Hard Problems in Cryptocurrency: Five Years Later • Hacker News Board

Re: Hard Problems in Cryptocurrency: Five Years Later

#271

Post by nradov » Sun, Nov 24, 2019, 6:12 PM UTC

alanfalcon wrote: post #110

fxtentacle wrote: post #42

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Plus there's the problem that smart contracts cannot be easily modified if they are found to be buggy and that one can always reverse engineer them, because they're distributed to everyone. These two together have already caused lots of damage https://hackernoon.com/yes-this-kid-really-just-deleted-150-... and they make most real-world uses impossible. It is pretty much impossible to sell anything digital with smart…

The best smart contracts don't need to be reverse engineered, they've got shared, verified source code. The bugginess is a real problem as you've pointed out. The "impossible to sell anything" couldn't actually be farther than the truth from all my experience buying and selling NFTs. Over $150,000 USD worth of digital collectable game cards have been traded this week alone over at https://opensea.io/recent - everythi…

So in other words it's being used for something even more useless than trading Beanie Babies.

Re: Hard Problems in Cryptocurrency: Five Years Later

#272

Post by jl2718 » Sun, Nov 24, 2019, 6:13 PM UTC

snitko wrote: post #19

Whether or not you're aligned with Bitcoin political values and goals, please don't be duped by Ethereum. It may appear as something useful, without the stigma of Bitcoin being black market money. However, you ONLY need black market money. Everything else that's ok with being regulated, does not need a blockchain. The hard problem that Bitcoin solved was "How do we create money that wouldn't collapse and lose value o…

Let’s be clear about the problem with ETH. It has a 60% pre-mine, and the next 35% of the mining was done by just a small subset of the same people. Only 5% of the supply was ever “up for grabs”. A currency requires highly-decentralized float. ETH will always be speculative.

Other than that (fatal problem), its a great technical project.

Re: Hard Problems in Cryptocurrency: Five Years Later

#273

Post by exdsq » Sun, Nov 24, 2019, 6:14 PM UTC

alanfalcon wrote: post #236

semiotagonal wrote: post #228

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I did about 0.1% of the amount of research you did a few years ago and was really struck by the irreversibility of mistakes. Other engineering domains can have irreversible (e.g. fatal) mistakes as well, but they don't have as many enthusiasts jumping in to the field.

Our CTO likens developing a smart contract to civil engineering. Our CTO also remembers what it was like to ship your software in its final form on a floppy disk! I think it’s great that more and more people are jumping in and learning what it’s like to develop in such an unforgiving domain (no point here, I just think it’s great!)

I completely agree! It's sparked an interest in formal methods and learning more about how engineering takes place in other disciplines to improve their product quality.

Re: Hard Problems in Cryptocurrency: Five Years Later

#274

Post by jki275 » Sun, Nov 24, 2019, 6:15 PM UTC

capableweb wrote: post #143

regisg wrote: post #99

It's funny to write such a blog post without even mentioning Cardano...

It's even more funny to leave a comment like this without even elaborating on the argument and not contributing to the overall discussion. Why would this blog post mention Cardano?

Because IOHK is the only organization besides the Tezos foundation doing real research in the field of POS.

Re: Hard Problems in Cryptocurrency: Five Years Later

#275

Post by exdsq » Sun, Nov 24, 2019, 6:19 PM UTC

flowless wrote: post #270

capableweb wrote: post #143

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's even more funny to leave a comment like this without even elaborating on the argument and not contributing to the overall discussion. Why would this blog post mention Cardano?

Because Cardano is what ETH might have been if done right. They did a tons of (actually scientific) research on the topics mentioned in this article but the author won't mention Cardano as it is his direct competition (even nicknamed Ethereum killer).

To be fair, Vitalik didn't mention many research projects outside of Ethereum. I don't think he was intentionally ignoring Cardano, he just didn't need to reference them to make his points.

Re: Hard Problems in Cryptocurrency: Five Years Later

#276

Post by SpicyLemonZest » Sun, Nov 24, 2019, 6:25 PM UTC

nootropicat wrote: post #130

joosters wrote: post #64

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If you have to trust an oracle, you have essentially thrown away all of the plusses of decentralisation/trustlessness. At that point, the blockchain becomes pointless busywork, useful only for duping mug investors.

