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

241–250 of 266 posts

Re: Ethereum 2.0 – Minimum deposit reached

#241

Post by _2d30 »

keymone wrote: post #240
_2d30 wrote: post #232

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You write about markets like they are omnipotent, benevolent gods which they aren't. Markets fail all the time. It's a large part of what economists spend their time studying. Take an intro to game theory course and you can find all sorts of structures that lead to non-socially beneficial outcomes, the prisoner's dilemma being a classic example. There's nothing about markets nor cryptocurrencies that guarantees that…

Yes, markets can be wrong, but baselessly dismissing market data is plain dumb. Until market is shown wrong, the value that market assigns to something is at least some evidence of it’s true value. Also, sorry to burst your bubble, but universe doesn’t care about socially beneficial outcomes. If a thing has valuable characteristics, no matter how socially harmful you may perceive it to be - those characteristics will…

> Yes, markets can be wrong, but baselessly dismissing market data is plain dumb. Until market is shown wrong, the value that market assigns to something is at least some evidence of it’s true value.

Do you have the ability to show that PoS is NOT as secure as PoW?

> Also, sorry to burst your bubble, but universe doesn’t care about socially beneficial outcomes.

No shit. Never said it was. In fact when I mentioned market failures I made it explicit that I believe this to be true.

> So right now you’re basically arguing that bitcoin isn’t valuable because you don’t like what it’s valued for. There’s nothing wrong with that, but at least admit how highly subjective and contrary to available evidence that opinion is.

What the fuck are you talking about?? I never said anything remotely related to this. I said that your idea of "PoW is never wasteful" was meaningless. Maybe you were paused from posting on HN for straw manning?

Re: Ethereum 2.0 – Minimum deposit reached

#242

Post by bhaak »

rstuart4133 wrote: post #234
bhaak wrote: post #231

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I wouldn't call Bitcoin's POW as "trust in algorithm runtime on modern hardware". Just think about it. The algorithm can be changed by anybody. What does prevent the miners from changing the source code to allow them double spending or even extra coins? But if they do that and don't have a significant hashrate that do the same, they are on a blockchain fork that is worthless to anybody else. So we trust in the econom…

> Just think about it. The algorithm can be changed by anybody. It can. But the key point is if you change the algorithm by say reducing the number of hashes required (so you increase your chance of winning) it can be detected by just inspecting the block. You don't need access to the code, or be able to watch it running, or trust some hardware, or the person running it, or anything else beyond inspecting the output…

You have to differentiate between consensus rules and how the blockchain is secured.

Verifying if the consensus rules hold is equally simple in both POS and POW. But with Bitcoin's POW, the hashrate is part of the consensus rules by requiring the hash of the output block having a certain property which can only be attained in a timely manner with enough processing power and luck (in that sense, also in POW a block proposer is chosen "randomly").

With POS, you don't have the hashrate. But you have the stake which (in Ethereum's POS) is lost if you try to vote for more than one possible new block for the chain. Which is a direct economic incentive to behave correctly.

Re: Ethereum 2.0 – Minimum deposit reached

#243

Post by keymone »

_2d30 wrote: post #241
keymone wrote: post #240

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes, markets can be wrong, but baselessly dismissing market data is plain dumb. Until market is shown wrong, the value that market assigns to something is at least some evidence of it’s true value. Also, sorry to burst your bubble, but universe doesn’t care about socially beneficial outcomes. If a thing has valuable characteristics, no matter how socially harmful you may perceive it to be - those characteristics will…

> Yes, markets can be wrong, but baselessly dismissing market data is plain dumb. Until market is shown wrong, the value that market assigns to something is at least some evidence of it’s true value. Do you have the ability to show that PoS is NOT as secure as PoW? > Also, sorry to burst your bubble, but universe doesn’t care about socially beneficial outcomes. No shit. Never said it was. In fact when I mentioned mar…

> Do you have the ability to show that PoS is NOT as secure as PoW?

yes. if you spend enough time offline - there is no possible way for you to be sure that you've synchronised to genuine chain without trusting a third party. that problem is not solvable under PoS and that problem is exactly what PoW was designed to solve.

> I never said anything remotely related to this.

you did, by implying that markets value bitcoin incorrectly.

you also didn't show that "PoW is not wasteful" is incorrect (note that i never said "PoW is never wasteful", it's wasteful when nobody needs the proof that is being produced, but as long as bitcoin price is not zero, that proof is useful and therefore not wasteful), the statement that "if somebody can do what PoW does for less energy then PoW is wasteful" requires you to prove that somebody can actually do that before you can claim that PoW is wasteful.

Re: Ethereum 2.0 – Minimum deposit reached

#244

Post by rglullis »

beaner wrote: post #235
rglullis wrote: post #111

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> they're just not the point being discussed here. In other words, you are ignoring (not paying attention, leaving aside) an aspect that should be considered. (You asked for a good-faith conversation, but after these types of replies it gets hard to take you seriously. The quote " It is hard to get a man to understand something when his salary depends on not understanding it " becomes more and more apt with each resp…

I mean, I literally asked "which ones". You didn't answer. You can't claim I'm ignoring them if you haven't told me what they are. I'm not sure how your quote applies, my salary doesn't depend on Bitcoin.

