You can program anything up to and including judicial oversight and interaction rescission into a smart contract. Not all existing laws make sense or have a positive effect on this ecosystem. Many have a negative effect, speaking from experience.

I will not be able to convince someone who’s stubbornly ignoring everything I’m saying. Go waste someone else’s time.

You can mimic any existing setup for tracking deeds and similar, or invent new ones, with the added quality that they can’t be doctored. Once something is recorded, it’s recorded for good.

What do they “make”? They control for the risks in social economic interaction with potentially adversarial parties. Ethereum is proof of stake, it doesn’t burn up tons of fossil fuels. And the contracts aren’t subject to human interpretation after being authored, they’re deterministic at the protocol level (save for the entire network deciding to revoke the contract).

Why are you making fundamental mischaracterizations of the technology while acting like an expert? What you’re doing is dishonest.

Yes, work. Smart contracts are designed, programmed and, if they’re done right, rigorously audited for correctness. Then you have user-facing interface and everything surrounding that as well. Look at the documentation of AAVE, for one example.

And this isn’t even getting into the protocol level (L1 or L2) work either. Bitcoin was relatively simple, Ethereum is not. They’ve spent years crafting these systems to function for PoS, L2 support, sharding, rollups, etc., at scale.

Anyone else see Reddit’s stock tank 20% yesterday?

Yes, for the limited subset of ERC20s or whatever you describe as “ponzicoins”. Things that actually do nothing, particular not doing anything more than L1 cryptos but “this is yet another token”, are not really adding any value. But I would be really surprised if you can name any more complex contracts than ERC20s (or ERC721s), which is where the work in the space actually goes.

I reckon most of that already is. A real estate escrow smart contract is maybe 200-300 lines long in Solidity, depending of course on what it supports (contingencies and such). You may want to actually go look around, because there’s I don’t know how many millions of lines of Solidity already written. It doesn’t all get as much publicity as NFTs.

“Greatest fool” description relies on the precept of its utility or demand returning to zero in a near-future timeframe. If people have utility for “the thing”, that won’t be the case.

Also they have some smart contract capabilities which I suppose Ethereum people think are important. But I’ve never seen any practical use for that stuff.

Anything you need complicated multi-party interactions for that you want guarantees on. Real estate escrow comes to mind first. Depository accounts with yield. An immutable archive of records. Multi-signature corporate treasuries. Whatever. It’s programmable money. It’s not even necessarily monetary, because smart contracts can just deal with arbitrary data.

Never impressive to see a technical audience shit all over Ethereum for internet points. By far the least scammy crypto people have actually dedicated years into building something real on.

Both.

There’s no such thing as any cleanly delineated race or ethnicity, save for maybe some people who’ve been isolated on an island for a thousand years. But it is a natural response to the weaponized term “antisemitism” being used against defenders of Palestinians, to point out that both groups are described as “semitic”.

“Did you stop beating your wife yet?”

I am already remembering why I walked away the last time I made the mistake of talking to this guy.

Because the direction “left” doesn’t actually have any inherent relationship to political ideologies, but people strive for some kind of ideological purity, especially to draw a contrast with a fundamentally unjust society?

You’re kinda stretching it there.

If you go on there concern trolling and trying to start shit, I bet you will get banned.

But, fun fact, communists actually are not a fan of fascists.

Uh-huh. So of all the options - just shooting adult deer, or restoring the ecosystem to the way it was, or actual scientific approaches like sterilization, you’re only interested in the one that benefits you, and then you start ignoring the moral implications, and associated risks like humans getting shot. See, the conversation would go smoother if you just declare from the outset that you only care about what benefits you, and we could drop the pretense that this is about what’s actually the best solution.

Taking just the “solution” of reintroducing predators - it’s still not the same. Predation specifically targets old, weak, sick members of a herd. What do hunters do? It’s what, a tag limit and age limit, and that’s it.

This whole conversation always seems so disingenuous. People doing hunting claim these altruistic motives, but have every adverse incentive that has nothing to do with those motives, from stocking their freezers to just bragging about what they hunted. Let’s be for real here, you’re not scientists or veterinarians carefully monitoring and managing a population, what you’re doing is taking the first justification you can find for what you already wanted to do.

Killing animals isn’t ethical. Inevitably the false dilemma gets painted between killing them or overpopulation, but the overpopulation is also a human-created problem, both through overdevelopment and killing off natural predators - the actual antidote is to scale back our development, or reintroduce predators, or simply let other natural stressors manage the population. Plant-based/vegan diet is far more ethical (nonsense about “plants feel pain”, “mice killed by plows”, “I can’t eat vegan because of my blood type” and other vegan bingo card BS aside).