstanding. Its structure is fascinating in that it simulates what democracy should really be like, a direct democracy. And it was invented by Turing award winner Silvio Micali (founder of Algorand). It has the most sound theoretical foundation, it is highly scalable, secure (instant finality/no forking), and decentralized by design. Now, decentralized by design here means that on paper, its consensus can decentralize overtime, since everyone can participate in the consensus (like in a direct democracy). You don't have to be an elite/rich to participate; that is, the barrier to entry is very low, unlike Bitcoin (PoW) or Eth2.0 (PoS). Bitcoin is defacto centralized, since in order to have a good chance at solving the cryptographic riddle in the BTC consensus, you require loads of mining power. Otherwise, your chance of appending the next block is almost nil. So BTC's consensus is defacto centralised. Finally, you need a blockchain that scale in order to democratize finance and have a borderless economy. Money is meant to be transacted and not stored under the mattress. Sure, lightning network can help BTC to a certain extent, but then lightning's security is not really well understood. That is why lightning can only go so far such as micropayment. Also, BTC does not have a rich logic; i.e. it's smart contract architecture is very primitive and not geared for complex applications such as DeFi. And that is not democratizing finance.
True..... also one of the main reasons a lot of developers don't understand the point of blockchain and Bitcoin. It's a lack of financial literacy. Fiat currency is so ingrained into society most people grew up in the system that they don't understand the difference between money and currency.
@@dudeshiya That's not how centralization or security works. Only ASIC (rich guys) can mine Bitcoin, that much is true. But consensus and security is done by $100 RasPi machines just as much as the $100mm mega mining farms. There are thousands of nodes all around the globe. Bitcoin is not defacto centralized. Bitcoin doens't need smart contracts. Bitcoin doesn't need anything. L2 can work fine. I think an argument can even be made for Ehtereum on top of Bitcoin, or something like that. The point of Bitcoin is to change the base layer of money, not to be the most advanced crytpo/web3 tech. We don't want democracy in finance; what does that even mean? Our politics isn't even democracy. You want some idiot 16yo w an IQ of 60 to get a vote on nuclear vs wind vs coal?
Good points from both. Justin lost some cred in my mind when he didn't cede the point that complexity is inherently risky. He's rattling off all these ways to punish bad actors and I'm just thinking who is turning all these knobs and setting these parameters? If you've worked with complex systems you know that more dials isn't necessarily better. Bitcoin core already has like a hundred command line flags... an order of magnitude more complexity becomes completely intractable.
This is what I was thinking. Money needs to be easy and unbreakable a simple movement of value. And the incentives for somebody who could run this money and take advantage of its complexity are too great for a human to resist them.
This wiki page I read said Lyn was homeless with her mom as a kid, had to rely on strangers to get food to eat, and clean herself in public sinks. I really think adversity like that, for some people, can instill in them an incredible drive to make a success out of themselves. She's done great so far!
@@Brian-vk1hm I don’t think it’s bad to point out facts. Reality matters. Love Lyn been following their work for years. But they are not a woman. Would love to meet them someday though.
Another point, this conversation should have been framed in the context where both the PoW and PoS chain were actually the global reserve currency. Justin made the point that Bitcoin has constant sell pressure due to the need to pay for energy. But in a world where Bitcoin IS the currency there is no selling. Instead you have simply made a direct profit which simply results in an exchange of value from the people making transactions. Then, if the miner is not an energy company some portion of that Bitcoin would simply travel over to the energy provider. The true measure of "cost" for mining is the means to produce or acquire energy. Instead of a constant value suck you have a constant energy war that incentivizes expanding the grid. Combined with clean energy opportunities in remote/undeveloped areas you have a first buyer of energy for new projects across the globe. This is such a better mechanism than simply deflating a smart contract gas token whose value is only connected to the real world through financial products.
