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

Ethereum 2.0 – Minimum deposit reached

launchpad.ethereum.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

61–70 of 266 posts

Re: Ethereum 2.0 – Minimum deposit reached

#61

Post by viraptor »

beaner wrote: post #55
viraptor wrote: post #45

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why would anyone run an energy storage system for general population in that system? If they can undercut the energy companies at some times and sell to the Bitcoin miners, why would they even bother with residential customers? Sure, people who can afford energy storage themselves would be sorted. (Most of the time) Anyone below that wealth threshold would be at the mercy of "am I more important than the monetary gai…

Because it would be profitable, that's how markets work.

It could be profitable. But miners will buy energy as long as the price is lower than the expected return, regardless if it comes from excess renewable or from storage, do it may be more profitable not to. This means a bidding market between the miners and tenants for the stored energy. And that's not the uncertainty I want to live with every day. (Because that market is no longer realistically possible to regulate given the energy producers become the bank, the mint, and the business running them)

Re: Ethereum 2.0 – Minimum deposit reached

#62

Post by beaner »

rglullis wrote: post #59
beaner wrote: post #8

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm not saying that proof-of-stake is bad, but it does change the way the network functions, because it locks capital and therefore affects the velocity of money in the network. It also changes the distribution of mined coin. Whereas currently it takes an equal mining cost to reap an equal reward, proof-of-stake rewards those who already have enough to stake. This is essentially a recreation of the inflation system w…

> proof-of-stake rewards those who already have enough to stake. Don't forget, those that do not have enough to stake can pool their resources together. P.s: tell me where in the world you can open a bank (not a bank account, but an actual bank which can receive deposits from Central Banks) with only 10-20k USD. P.P.s: There is growing talk about existing central banks that are considering issuing their own blockchai…

> Don't forget that do not have enough to stake can pool their resources together.

That's great! And makes a lot of sense. However, it still requires locking capital. Those who do not have a lot of money, spend a much higher percentage of their money, and therefore need it to be liquid. So though pooling may reduce the effect of inflationary rich-poor inequality increases, I don't think it would eliminate it.

Re: Ethereum 2.0 – Minimum deposit reached

#63

Post by rglullis »

beaner wrote: post #58
rglullis wrote: post #52

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Bitcoin's proof-of-work is basically a conversion of energy directly into money. Nope! Putting more energy is not going to make more money into the system, is just makes it more likely that you get to be in the front of a firehose that drips money into the system in a constant rate. Putting more energy into the system just increases the cost of money itself. But no one wants money, what people want is the what mone…

> Putting more energy is not going to make more money into the system, is just makes it more likely that you get to be in the front of a firehose that drips money into the system in a constant rate. This doesn't negate what I'm trying to say. That the energy amount is variable but the currency units output on the other side are static doesn't change the fact that energy is being turned into money. By contributing a h…

> By contributing a higher fraction of the input, you get a higher fraction of the output.

There are other ways to get a "higher fraction of the output" that do not involve contributing to the input. That is the point you are missing.

Re: Ethereum 2.0 – Minimum deposit reached

#64

Post by mikkelam »

lawn wrote: post #53
mikkelam wrote: post #39

I honestly think eth2 will have an incredible effect. Think of all the developing countries or countries without proper financial infrastructure, even places where you do not trust your local currency. All these places will benefit hugely from a bootstrapped currency ready to be deployed for very little effort. Launching an ecommerce will suddenly be much easier for a many more people. I'm also very interested in see…

I fail to see what eth2 would provide that other solutions and other cryptocurrencies don't already provide.

Real global-level scale. With PoW no cryptocurrency was really scalable to some meaningful transactions per second.

Re: Ethereum 2.0 – Minimum deposit reached

#65

Post by rglullis »

beaner wrote: post #62
rglullis wrote: post #59

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> proof-of-stake rewards those who already have enough to stake. Don't forget, those that do not have enough to stake can pool their resources together. P.s: tell me where in the world you can open a bank (not a bank account, but an actual bank which can receive deposits from Central Banks) with only 10-20k USD. P.P.s: There is growing talk about existing central banks that are considering issuing their own blockchai…

> Don't forget that do not have enough to stake can pool their resources together. That's great! And makes a lot of sense. However, it still requires locking capital. Those who do not have a lot of money, spend a much higher percentage of their money, and therefore need it to be liquid. So though pooling may reduce the effect of inflationary rich-poor inequality increases, I don't think it would eliminate it.

