Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Ethereum Plans to Cut Its Energy Consumption by 99 Percent

spectrum.ieee.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

121–130 of 347 posts

Re: Ethereum Plans to Cut Its Energy Consumption by 99 Percent

#121

Post by codewiz »

Iv wrote: post #81
shittyadmin wrote: post #76

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> This time bomb has, however, functioned more like an alarm clock with a snooze button. In October 2017, when mining time had already nearly doubled to 30 seconds, the Ethereum team reset the clock, delaying PoW’s doomsday by about 12 months. And they will likely hit snooze again shortly. How can Ethereum be decentralized if they can so easily keep changing it? From the minute they decided to back out The DAO's mist…

And many crypto-anarchists discovered that day that most people did not care about decentralization.

There could be another reason why most people decided to follow the DAO fork: perhaps it's simply because they agreed with the actions taken by the Ethereum developers to return the money to the shareholders instead of leaving it to the thief?

Or do you believe that users would have followed the developers even if they forked the chain to pocket all the money themselves?

Re: Ethereum Plans to Cut Its Energy Consumption by 99 Percent

#123

Post by SlowRobotAhead »

make3 wrote: post #114
chowells wrote: post #60

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If the miners ever have a serious disagreement with the core developers, they can always remove the difficulty bomb in a fork. The purpose of the difficulty bomb is to force some update, not to force the core developers' preferred update.

the idea that forks are easy enough for the power to be distributed seems ludacris. you need to fork a large ratio of the users in order for a fork to do anything at all, otherwise the new coin has no value. This a gives massive inertia advantage to the original project

Thanks, I feel like I’m the crazy one when people talk about “just fork it” in response to the fact that developers of any specific coin could crash it at any point. That’s not how it works in reality.

Bitcoin could be entirely ruined by a couple dozen people around the world in different ways at any time. Eth and other coins even more so.

The idea of who “gets trusted” in these coins is just nuts. I’m not anti-coin... but man, I’m feel like I’m far enough from it to see a reality that many want to ignore.

Re: Ethereum Plans to Cut Its Energy Consumption by 99 Percent

#124

Post by samatman »

NoblePublius wrote: post #122

I’m skeptical of any reporting that refers to a crypto asset’s “market cap,” as if there was enough liquidiy somewhere in the system for all HODLrs to exit at anywhere near that price.

This is special pleading; there is no stock, no matter how blue chip, for which the market cap reflects the price at which all 'hodlers' could simultaneously sell their position.

That's just... not how markets work, at all.

Re: Ethereum Plans to Cut Its Energy Consumption by 99 Percent

#125

Post by wmf »

dahdum wrote: post #113
corv wrote: post #30

Proof of Stake is unable to deal with network partitions, the likes of which every so often happen to cut entire countries off the Internet PoS is a disaster waiting to happen for Ethereum.

The stakers will lose their stake, and those shards affected will go offline, but the rest of the network will continue on until the interruption is over. Ethereum is designing the system specifically to accommodate that sort of problem, last I remember you needed 95%+ uptime to generate return, so if your internet goes out 5% of the time you should not stake.

Why would the minority side of the partition go offline? How would it even know that it's on the minority side of a partition?

Re: Ethereum Plans to Cut Its Energy Consumption by 99 Percent

#126

Post by SlowRobotAhead »

sincerely wrote: post #47
amasad wrote: post #41

> To make their intentions clear, Ethereum’s core developers reprogrammed their PoW code to create an exponential rise in mining difficulty. Known as the “Difficulty Bomb,” it began slowing the creation of new transaction blocks in late 2016 and was expected to bring ether mining to a grinding halt a few years thereafter. > This time bomb has, however, functioned more like an alarm clock with a snooze button. In Octo…

Enough people think the changes are a good idea that they switch versions.

Can you show when this has successfully happened? Can you show a popular coin that the devs went one direction with, a different group didn’t like, forked, and became more used than the original?

Re: Ethereum Plans to Cut Its Energy Consumption by 99 Percent

#127

Post by Karunamon »

SlowRobotAhead wrote: post #126
sincerely wrote: post #47

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Enough people think the changes are a good idea that they switch versions.

Can you show when this has successfully happened? Can you show a popular coin that the devs went one direction with, a different group didn’t like, forked, and became more used than the original?

More used? No, but why is that necessary? Wide use is all that's necessary. Bitcoin Cash and Ethereum Classic are traded on all crypto exchanges that matter.

Re: Ethereum Plans to Cut Its Energy Consumption by 99 Percent

#128

Post by SlowRobotAhead »

Karunamon wrote: post #127
SlowRobotAhead wrote: post #126

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Can you show when this has successfully happened? Can you show a popular coin that the devs went one direction with, a different group didn’t like, forked, and became more used than the original?

More used? No, but why is that necessary? Wide use is all that's necessary. Bitcoin Cash and Ethereum Classic are traded on all crypto exchanges that matter.

Both of those have suffer major losses to low or near record lows. Is that really a good pitch for ”just fork it if you don’t like it!”

I just want people to admit and understand their “decentralized” commodities are anything but. Yea, the mathy database is, but you still need to put all your trust in a handful of developers with mostly no economics experience, no oversight, and no track record.

Re: Ethereum Plans to Cut Its Energy Consumption by 99 Percent

#129

Post by adrianN »

codewiz wrote: post #121
Iv wrote: post #81

Earlier quoted context omitted.

And many crypto-anarchists discovered that day that most people did not care about decentralization.

There could be another reason why most people decided to follow the DAO fork: perhaps it's simply because they agreed with the actions taken by the Ethereum developers to return the money to the shareholders instead of leaving it to the thief? Or do you believe that users would have followed the developers even if they forked the chain to pocket all the money themselves?

I don't think there was a thief. Before the fork, the very point of Ethereum was that code is law and there is no need for human interpretation. The so-called thief merely noticed that the DAO code had a feature that allowed them to extract money from it, and they did.

Re: Ethereum Plans to Cut Its Energy Consumption by 99 Percent

#130

Post by aey »

nivexous wrote: post #84
bouncycastle wrote: post #70

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Also once a majority of stakeholder hit 51% there is no way to take away the 51% You could do a hard-fork and slash their stake. In PoW, you can't do this. > With PoW, an entity could theoretically out mine the 51% attacker Not in the case of "selfish mining attack", where you may never know that an attack is happening until it's too late, you'll have little chance in defending with hashpower since the attackers wi…

> You could do a hard-fork and slash their stake. In PoW, you can't do this. So ... theft?

Theft of what exactly? Each fork is as valid as any other fork, the challenge is in agreement.
Post reply on HN