You will still need to pay for electricity and maintainance costs even if you don't convert into fiat. A larger portion of minted coins will go for maintainance costs
@@abeidiot Did you not read the whole thing? I addressed energy costs in both the case where the miner owns or doesn't own the energy provider. In either case (under a Bitcoin standard), it's just moving Bitcoin into different peoples hands. It does not put downward pressure on the currency because there is no pricing of the currency (it is the currency of measure).
You are right - when a US consumer pays the electricity bill, there is no selling pressure on the USD - just a transfer of wealth. I fully disagree on your first point tho: this conversation should NOT have been framed in a context of BTC/ETH being a reserve currency. Your ideal universe where 1 chain becomes the single & global reserve currency is probably never coming. At best, one chain becomes mainstream - and is accepted as a reserve currency, NEXT TO the USD, EUR, GBP, YEN, etc. - knowing that this best case scenario will take years, if not decades to materialize. in other words, Drake's point is valid today, and will probably remain valid in for years. in the meantime, PoS allows value retention at the community level.
@@darenna If your argument is that neither become mainstream enough to act as a transfer of wealth then neither can be talked about as a store of value regardless. It doesn't mean fiat has to go away, just that people need to be broadly exchanging BTC/ETH and holding it as the receipt of payment. In a world where neither reaches this state and both incur taxes then both are complete failures as sound money. Staking rewards are taxed at the moment you receive them meaning there is a value suck on those rewards regardless of the energy usage being low. So in your view neither is sound money, which I admit is currently true and may always be true. But that's not what this debate is trying to discuss.
@@IRLC My point is that Drake's point is valid. - Current Situation: most miners need to sell rewards vs. fiat to finance mining - which creates a selling pressure on the PoW token. - Base Case: a PoW token is considered as a reserve currency, and mining costs are paid in the form of wealth transfer. In this base case scenario, corporates accept to hold the token up to a certain exposition - as a significant part of their costs remains in fiat (e.g. USD, EUR) - they would need to hedge - inducing a (reduced but still significant) selling pressure on the PoW token. - Best Case: a PoW token becomes THE main reserve currency. In this scenario - corporates do not need to sell the token to function as 100% of their costs are paid in the token. To sum up: today's PoW tokens are constantly sold to finance mining - this selling pressure will be reduced over the years - but is expected to remain high for a very long period - even in the most optimistic scenario, hence the superiority of PoS in that regard. Another element that was not addressed during the podcast, is the increased importance corporates, institutions and consumers assign to Social & Environmental issues. In that regards, PoW tokens will be at clear disadvantage vs. PoS tokens. To be honest, PoW in essence means "Proof of Energy Consumption" which is so unaligned with all these Green/CO² Neutral/ESG campains running in pretty much ANY company, that I am not even sure we should consider general adoption of a PoW token as a base case scenario. Anticipating the "what about 100% Green Energy BTC?" - Again: we're not there yet and far to get there. And even if - in another future best case scenario - we do get there : replacing those PoW miners with PoS validators = freeing that green energy to do something else.
Guys thank you so much for this video ! I couldn't dream better to understand both trade offs between PoS and PoW, this is truly amazing explanation and a lot of condensed value
@@taccntb4345 maxism doesnt bring you anywhere. i have both.. but btc is my bigger bag. ETH imo only enriches the earlier developers and its founders. (its premine) and as well as moving to PoS. ( kill off the miners ). it has potential. yes but not as ultra sound money. No. that category already taken.
@@taccntb4345 bro. u twist and turn the facts. Look at market cap . its a fact gold market cap is higher than amazon or goldman or microsoft and even TSLA.dont look at the price. ETH maxism wont bring u anyway. like i say i have both ... but this kind of maxism doesnt paint ETH a great picture. i will sure dump it for this kind of toxicity that u inherently are.
As a Bitcoiner - this was an amazingly held debate. Great work guys. If you really want a good argument against PoS I’d suggest having Jason Lowrey on the pod!
Great debate! But honestly, both are needed in our world. BTC is hard money and easier for nation states and citizens to adopt. ETH is programmable money for Defi, NFT, Enterprise, Wallstreet services.
BTC will remain the plain simple inefficient PoW to be digital gold while everyone else will be PoS as the pros outweighs the cons when you are not trying to be digital gold.