Still here with this nonsense?

Read again. I described an mechanism that you can be a miner of a PoW mechanism and still be able to finance your operation without selling the asset you mined, effectively turning the economic model of it from PoW into PoS, while keeping the horrible externalities and costs of PoW.

Re: Ethereum 2.0 – Minimum deposit reached

#245

Post by BMSmnqXAE4yfe1 »

dylkil wrote: post #118
BMSmnqXAE4yfe1 wrote: post #106

Forget ETH, XRP pumping much harder, why is that?

Anecdotal, but I have had 3 separate friends who are not techie/finance at all come to me with an amazing investment opportunity someone has shown them. An article[1] on how XRP is going to become the reserve currency for the world is going around the get rich quick circles. In short its being pumped by scammers. [1] https://medium.com/@mark_91397/xrp-will-be-a-world-reserve-c...

Well, holders of any particular coin are calling all the other coins a scam ... an example of how truth is hard to come by in a world governed by interests.

Re: Ethereum 2.0 – Minimum deposit reached

#246

Post by ishishkin »

drcode wrote: post #153
koheripbal wrote: post #134

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> The Beacon Chain lets us randomly assign validators to different shards This is interesting. Cross-shard attacks were a major flaw in shard designs. How is this solved exactly and who is "us" in this sentence? How can the network force a miner/validator to use a specific random shard?

There's a random number generator in the root chain (i.e. the beacon chain) and validators are assigned shortly before validation and may require validation of any random shard. The validator can validate blocks in a "stateless" manner, meaning that they don't have to validate the entire shard but can still validate a single block (which is necessary, because if validators needed data for all shards it would destroy…

There is no validation of blocks in a "stateless manner". Network is secured by those validators who know what they validate.

Re: Ethereum 2.0 – Minimum deposit reached

#247

Post by ishishkin »

leesalminen wrote: post #170
olodus wrote: post #17

I haven't been keeping up with the Eth / PoS development, do we have any preliminary numbers on how much energy this switch is hoped to save? Same goes with sharing, how much is it argued this will speed up the transaction process?

One of the main drivers behind ETH2 is sharding, which will allow for 10,000s txn/sec.

But at what cost? There is no chance it could preserve the same level of decentralization.

Re: Ethereum 2.0 – Minimum deposit reached

#248

Post by ishishkin »

nootropicat wrote: post #239
keymone wrote: post #76

Earlier quoted context omitted.

PoW has nothing to do with scaling and so PoS isn't a way to address it. if you're making this claim, i would suggest to reconsider your belief that "it's different because i understand the tech". PoW and PoS are algorithms to order transactions, but how many transactions and how often to order them are just tunable parameters. the real scalability "tech" that is being sneaked in while everybody is busy talking about…

>PoW has nothing to do with scaling and so PoS isn't a way to address it. You're wrong, PoW is a poisson process which means time to generate blocks must be a very small fraction of average block time. Block times in PoS have a normal distribution with tight std, which means block generation can take even 1/3 of block time, giving some leeway for propagation.

Block propagation time is only a part of the problem and it doesn't make sense to consider it separately from other parameters. By the way, why do you think block times in PoS have a normal distribution?

Re: Ethereum 2.0 – Minimum deposit reached

#249

Post by ishishkin »

mhluongo wrote: post #125
xoralkindi wrote: post #117

Blockchains have a few problems that I think make them unsuitable for internet money, I know more about Bitcoin but I think this applies to Ethereum also: - Early adapter become extremely rich (Developers) - Transaction costs O(n) network complexity - Every operation in the network result in no more than O(polylog(n)) - Energy Issues (Proof of Work) - Speculative markets making the coins not usefull for day to day sh…

Hard to know which piece of misinformation to respond to. If you skip all the subjective stuff and whether "works for shopping" is the goal.. both of your big-O comments have counter examples (check out Coda for 1) as does your energy comment (Eth2 is an effort to switch to Proof of Stake, amongst other upgrades).

> ... both of your big-O comments have counter examples (check out Coda for 1)

Have you ever checked on your own any such "counter example"?

Re: Ethereum 2.0 – Minimum deposit reached

#250

Post by asymptotically3 »

bhaak wrote: post #231
pfraze wrote: post #219

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is my best understanding, I could be wrong. With PoW, we trust that the mining algorithm is going to take X amount of time given Y amount of computation. That arguably removes trust from people and puts it in the properties of tech. PoS argues that PoW is just a proxy indicator of stake, where the stake is computing resources that are committed to mining. With PoS, rather than reifying your resources into CPUs t…

I wouldn't call Bitcoin's POW as "trust in algorithm runtime on modern hardware". Just think about it. The algorithm can be changed by anybody. What does prevent the miners from changing the source code to allow them double spending or even extra coins? But if they do that and don't have a significant hashrate that do the same, they are on a blockchain fork that is worthless to anybody else. So we trust in the econom…

You could have 99% of the Bitcoin hashrate and start mining blocks that give you double the reward, but every other miner and node on the network would just ignore you because you aren't following the rules.
Post reply on HN