Live data from Hacker News

Vitalik Unveils Ethereum 2.0 Roadmap

medium.com

51–60 of 95 posts

Re: Vitalik Unveils Ethereum 2.0 Roadmap

#51

It strikes me as an (non-invested) outsider that Ethereum seems to benefit from having a figure like Vitalik who can act as a Torvalds-esque figurehead, setting the project's technical direction. And that, in contrast, the non-participation of Satoshi Nakamoto has left a power vacuum at the heart of Bitcoin, which results in the kind of bloody and attritional battles required to move it forward. Because everybody and…

Plus the fact that Vitalik seems genuinely interested in the development of the underlying technology and isn't too fussed about making more money than he already has. An example of this is offering to fund Ethereum infrastructure projects from his own pocket because he was seeing what was happening with ICO money: https://www.ethnews.com/vitalik-buterin-responds-to-raiden-i...

Re: Vitalik Unveils Ethereum 2.0 Roadmap

#52
post #40

It strikes me as an (non-invested) outsider that Ethereum seems to benefit from having a figure like Vitalik who can act as a Torvalds-esque figurehead, setting the project's technical direction. And that, in contrast, the non-participation of Satoshi Nakamoto has left a power vacuum at the heart of Bitcoin, which results in the kind of bloody and attritional battles required to move it forward. Because everybody and…

> Ethereum seems to benefit from having a figure like Vitalik who can act as a Torvalds-esque figurehead If Vitalik got hit by a bus tomorrow Ether price would drop 95%. A currency does not need a leader who directs it. Also it should be very difficult to make changes to a 150 Billion $ currency.

Ethereum is not a currency though. It's a decentralised platform to build apps on, like the App Store. ETH is the oil that pays for the decentralised processing resources used by said apps that are run on the platform.

A platform that isn't finished needs a leader, and I would say Ethereum needs a leader a lot more than Bitcoin. If all development on Bitcoin would stop tomorrow, it would still keep running and have a potential future as digital gold. If all development on Ethereum would stop tomorrow, it would most likely fail as a project. The value proposition is very different.

Also, since oil isn't very useful without something to use it in (a car, plane, other use cases), it actually makes perfect sense (to me).

ETH could very well also become a functional currency once the supply gets capped in a future hard fork. But for now, it's more oil than currency.

Re: Vitalik Unveils Ethereum 2.0 Roadmap

#53

Interesting to see how Ethereum pops up whenever technical aspects are revealed and how Bitcoin pops up whenever the price crosses some boundary.

Ethereum's selling point has always been its advanced features making more complex applications possible, and its Achilles heel has always been that extra complexity is probably not actually a desirable feature here. Think about the endless problems with buggy smart contracts, even for things as simple as multi-signature wallets which Bitcoin can do in a straightforward way.

Re: Vitalik Unveils Ethereum 2.0 Roadmap

#54

It strikes me as an (non-invested) outsider that Ethereum seems to benefit from having a figure like Vitalik who can act as a Torvalds-esque figurehead, setting the project's technical direction. And that, in contrast, the non-participation of Satoshi Nakamoto has left a power vacuum at the heart of Bitcoin, which results in the kind of bloody and attritional battles required to move it forward. Because everybody and…

If the point is to create a real currency which lasts longer than a single person's lifetime, the problem of leadership and succession will have to be solved one way or another. A BFDL can only remain in charge for so long.

Re: Vitalik Unveils Ethereum 2.0 Roadmap

#55

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Satoshi actually used a manipulative log curve for his minting algorhythm which effectively created a ponzi style distribution scheme. The majority of BTC was produced to the small userbase for minimal effort, whereas time passes the computational work and wattage required to produce coins for late adopters increases as presumably more users discover the system. Satoshi easily could have chosen a linear algorithm ant…

>Satoshi easily could have chosen a linear algorithm anticipating additional work input with more users, instead he designed a system to exploit late adopters. Are you suggesting he provides a bigger reward for work as time goes on, thereby providing more currency later in the piece? That would be counter-intuitive to the idea of bitcoin as a fixed store of wealth (strong libertarian influence, anti-bank ethos being…

>Are you suggesting he provides a bigger reward for work as time goes on, thereby providing more currency later in the piece?

Yes.

The minting design Satoshi choose merely granted a few users the majority of the supply for the least amount of work. They can then horde and hope to sell at a profit to late adopters.

>That would be counter-intuitive to the idea of bitcoin as a fixed store of wealth

No, the total supply remains the same. Distribution and production is the issue. The linear curve should align to match the energy and work input, assuming that is representative of additional users joining the network.

Fixed store of wealth is even more difficult to achieve, as users must trust the design to be desirable.

Re: Vitalik Unveils Ethereum 2.0 Roadmap

#56

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Bitcoin also worked ok before the number of transactions went high, is ether protected from that kind of thing? If for example amount of ether transactions go up 3 orders of magnitude? And it would be nice to have even smaller fees on Ether and transaction time less than a second, so it could be better than VISA/Mastercard.