@@TheFelicityWildcams are you aware that the addressable market for BTC is 10x than all DeFi and NFT combined? #Bitcoin is in a different digital asset class, read the Fidelity report. The rest are fighting among themselves for 1/10 of the pie.
One of the best episodes on Bankless. Definitely need to listen a couple more times to learn from the amazing guests. Lyn is so smart and has a deep understanding about the history of money.
Lyn killed it with simple logic and perspective of economic values and realistic scenarios. POS sounds almost like mistakenly trying to reform the existing government reserve system that we already have but On Chain!
Justin explaining the removing of risk for btc miners through exotic financial products so they can essentially create more certainty in returns actually surprised me. Really had no idea that it gets that complex vs Lyn's model that miners must recycle resources intelligently. This actually proves the point simply because I wasn't raised or encouraged to learn this kind of information so I am intrinsically at a competitive disadvantage. Also I really enjoyed Justin's point that there is opportunity cost because coming from defiland 5-10% really is actually quite low relative to tail risk opportunities. I was leaning toward PoW for it's properties of inherent risk management (despite still thinking it tends toward centralization) but those rebuttals were very appreciated.
Who is this straw man who is "raised" to learn about hedging business operations to limit downside risk? It's not "exotic financial products" they're called derivatives. You learn about these things though research, education, and experience. Can you read and use Google? Good... then you have no disadvantages.
The world needs less financial products and more efficient production, less paper money and more hard assets, less gamblers and more savers. That’s why I agree with Lynn that #Bitcoin has the best properties to be money. It’s immutable, descentralized, divisible and scarce (capped supply at 21 millions)
The global and domestic financial systems are complex and have tons of financial products to "remove risk", yet it is still seemingly risky enough to warrant the creation of Bitcoin with the accompanying messages from Satoshi. I find it curious that you still think PoW tends towards centralization after this discussion. I was also neither raised nor encouraged to learn this kind of information either. I learn it in spite of my upbringing, profession, and mainstream society.
Great debate. Unpopular as it may be I still own gold, silver, bitcoin, ethereum, stocks and real estate. Great thing about is life in USA is you do you!
One thing to consider with the vulnerability to bugs. There are implementation bugs and there are protocol (design) bugs. Having a diversity of clients is one protection against bugs in the implementation of the protocols (bitcoin does the same), a major protection against protocol / design bugs is to be as simple as possible, also to have longer time in use without changes (ie exposure to potential exploitation) and to make changes slowly. There is no way of getting around the fact that more complex and fast changing protocols have way more potential that there is vulnerability inherent in the design
Lyn is on the side of facts, numbers, sound money, logic, and Justin is more in the technical and philosophical side. That's what I personally saw. I think Eth is stronger with pow. Changing will weaken its reputation.
I think Justin Drake is actually hurting Ethereum with his arguments, much as Bitcoin Toxic Maximalists hurt bitcoin with theirs. Ethereum does not need to worry about being digital gold, it needs to concentrate on being FAANG 2.0. I think both Bitcoin and Ethereum will work together and that's just great for humanity.
Great discussion! But the parties largely fail to connect due to a conflation of money (legal agreements) and currency (technology). 1. Money is legally an agreement between two or more parties. Setting legal tender laws aside, anything can be money in private commerce. 2. Currencies are the standardization of agreements - i.e. a One Dollar Federal Reserve Note is a non-interest-bearing promissory note. 3. The function of money is that of language of value aka "pricing function" expressed as a unit of account. The largest network effects are attached to THAT function. 4. The primary use case of money today is lending. All digital government-issued fiat currency is in a constant state of lending, as such strictly speaking there are no 'deposits'. 5. The secondary use case of money is spending. The client software for the latter might be a web or mobile app, or coded into hardware - i.e. debit cards, ultimately accessing a demand deposit account. 6. Setting physical cash aside, the medium of exchange (MOE) for all currencies - including cryptocurrencies - are bytes. In that respect bitcoin uses the same MOE as the US Dollar and other fiat currencies. 7. Globally the leading unit of account (UOA) is US Dollar. In that respect, bitcoin and other cryptocurrencies are frequently denominated in USD, with wallet UIs offering other fiat currency translations. 8. Tokens are standardized smart contracts built atop a public blockchain, which can be digital bearer instruments (DBIs). DBIs can in principle settle 'instantly' with finality and without a third party. www.linkedin.com/pulse/once-upon-time-gold-money-christian-kameir/
The closing statement of Lyn is a case for bitcoin, but not for PoW. She just wants some hard money with monetary premium, low issuance and little utility. PoW wasnt even mentioned once by her.
