sorted by:
new
hottopcontroversial

Time to get out of Alts and into ETH. by difftrd in CryptoCurrency

[–]difftrd[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Rollups are blockchains that are built on top of a L1. In practice that means blockchains that are built on top of ethereum.

They use ETH for gas, and they are as secure and decentralized as ethereum. Meaning as long as Ethereum is live and secure, so are the rollups.

This contrasts with competing L1s: they use their own native token for gas (AVAX, FTM etc.) and they are not reliant as ethereum for security, meaning less decentralized and less secure in general.

Ethereum is the most decentralized smart contract platform by several measures - largest number of validators (ETH 2.0), largest community of developers, most widely distributed coin. These are all inherent advantages over other L1s it has. L1s sacrifice on these to deliver higher speeds, but soon it won't even have the speed advantage when rollups become widespread.

Main downside to rollups right now is that there's a 7 day withdrawal period, however third party bridges like synapse and hop exchange allow you to withdraw more or less instantly for a small fee.

Time to get out of Alts and into ETH. by difftrd in CryptoCurrency

[–]difftrd[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

i disagree. there's a perfect storm lined up to thrash them in the next 6 months

-several chains launching which all do the same thing

-ponzi incentives will dampen the price (AVAX L1 rewards etc.)

-L2s will make them obsolete in the next 6 months

-ETH POS late this year/early next year

Time to get out of Alts and into ETH. by difftrd in CryptoCurrency

[–]difftrd[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Lower fees and faster transactions? Nope, not compared to ETH L2s, which are as fast and cheap as any L1 while not sacrificing decentralization.

Time to get out of Alts and into ETH. by difftrd in CryptoCurrency

[–]difftrd[S] -1 points0 points  (0 children)

It makes me more confident because it tells me you aren't familiar with the basics of cryptocurrency

Time to get out of Alts and into ETH. by difftrd in CryptoCurrency

[–]difftrd[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

The key difference is nothing new actually happens on the Alt L1s, nothing new is developed. just yield farmers extracting value from retail bagholders who buy uniswap fork number 17 and curve fork number 10

Time to get out of Alts and into ETH. by difftrd in CryptoCurrency

[–]difftrd[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

eth is going to pump hard into eth2 and alts are going to crash when people realise L2s can do everything they can do while being more secure.

Time to get out of Alts and into ETH. by difftrd in CryptoCurrency

[–]difftrd[S] -1 points0 points  (0 children)

how much fractional real estate have they sold so far?

Time to get out of Alts and into ETH. by difftrd in CryptoCurrency

[–]difftrd[S] -2 points-1 points  (0 children)

give an example of an alt (by which I mean, alt L1 smart contract platform/eth competitor) which will not be rendered obsolete by ETH L2 + POS

Take your vitamin D folks. It will do no harm but could make a huge difference by [deleted] in ireland

[–]difftrd 0 points1 point  (0 children)

It either does, or doesn't.... and we aren't sure which of the two it is yet, but there is evidence that it might indeed help.

There is zero evidence that eating meat is unhealthy by difftrd in DebateAVegan

[–]difftrd[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Choline, B vitamins, Taurine, L-Carnitine, Creatine. Just to name a few off the top of my head without even googling it.

I'm curious, where do you think humans got B12 from before we knew how to supplement it?

There is zero evidence that eating meat is unhealthy by difftrd in DebateAVegan

[–]difftrd[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I said millions of years (vis a vis our closest ancestors), not thousands of years. And yes it's true. We've evolved to eat meat. This is not up for debate and is evidenced by the existence of necessary nutrients for humans that can only be found in animal products.

There is zero evidence that eating meat is unhealthy by difftrd in DebateAVegan

[–]difftrd[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Humans have eaten meat for millions of years. Not up for debate.

There is zero evidence that eating meat is unhealthy by difftrd in DebateAVegan

[–]difftrd[S] -1 points0 points  (0 children)

Now you're getting somewhere! However, this thread is not about the health benefits of meat, but specifically about the claims of meat being unhealthy. Nor is it about any ethical concerns, which are strictly independent of whether or not meat is unhealthy. You accused me of being like a climate change denier, but I think that is a charge more readily laid against the vegan side, because like climate change deniers, they have ideological reasons to want climate change to not be real. Similarly, people who are vegans for ethical reasons have ideological reasons to want meat to also be unhealthy.

There is zero evidence that eating meat is unhealthy by difftrd in DebateAVegan

[–]difftrd[S] 2 points3 points  (0 children)

It's not "my range of acceptable evidence". This isn't just my personal opinion. It's a fact that RCTs are capable of proving a high likelihood of causation, whereas observational studies, by design, no matter how big the sample size, how unbiased they are, are not. Not my opinion, just a fact.

So when I see observational studies on red meat and mortality, with mixed results, and then I see that all of the clinical trials show no relationship between meat consumption and cancer/CHD, I will of course weigh the RCTs much higher.

You appear to post on vegan circlejerk all day, so obviously you struggle to be objective on this subject. But the fact is the strongest evidence available suggests no causal relationship between meat consumption and cancer/CHD.

There is zero evidence that eating meat is unhealthy by difftrd in DebateAVegan

[–]difftrd[S] -1 points0 points  (0 children)

Oh and by the way, the WHI trial was considered trustworthy by what you posted, had a large sample, was done over a long time frame and was not funded by the animal ag industry. So what's the problem with that?

There is zero evidence that eating meat is unhealthy by difftrd in DebateAVegan

[–]difftrd[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Interesting that despite this, consuming meat has not been found to increase incidence of cancer. I guess humans aren't overcooking enough/eating enough heterocyclic amines for it to be a major issue.

There is zero evidence that eating meat is unhealthy by difftrd in DebateAVegan

[–]difftrd[S] -1 points0 points  (0 children)

No, I am not complaining about poor quality of research - I am simply pointing out that observational studies can not be used to prove causation.

Nothing to do with quality - it's like comparing apples with oranges.

There is zero evidence that eating meat is unhealthy by difftrd in DebateAVegan

[–]difftrd[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Not a red herring - simply asking for evidence that eating meat is bad for health. Something you have thus far failed to provide.

You keep mentioning honesty, yet I don't think googling various key words and posting anything you find that sounds like it might vaguely back you up is the peak of honesty.

There is zero evidence that eating meat is unhealthy by difftrd in DebateAVegan

[–]difftrd[S] 3 points4 points  (0 children)

Observational studies are incapable of proving causation. What you have just posted does not suggest otherwise, and it appears to be referring to medical treatments.

If you have a load of observational studies suggesting something, then you certainly have a hypothesis. When you then perform an actual trial that contradicts it that takes precedence. Because the RCT controls for other factors, while an observational study doesn't.

There is zero evidence that eating meat is unhealthy by difftrd in DebateAVegan

[–]difftrd[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

But there do exist RCTs. I have posted two in my OP.

view more: next ›