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

251–260 of 266 posts

Re: Ethereum 2.0 – Minimum deposit reached

#251

Post by krageon »

kybernetikos wrote: post #179
krageon wrote: post #104

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The whole "this costs too much power!" movement is disingenuous, it generally relies upon comparisons to Visa or similar networks. These networks are built upon the suffering of millions (which you can I suppose equate to rampant CO2 production, if you really wanted to) and should not be used at all. Any alternative is better than that. Then of course there is the whole notion that using a lot of power is in and of i…

As you rightly point out, whether something is considered to cost too much power properly depends on what you compare it with. Before there was a viable alternative to POW for achieving the goals of a decentralised currency, it was at least debateable about whether the benefits of the decentralised currency were worth the cost of POW compared to the alternatives, but now that it appears POS is a viable alternative, t…

If it turns out PoS is actually a good idea, I think you will have a very good point. Until it's been running and is used right (and doesn't get exploited hard and early) I think it is premature to say this.

Re: Ethereum 2.0 – Minimum deposit reached

#252

Post by krageon »

Ruphin wrote: post #112
krageon wrote: post #102

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They could just as easily have released user-friendly documentation without a ToS. Terms of Service are a way to oppress your users and are never a good sign.

The Ethereum Foundation is a legal entity, and as such they have to implement legal protections to any work they produce, or people will sue them. This is unfortunately how the current legal system works. The ToS basically says you're not allowed to do illegal things, and they are not liable for any damages caused by using the website. In addition they have some restrictions in place in order to protect users of the…

A ToS is always unnecessarily oppressive. A lot of the things you quote are not allowed even without a ToS. As far as the culture of suing for everything goes, that can easily be solved by not incorporating in or touching the US.

Re: Ethereum 2.0 – Minimum deposit reached

#253

Post by wildsatchmo »

nickik wrote: post #200
wildsatchmo wrote: post #113

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Funny nobody complains about the energy consumed by actual banks and other services Bitcoin would replace, which is much higher. In those circumstances they can understand it's not a waste at all, but a cost of providing a valuable service. I don't think POS is an adequate replacement. POW was an intentional design choice because of the highly competitive environment that it creates.

Bitcoin is not a replacement for banks.

I agree. I think makes them more efficient, and less important for some of their common use-cases. All of that mining equipment is infrastructure they don't need.

Re: Ethereum 2.0 – Minimum deposit reached

#254

Post by wildsatchmo »

shermanmccoy wrote: post #127
wildsatchmo wrote: post #113

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Funny nobody complains about the energy consumed by actual banks and other services Bitcoin would replace, which is much higher. In those circumstances they can understand it's not a waste at all, but a cost of providing a valuable service. I don't think POS is an adequate replacement. POW was an intentional design choice because of the highly competitive environment that it creates.

Do you have some modelling, or any credible reference to back up your assertion that the energy used by banks would be higher than a Bitcoin blockchain?

Even if I did provide you some report showing banks use more than Bitcoin (which is still true for now) it's only a fraction of the big picture. Although banks are a good example of this effect, Bitcoin doesn't JUST improve banking. As this plays out, mining infrastructure provides a shared resource that can be used by MILLIONS of companies, among which are banks who manage massive datacenters requiring humans and their associated energy consumption, the cost for audits, compliance, card readers, and other things that Bitcoin makes effortless. Surely unlocking efficiency offsets power consumption, and at scale the efficiency improvements can be astronomical. An accurate figure on this probably does not even exist, especially considering the lack of imagination with respect to Bitcoin use-cases. Not to mention the biggest energy consumers are also the best in the world at reducing their consumption out of competitive necessity.

Re: Ethereum 2.0 – Minimum deposit reached

#255

Post by krageon »

pclmulqdq wrote: post #152
krageon wrote: post #104

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The whole "this costs too much power!" movement is disingenuous, it generally relies upon comparisons to Visa or similar networks. These networks are built upon the suffering of millions (which you can I suppose equate to rampant CO2 production, if you really wanted to) and should not be used at all. Any alternative is better than that. Then of course there is the whole notion that using a lot of power is in and of i…

Serious question: Who suffers at the hands of Mastercard?

There are only two payment networks (when you go all the way down), namely the one backed by Visa and the one backed by Mastercard. These two companies are fundamentally creditcard companies, which are a predatory instruments meant to lure people into spending more than they can really afford.

Even if you want to put predatory lending practices that are at the very heart of those networks aside (why would you, but hypothetically) you are left with networks that disproportionately disadvantage certain classes of people: a good example is sex workers, it being the case that these networks are managed inside the US they are fundamentally puritanical. Usually these arguments are couched in environmental euphemisms such as "there is higher risk". These measures are proxied into networks that run on top of the lowest network, but they are positively stimulated to keep them that way.

If those things don't bother you, you may be swayed by the fact that they're both based inside the US. Broadly speaking, we don't need to get into why that is an entity that tends to spread suffering around.

Re: Ethereum 2.0 – Minimum deposit reached

#256

Post by krageon »

pclmulqdq wrote: post #236
dmantis wrote: post #201

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Well, not directly the mastercard, but current banking system - lots of people. TLDR; custody banking model keeps people out of control of their own property. There is a big problem with private property rights and safety guaranties of your capital today in most of the world. There are three problems: unstable govs in 3rd world countries, capital moving restrictions and QEs. I'm, for example, not from developed count…

These are all really good points, but there's some nuance missing in this view. There is actually a fairly narrow slice of the financial world that you don't like, specifically central banking and fiat currency. Currently, crypto traders are busy learning that all the rest of the financial world, including things like credit and financial derivatives (encapsulated in smart contracts), can still apply to cryptocurrenc…

I think it's too simple to say someone only dislikes part of the financial world. Even in the blockchain money space these financial instruments are not positive aspects. The fact that they can be ported into this new space is not a reason to assume they are good.

Re: Ethereum 2.0 – Minimum deposit reached

#257

Post by drcode »

ishishkin wrote: post #246
drcode wrote: post #153

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Incorrect https://docs.ethhub.io/ethereum-roadmap/ethereum-2.0/statele...

Re: Ethereum 2.0 – Minimum deposit reached

#258

Post by koheripbal »

fsewe20 wrote: post #204
koheripbal wrote: post #145

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I find it difficult to find a source of highly technical news on new cryptos. Any suggestions?

https://ethresear.ch/ is probably the best place for technical discussion.

...but that's only ETH related. I wish there was a forum for tech related to other coins.

Re: Ethereum 2.0 – Minimum deposit reached

#259

Post by nootropicat »

ishishkin wrote: post #248
nootropicat wrote: post #239

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>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?

Because validators target their expected time slot and multiple random factors impact latency.

Re: Ethereum 2.0 – Minimum deposit reached

#260

Post by ishishkin »

drcode wrote: post #257
ishishkin wrote: post #246

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

Incorrect https://docs.ethhub.io/ethereum-roadmap/ethereum-2.0/statele...

Is that a link to fairy tales from Vitalik? The fact that "stateless client" is written in Ethereum 2.0 roadmap is an evidence that this project has no future.
Post reply on HN