You need proof of work to achieve those qualities as in PoS you have to permanently reward and issue more coins for stakers to earn more as time passes by.
@@luisdavid8441 If you really want a hard money and talk long term then you also have to consider the cost of PoW, lack of security and quantum computing. PoW / Bitcoin always pretends to look care about the longterm, but in the end they just try to shit on PoS, because the have no clue how to solve their problems.
True, she doesn't specifically mentions it, but it's sort of implied in my opinion. In addition to what you point out, she also talks about the importance of a system which performs with as little complexity as possible (we know it's PoW by a multiple factor), focuses on doing one thing as best as possible, is the most decentralised and most immutable. Both protocols take care of different spectrums in the digital world.
Good tone in the debate. Lyn is really stuck in the commodity vs equity metaphor but she has courage to put her case forward 🙌. Justin crushed it as usual. I’m long Ether for sure, since think i has the best chance win the monetary premium in the long run.
Money does not need to multiply itself. If a deflationary money were truly adopted as the main store of value it would increase the value of money at the expense of real economic output. Over longer periods products would simply go down in price along with the decreased supply because you cannot grow real scarcity by simply decreasing the supply of monetary energy. Similar to inflation under the fed system, prices would lag the actual changes in supply creating price confusion. People don't seem to understand that the ideal money is not "which money is the best investment". The ideal money (among other things outside this conversation) is that which creates the least price confusion (high liquidity with a fixed supply where the only change in price comes from the demand for the item being priced).
That makes sense. My basic thoughts are, essentially the purest type of money acts as a signal in where the free-market would willingly exchange goods & services for, without distortions from deflation or inflation from the money itself or other external pressures. This would represent the truest & most accurate price signal. Another comment I've heard and thought about when writing this is that if you boil money down, it's simply just a global ledger, THAT'S IT.
@@df9193 Exactly, it's not a commodity OR an equity. It's just a ledger of value whose job is to be as removed as possible from the measure of value for other things. Fixed supply is the first step, then global adoption to maximize liquidity is the second (and most critical step). Until both of those things happen you can't have price clarity (where the price over time truly represents the change in supply/demand of that specific good or service).
Finally listened through the entire episode. Absolutely amazing debate and thoughts on the topic from everyone involved in the convo. I agree with Lyn, but have zero conviction about which will garner a larger market cap in the long term.
Indeed is the best debate about PoW and PoS, but the discussion got frequently beyond that , monetary premium, security and social. So it's very hard to conclude which of these is the best. Only time will answer that, until there I think PoS is gaining an advantage.
Does Lyn Alden @lynalden ever get the chance to respond to the "quantum computing threatens pow systems" argument? Still listening at 1:10 and have not heard it yet.
I like how Justin ventured into the social layer concept. I worry that we are in a new era of not only disenchantment with our governments, but a no longer viable democratic structure (in the US). I would like these crypto tools to empower individuals to coordinate, exchange, engage, and learn. Not a new 1%. And when it comes to money, it won't save you. It's a tool we all share. Wealth disparity seems inherently risky to peace. I would love to see ETH whales donate their wealth in the coming years, not only for ecosystem robustness, but a token of goodwill toward all fellow ETH users. Vitalik has been an inspiration. The competition and collaboration around sound money is fascinating. I appreciate the hosts and guests and everyone trying to be a little more educated.