Afaik Ethereum is already processing double the transactions of Bitcoin, very cheaply, and near instantaneous (e.g. little to no transaction backlog). The issue of Bitcoin is not the technical part; it's that no consensus can be reached between people on what is the right course of action, leading to multiple forks of the network.

> Afaik Ethereum is already processing double the transactions of Bitcoin

I was talking just about Ether, what happens to time/fees if number of transactions goes 1000x?

> The issue of Bitcoin is not the technical part; it's that no consensus can be reached between people on what is the right course of action, leading to multiple forks of the network

I don't think it's a problem of Bitcoin. It has its pros and cons, but it allows bitcoin evolve, assessing different approaches. It's like saying that main problem of open source projects is that they can be forked. Is it a problem or is it a feature?

Re: Vitalik Unveils Ethereum 2.0 Roadmap

#57

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In cryptocurrencies this coin was essentially a pre-mine which is done specifically to enrich the creators without any expense to themselves. Say what you want about bitcoin, but Satoshi Nakamoto earned his coins fairly (even though he may never access them) and created a fair and level playing field for everyone who started mining alongside him. Further the vague wording about the supply size means it is unlikely th…

Satoshi actually used a manipulative log curve for his minting algorhythm which effectively created a ponzi style distribution scheme. The majority of BTC was produced to the small userbase for minimal effort, whereas time passes the computational work and wattage required to produce coins for late adopters increases as presumably more users discover the system. Satoshi easily could have chosen a linear algorithm ant…

Even with the decrease in the mining reward over time, Bitcoin mining is now consuming enough energy to power a small county. I'm not convinced that having the mining reward increase over time to provide more reward to later miners would be a wise feature in any way.

Re: Vitalik Unveils Ethereum 2.0 Roadmap

#58
post #48

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The FAQ is probably outdated. The roadmap in the article includes the switch too proof of stake. Proof of stake generally does not include block rewards, so it will stop completely.

What's the incentive to participate honestly in Proof of Stake if there is no reward? Leaving aside the question whether PoS even works at all https://download.wpsoftware.net/bitcoin/pos.pdf

You get the transaction fees. when I said block reward, I was referring to the minted coins.

Re: Vitalik Unveils Ethereum 2.0 Roadmap

#59
post #16
post #8

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Who were these early contributors, how much did each get, and why do they get to have 12.5% of the entire economy on day 1? Why does Larry Page or Google Engineer #1 own billions of dollars of Google stock? Because he was there on day 1 and you weren't :)

I know the US Government oversaw the Google IPO and the stocks weren't printed out of thin air. In the Ether ICO, a big whale friend of Vitalik could have sent his Bitcoin in during the ICO sale, got Ether for it, then Vitalik sent him his Bitcoin back. Poof, Ether printed out of thin air - there is no way to prove this did not happen. That is the problem with these ICOs vs. using Proof of Work to fairly distribute t…

> I know the US Government oversaw the Google IPO and the stocks weren't printed out of thin air.

But... the stock did get printed out of thin air. When Google was originally being started — like any startup — the founders could have, and regularly did, make stock appear out of thin air. For example, that's what dilution is. If you've ever worked at a pre-IPO company that's raised money from VCs, at some point your company likely printed stock out of nothing, diluting your share of the company however much they liked — and there's not much you can do about it.

In fact, all of the stock sold in the Google IPO was at one time printed out of thin air. That's where stock comes from. When Larry and Sergei and their lawyers (and whoever) drew up the initial documents when they were incorporating Google, they decided there would be X shares, and then over the course of many years increased that number semi-arbitrarily as they saw fit to sell to VCs, and eventually to sell to the public. All of the stock was made up, and it was distributed mostly to the founders and the early investors, just like any startup. They weren't being particularly evil or unfair, that's just how startups work.

In fact, the Google board could, today, legally decide to invent more Google stock out of nothing and sell it, or give it away. Here's some good reading on Investopedia about dilution and stock issuance, along with a recent example of a company legally creating stock out of thin air and giving it to their new CEO, diluting existing shareholders: https://www.investopedia.com/terms/d/dilution.asp

Ether had a one-time initial sale, and everything since is Proof of Work. In terms of being certain that Ether isn't being printed out of thin air, it's IMO quite a bit more trustworthy.

(And if you want to really get down into the details, printing money out of thin air is a daily occurrence with the US government: that's how inflation works. We make dollars out of nothing. For good reason, but still!)

Re: Vitalik Unveils Ethereum 2.0 Roadmap

#60
post #57

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Satoshi actually used a manipulative log curve for his minting algorhythm which effectively created a ponzi style distribution scheme. The majority of BTC was produced to the small userbase for minimal effort, whereas time passes the computational work and wattage required to produce coins for late adopters increases as presumably more users discover the system. Satoshi easily could have chosen a linear algorithm ant…

Even with the decrease in the mining reward over time, Bitcoin mining is now consuming enough energy to power a small county. I'm not convinced that having the mining reward increase over time to provide more reward to later miners would be a wise feature in any way.

As Satoshis minting algo was used, why should one user receive significantly more coins for such low effort simply for running the software at an early date?

The end result is early users exploiting users who join the network after them. Ponzi style.

Post reply on HN