> I don't think it would eliminate it.

Well, duh. No system will ever be perfect and there will always be costs associated with BFT systems. The question is knowing how these systems compare with one another and what kind of trade-offs are there.

It is impossible to dispute that the costs of keeping a PoS-based system is overall lower than the current state-of-the-art, yet you try to knock PoS while ignoring all the analog issues with PoW? Your cognitive dissonance is showing.

Re: Ethereum 2.0 – Minimum deposit reached

#66

Post by beaner »

rglullis wrote: post #63
beaner wrote: post #58

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Putting more energy is not going to make more money into the system, is just makes it more likely that you get to be in the front of a firehose that drips money into the system in a constant rate. This doesn't negate what I'm trying to say. That the energy amount is variable but the currency units output on the other side are static doesn't change the fact that energy is being turned into money. By contributing a h…

> By contributing a higher fraction of the input, you get a higher fraction of the output. There are other ways to get a "higher fraction of the output" that do not involve contributing to the input. That is the point you are missing.

That there exist other ways to make money besides mining it, also does not mean that mining is not a conversion of energy into money.

Re: Ethereum 2.0 – Minimum deposit reached

#67

Post by keymone »

mikkelam wrote: post #64
lawn wrote: post #53

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I fail to see what eth2 would provide that other solutions and other cryptocurrencies don't already provide.

Real global-level scale. With PoW no cryptocurrency was really scalable to some meaningful transactions per second.

there already are cryptocurrencies claiming the same thing: iota, eos, tron and probably thousands more.

so what's different this time? to me it seems ETH is always overpromise, always underdeliver kind of project. they promised global scalable world computer since inception in 2015, now they say it was never possible with ETH1 and they need to hardfork to ETH2. why do you have any confidence in their statements?

Re: Ethereum 2.0 – Minimum deposit reached

#68

Post by keymone »

brazzy wrote: post #25
seibelj wrote: post #4

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Eventually yes, but mining isn’t a “waste” of electricity any more than any electricity used for any essential service is. Isn’t all electricity effectively wasted if the same service can be offered for less electricity? Ethereum (and bitcoin) provide a service, and that service is protected using electricity.

The problem is that mining can never reduce its energy usage. Any efficiency gains are necessarily eaten by increased difficulty. And in fact, energy usage has to incease in proportion with the value of the network.

you're on to something here.

what if i told you that the constant level of energy spent is the level of security bitcoin users demand by virtue of buying it at current price level?

would you say constant provision of certain level of security is waste?

Re: Ethereum 2.0 – Minimum deposit reached

#69

Post by keymone »

newyankee wrote: post #3
drcode wrote: post #2

TLDR; The transition from Eth1->Eth2 requires the following steps: 1. Network operators (stakers) deposit at least 524,288 ETH in a special contract 2. The early Eth2 blockchain (the "beacon chain") launches Dec 1st 3. The Eth1 blockchain will be merged into Eth2 (details TBD) 4. Other features will be added to make Eth2 fully functional (sharding being the biggest feature) Just a few minutes ago, step 1 has been acc…

Does this mean no more mining and waste of electricity ?

zero electricity is wasted on PoW cryptocurrencies. energy consumption is equivalent to constant maintenance of security at the level demanded by market.

Re: Ethereum 2.0 – Minimum deposit reached

#70

Post by rglullis »

beaner wrote: post #66
rglullis wrote: post #63

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> By contributing a higher fraction of the input, you get a higher fraction of the output. There are other ways to get a "higher fraction of the output" that do not involve contributing to the input. That is the point you are missing.

That there exist other ways to make money besides mining it, also does not mean that mining is not a conversion of energy into money.

> conversion of energy into money.

You are treating this is a some function of fundamental physics. It's not. We are only talking about "conversion of energy into money" because that is what the best current implementation of a BFT system is using.

It's accidental. You are focused on the "Work" part of "Proof-of-Work", when what we care about for solving consensus in distributed part is the "Proof".

Post reply on HN