This was an incredible talk! Justin drake’s take about proof of work being proof of stake with extra steps made a lot of sense to me when he described how financial products even out the risk for capital allocators in mining power.
The impression I got from the debate was not so much PoW versus PoS but "Here's the BTC economy that spun up based on PoW" versus "Here are all the tools and protocols we're designing to manage ETH PoS to be fair for everyone". So now I feel compelled to dig around why Ethereum had planned to go from PoW to PoS (this was in planning apparently from 2015 perhaps, 2 years after conception of Ethereum and after it released? Someone correct me on this). Also, Lyn said that the lopsided distribution of Ethereum client usage, skewed toward Geth, would be a bane against Ethereum, but I recall that Vitalik Buterin in his second Lex Friedman interview said that having multiple clients saved Ethereum from an attack back in 2019. He didn't talk about the client distribution, but I can't imagine it would be have an even distribution back then as well. Very interesting debate nonetheless. Ot certainly made me feel a lot more open to Ethereum's PoS even though Justin Drake didn't get a chance to expound on ultra sound money, But it also has me wondering what it takes to make a fair PoS system because the tools he brings up are not intrinsically inherent to a generic PoS system, but possible as demonstrated by the Ethereum community.
Bitcoin only has 1 client, which is controlled by VCs. Ethereum is a lot more resistant to control at the developer level compared to Bitcoin, especially because they run their own validators so the incentives are intrinsic. Bitcoin developers have to depend on outside funding.
Lyn showed here that there really is no debate. Proof of Work is the way. pos is great for the ones who premined these tokens so nothing different to our present fiat
ETH built it's success using POW! NOBODY knows whether POS will last the test of time. The codeset is likely more than 10K times more complex -- the probability of bugs in ETH POS is millions of times more than BTC. Maintaining the complex codeset will be the Achilles heal
Lyn Alden made a lot of sense to me, and dispelled so many assumptions with real world facts. Justin Drake did not seem to justify his assertions with supporting facts, and mostly asserted assumptions.
I don't see the difference between the reasons that should keep the social layer honest in Ethereum vs. the same reasons that should keep Fiat regulators honest.
Justin wants his PoS social layer power and advantages without the vulnerabilities of the trust related to the social layer holding that power (disadvantages). Can't have your cake and eat it too, PoS.
Exactly and these are the facts that POS and Ethereum influencers are trying to overlook which basically going back just the way we were… but perhaps with some new buzzwords and memes.
Just accept that there might be no clear winner. Both concensus mechanisms have their place in the market and both chains have a great but very different value proposition. They complement eachother.
What I don't understand is, for btc to be a truly global dominant Blockchain long term won't the btc community have to apply many protocol adaptations for the Implementing of L2's? And wouldn't this create exactly what Lyn is saying is making eth unattractive to her as an asset which has garnered more complexity? It seems to me btc wants to be THE global decentralized settlement layer but without the necessary changes. I tend to look at btc in the simple analogy of btc as gold and eth as oil. One has a much larger TAM and since this is programmable money eth also has mechanisms for monetary premium built in. Seems kinda like btc is stuck between a rock and a hard place wanting to be without complexity but also THE dominant token settling the world's value.... Is it that the btc community doesn't think defi and programmable contracts will continue to grow and build more adoption?
Well, PoS would say Justin. Humans only listen to what confirms their own bias. The point is, that the industry is too young (not massive global adoption), therefore we don't know really if PoS or PoW is better. As of now it's pure personal bias, nothing else.
This is under rated content. I encourage you to look up some videos from David Lancashire who makes really interesting and novel arguments about the economics afflicting both paradigms, and invite him to the show. I'm sure he would be more than willing.
I dont understand how Eth can claim to be superior in monetary terms to BTC when its ecosystem is designed around smart contract utility. What if ethereum continues losing market participants to competing ecosystems? And doesnt things like the token burning upgrade create monetary uncertainty?
Trying to get a country on board to ETH has a different taste to it than BTC , the latter opens the creative discussion of how reneweables can receive incentive and the former (ETH) is pretty much like re-adopting the dollar , your country's adoption will help you but will help the fat cats for doing nothing.
