FaceDeer

Ok, so a stablecoin means, that the holder gives an unsecured, zero-interest loan to a company with unknown credit worthiness.

No. Neither of the approaches I described means that. You can check the credit-worthiness of Tether and other such companies (Tether was just an example, there are many others) and decide whether you want to use their token based on what you learn if you wish. As I said, you only need the token to last for as long as you're using it for, so if you're running a storefront for example you can be paid in those tokens and immediately trade them for something you trust more.

And you can’t actually redeem the stablecoin for money, you can only get crypto that trades for $1, allegedly.

The stablecoin is worth $1, yes. That's the point of the stablecoin. The "allegedly" part is not actually allegedly, it's part of how the smart contract backing the token operates.

Are you for real?

Yes. I get the impression that you're arguing in bad faith, though. I'm happy to discuss the details of how these things work but you're calling this "insane" and that's not a particularly useful mindset for learning.

It varies, there are a bunch of different types of stabletokens. The two main approaches I'm aware of are:

• Tokens that are issued and backed by a trusted third party. Tether, for example, issues one USDT token for every USD that is deposited with Tether Inc. and you can redeem USDTs for USD again any time. I'm not particularly fond of this approach, but it's simple and popular and as long as you're not holding USDT long-term I don't see a big problem with it as a day-to-day currency. Just make sure the issuing company is audited and you're prepared for the possibility that they could turn out to be lying.

• Tokens that are issued by on-chain smart contracts, backed by other digital assets. DAI and Liquity are examples of these. They are more complicated but IMO the better choice because you don't have to trust anyone - you can see the token's backing right on the blockchain itself and know whether it's actually worth what the stabletoken needs for support.

One of the nice things about the on-chain smart contract stabletokens is that they can be backed by less-stable tokens, such as Ether itself, so you can get the best of both worlds out of them.

There are open IoT standards.

You "can" do these things in a lot of different ways, the unanswered question is what way is best. That's not just a technical question, it also depends on how easy it is to deploy to the general public. If your toothbrush uses Bluetooth then you need to pair it with something that can speak to it, whereas if it can speak to the Internet then that broadens the ability for various systems to talk to it considerably. You can run a webserver they could visit from any browser, apps for phones, etc.

There's no need for a toothbrush to have access to your phone book. But nobody's saying it should. This whole situation of "hacked toothbrushes" isn't real.

And I'm not particularly pleased to be accused of lying when I'm willing to cite sources and the guy I'm debating with refuses to even address my responses. But you don't see me YELLING IN ALL CAPS about it.

How about stabletokens, many of which are pegged directly to the value of the USD?

Given Turkey's current monetary policies I wouldn't want to use Turkish liras even if I lived in Turkey.

If you need the token's price to be stable then there are stabletokens specifically designed for that.

When it was making the rounds of the Fediverse I spent some time hopping between the reposts adding a comment pointing out its falseness. On one of the threads I got a response that was basically "okay, so this particular story is false, but it still supports the narrative we're arguing and so it might as well be true."

Truthiness in a nutshell. Sigh.

Yes. But failing at the intent of the protocol in the process. When a hacker exploits a buffer overrun to take control of a remote computer, the computer is following its prescribed mechanisms to the letter. But that's certainly not what the computer's owner wants it to be doing.

If adding blocks to a PoW chain had no cost then the chain wouldn't be functioning as its users desire - there'd be no canonical fork any more. It would fail to solve the Byzantine generals problem, which is fundamentally the purpose of cryptocurrency.

In addition to using it as a currency, sure. But as I asked rigatti, is that a problem? At worst one might perhaps argue that the name "cryptocurrency" is misleading, but I've never cared much about semantics like that.

Right. Which is not what I was talking about. This was about how a PoW chain would become useless if there was no cost involved in making blocks, ie, if the "W" part was missing. It would allow anyone to add blocks. There'd be no way to distinguish forks from each other and decide on a canonical one. Being able to agree on a particular fork as being the "valid" one in a decentralized manner is the fundamental secret sauce of what makes cryptocurrency work. All the various protocols boil down to ways of solving that one particular problem.

You're guessing wrong, I'm not a "bagholder." I'm just interested in the tech.

it’s clear that you are absolutely guessing here while anon is spitting facts

I've provided specific examples and links to references. Anon's not done any of that, he's just got mad. Like you, too. Calm down.