The impossibility of a full elimination of trust, for any particular problem, doesn't mean a partial reduction isn't valuable. If you disagree, would you be fine with changing the political and justice system of your country into a fully opaque black box? As in, you still can vote for the policies you want, but it's impossible to know how the government functions, what are the reasons for its decisions, or even who p…

I think we're detached from the original discussion. "That's what oracles do" was a response to the problem that "smart contracts cannot be easily modified if they are found to be buggy". Trust minimization is valuable, but a smart contract that allows an oracle to unilaterally override its terms doesn't minimize trust in any meaningful way.

Re: Hard Problems in Cryptocurrency: Five Years Later

#277

Post by alphydan » Sun, Nov 24, 2019, 6:25 PM UTC

rmtech wrote: post #233

acdha wrote: post #223

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes, but note that there are laws and policies around it rather than people saying the question should be unasked.

I willingly concede that legacy/fiat money is better at stopping bad people/criminals/terrorists etc from having access to money.

It is hard to make a definitive statement either way. For example:

> Analysts estimate that underground economic transactions account for one-third (33%!) of the total economy in developing countries and slightly more than 10% of the total economy in developed countries. [0]

On the Bitcoin blockchain it may be around 19% (approximately USD $380bn in yearly transactions on Bitcoin [1], $72bn of which may be illegal [2])

So it's hard to say which "monetary system" is doing better in that regard. Of course, I would argue that cryptocurrencies are still in the experimental phase, trying to figure out where they are going and how.

[0] https://www.investopedia.com/articles/markets-economy/062216... [1] https://www.blockchain.com/charts/estimated-transaction-volu... [2] https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=3102645

Re: Hard Problems in Cryptocurrency: Five Years Later

#278

Post by acdha » Sun, Nov 24, 2019, 6:28 PM UTC

rmtech wrote: post #230

acdha wrote: post #225

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Encryption isn’t quite the right comparison because it’s not a running network. Anyone doing merchant/banking activities with a cryptocurrency isn’t just using the same software but also risking being involved in a transaction chain involving someone trying to launder money. Imagine how the crypto wars would have gone if GPG users had to take active measures to prevent forwarding messages from untrusted strangers. To…

I don't think this is an important distinction. In both cases there mere existence of the technology helps both good and bad parties to achieve their aims, that is all that matters.

You should think about it from a legal perspective: if you use GPG, will the FBI show up at your house just because the local drug dealer also does even though they never send you a message?

Now, suppose that there’s a transaction chain which involves you – say said local dealer buying from one of the few other people using it — and how you’d prove that you weren’t a knowing participant in some sort of laundering scheme or deal. This is why tumblers aren’t likely to be used by most people and why running a Tor exit node is so risky: you have to worry about being charged with the worst thing done over the network and proving that you aren’t just trying to look like a naive user.

Re: Hard Problems in Cryptocurrency: Five Years Later

#279

Post by Avamander » Sun, Nov 24, 2019, 6:32 PM UTC

qes wrote: post #254

Avamander wrote: post #176

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Random-X requires code JITting How can this be a requirement?

The name itself might give you a clue, or just look at the code: https://github.com/tevador/RandomX

Yes, but how can JIT be a requirement, people sufficiently determined could keep the JIT output and then there's no need for it any more.

Re: Hard Problems in Cryptocurrency: Five Years Later

#280

Post by omarchowdhury » Sun, Nov 24, 2019, 6:33 PM UTC

jrochkind1 wrote: post #258

VMG wrote: post #245

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Paper money already was a level of abstraction above the physical assets like gold and silver. The problem with paper money is that it can be devalued very easily. You are also not going to have a say about paper money getting banned in the coming years. You'll have a choice between different digital currencies, most of them centralized and some that are not.

Gold and silver are already a level of abstraction over the things you are buying with them or selling for them. Gold and silver's value as commodities have little to do with their values as useful for anything practical, although gold happens to have become useful for electronics.

The point isn't that there is a level of abstraction, but the kind of abstraction. The abstraction of paper money as opposed to metals comes with the potential for abuse through unrestrained printing.