His argument for wealth preservation is flawed , 5% - 10% API 100% risk free at the protocol level incentivises against taking on real investing risk out in the real world. It actually just means a force toward lower GDP , doing nothing but staking is incentivized. He is also way off that miners has no risk, unless he knows where BTC price is going..
One thing that hasn't been mentioned is that PoS encourages more reasonable fees. Where miners just want to generally earn max fees, validators know that excessive transactions fees damage the actual commodity they own. PoS makes you put more skin in the game.
How many proof of stake systems actually have active slashing as a part of their governance? Will the slashing decision be automatic or will those governing make the decision. If it is made by those who received who received the premined crypto, can we trust the decisions will be equitable?
It's precisely the COST needed to maintain Bitcoin's PoW infrastructure that makes it HARD money. ETH's PoS allows it to be both "frozen" and liquid, and L2s will only magnify its significance. I love both BTC and ETH, but for different reasons. Let each system do what it does best. It's like the MJ vs. LeBron debate, it's a moot debate.
Just to note around the 23 min mark the hypothetical question posed to Lynn about BTC as a pos system. She was 100% incorrect in her reply. “Those that hold large stakes in the system have a structural influence on who transacts in that system, who can be censored and who can not be”
PoST sitting off to the side like "you guys do you, I'm just gonna keep working on my project over here that takes everything that made PoW viable on a trust/decentralized level, but build on top of it to be less costly to run, and add in what makes ETH attractive from a programmability standpoint, while being more secure to not have a DAO incident". It's still very new, but I think it's the sleeper that will make all of this debate irrelevant, as HDD space is way cheaper to run, that removes the whole argument of "electricity prices causing miners to shut down and sell equipment" next to irrelevant. People knocking it because of "price drop", but it's got the most potential of a network to actually have PoW security, while patching it's downfalls of runaway mining, and not sacrificing decentralization in the process.
On the point that big miners have an advantage as they can bulk buy hardware at cheaper rates, this is also the case for bulk stakes who can be cheaper Eth OTC and also receive it for free just by staking?
Lol i saw Vitalik talking and he is even worse 😂. It just seems most of Proof of Stake communities cannot see the whole picture or get their head around harder money & economic energy values.
I think the focus on monetary premium was not the right choice, first off, eth is undervalued vs fundamentals, so it kinda has zero-negative monetary premium rn. Btc on the other hand is >90% monetary premium. I think given ether’s fundamentals, it will be hard for it to have anywhere near that much value coming from monetary premium. Unfortunately, the best question is probably something like, would it be better for eth buyers if it didn’t do pos. We know btc won’t, and that is the best direct comparisons. But great convo anyway!
Lyn says this basically after i typed that. Its broadly true i guess? But to an extent at that point who cares? I’d rather own x% of us equity than x% of usd. Kinda a weird argument. Two people fighting over who can sit in the worse chair. Although, eth is already in the fundamental value chair, and it wants monetary premium too, which i guess is fine.
Bitcoin WAS decentralized back on the times when any computer was possible to mine, now its NOT! Only expensive miners are mining and 2 companies are manufacturing the 85% of all miners in the network! No penalties for the validators doesn't help either. Until 2021 most of the miners where based in China a Country with no democracy and huge corruption. In my point of view, Ethereum is much more decentralized than Bitcoin! Anyway, we all started from Bitcoin and made money from it but, and there is a very good reason why we moved on Ethereum.
Horrible debate waste of time, learned nothing, yet it's still the best POS POW debate yet. Sad. Let's go 2 hours of only Socratic method next time so we can actually get somewhere.
as a bitcoiner I really enjoyed this conversation. I think Justin made some good points, and he was more likeable than previous debates i have seen with him. I think LiDo makes Justin's argument about opportunity cost invalid, because you don't really freeze your staked ETH. And that is a problem. It brings more wealth to the wealthy. But this is a moral argument not a technical one.
