51–60 of 347 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Ethereum claims to be the "World Computer" that lets you build "Unstoppable Applications". If that doesn't sound like an AWS competitor then I don't know.
Sure, it's in some sense "an AWS competitor" but something like a billion times less efficient, measured by throughput, energy efficiency, or cost. So, in practice, no it's not.
To put it another way, the problems that Ethereum will solve are not ones that could be solved by AWS.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It is, and exactly these kind of experiments are what crypto cryptocurrencies should be about.
That's not true. Pure, non hybrid PoS has never been deployed on any crypto at scale. The fact that Ethereum is on their 3rd iteration and still can't figure out how to make it work years after promised delivery should be alarming at least.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Is Tezos not pure PoS?
Tezos uses delegated PoS, so no, I don't think it qualifies. D-PoS is sort of antithetical to the idea of decentralized blockchain due to a small number of nodes and very questionable process of node (witness) selection.
However after reading that I am pretty sure the current Ethereum Serenity spec allows for delegation as well, so it seems to be on the same level Proof of Stake
Proof-of-Stake is indeed a good thing, and a worthy focus of the article. From the article we read " the long-term hope is that apps built from them will eventually make Ethereum the ultimate cloud-computing platform. " Ethereum does not claim to be a computing platform in the same way that AWS is; it's for low-complexity business logic only. I think it's misleading to use "ultimate cloud-computing platform" to descr…
Could also be 100% if their Proof-Of-Stake game theory does not work as well with real funds worth stealing as it does on testnet. Full disclosure I hold some ETH but I would not dare put all my eggs in that brazenly "do it live" basket. One party can hold >50% of all funds and we would have no way of knowing. I wish people would look at less energy consuming proofs of work that still allow us real world evidence of…
I'm confused as to the purpose of ETH. On one hand it sounds like an investment that you can "hold" as you say. On the other it is a computing platform. So what is it you "hold"? Compute resources? Why is it valuable to allow speculation on compute resources? Can a person ever really reason about the cost of a system running on ETH? How do you plan for those costs? Is is a compute platform? A cryptocurrency? Somethin…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Tezos uses delegated PoS, so no, I don't think it qualifies. D-PoS is sort of antithetical to the idea of decentralized blockchain due to a small number of nodes and very questionable process of node (witness) selection.
Did you just describe Bitcoin miners?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The miners can choose to fork fork away from those changes. The core team is merely starting the change and the miners are supporting and carrying out those changes by continuing to mine the chain with those updates.
Why would the miners agree to adding the "difficulty bomb" which is against their incentives? It's more likely they didn't have a say in it.
Proof-of-Stake is indeed a good thing, and a worthy focus of the article. From the article we read " the long-term hope is that apps built from them will eventually make Ethereum the ultimate cloud-computing platform. " Ethereum does not claim to be a computing platform in the same way that AWS is; it's for low-complexity business logic only. I think it's misleading to use "ultimate cloud-computing platform" to descr…
Proof-of-stake will ultimatumly fail. The majority stakeholders can change the protocol at will to their benefit, and there’s no defense (without mob theft). With proof-of-work, at least miners can defend or fork. Best of luck to them though.
With PoW, an entity could theoretically out mine the 51% attacker by just throwing more hashing power at bitcoin
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Sure, it's in some sense "an AWS competitor" but something like a billion times less efficient, measured by throughput, energy efficiency, or cost. So, in practice, no it's not.
Well put! To put it another way, the problems that Ethereum will solve are not ones that could be solved by AWS.
Despite both being energy/transport companies, Embraer and Tesla are solving two very different consumer problems.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The miners can choose to fork fork away from those changes. The core team is merely starting the change and the miners are supporting and carrying out those changes by continuing to mine the chain with those updates.
Why would the miners agree to adding the "difficulty bomb" which is against their incentives? It's more likely they didn't have a say in it.