61–70 of 532 posts
Why is it a good thing to make ETH deflationary? Don't you want people to spend it?
I actually like all things crypto, but why does this tech have to suck so much
As someone who uses both BTC and ETH and who likes both, this is one of the reason why people prefer Bitcoin over Ethereum. The reality is that the energy used to secure the Bitcoin blockchain (or the energy "wasted" according to many here) is important and makes a 51% attack prohibitively costly. While Vitalik coming with this potential solution is great, the reverse of that coin is that the developers have very sig…
> that the developers have very significant control on the blockchain The case for BTC in this regard is no different from ETH. In both cases developers put together an upgrade, then miners can either upgrade or not.
Going from PoW to PoS in such a small timeframe is pretty aggressive no matter how you look at it. As a user, I really hope it works out without major issues.
Not trying to be snarky but Vitalik itself is ETH's 51% attack ... What's the point of decentralized cryptocurrency when it falls down on the hands of one person.
At this point Vitalik is one researcher among many. He's taken care to remove himself from the "benevolent dictator" role he had at first. He is very productive though, and the other researchers and devs tend to find his ideas convincing.
I don't see the same thing happening to Vitalik. I'm not saying it's a problem, as Ethereum is a different network with different advantages and disadvantages, but he still looks like the final decision maker to me at this point (which is OK for me).
I'm not an expert, but if 51% of the existing hashpower doesn't want a change, it sounds less a 51% attack and more like miners voting against something that isn't in their interest. The whole point of blockchains is that the incentives are supposed to be aligned between miners and users. If that isn't the case here, it sounds like a problem.
> it sounds less a 51% attack and more like miners voting against something that isn't in their interest We also used to call this situation a potential "fork" (as in, the thing with two prongs) before the word "fork" was somehow redefined to mean "protocol update everyone agrees on, with a linear history without any prongs".
Satoshi said "The nature of Bitcoin is such that once version 0.1 was released, the core design was set in stone for the rest of its lifetime."[1] Vitalik going from POW to POS is nonsense for any crypto electronic cash currency because people can not trust it if core design changes from time to time. Vitalik will probably come back again to POW after miners calm down. [1] https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=195.…
> Vitalik going from POW to POS is nonsense Being able to change for the better is not nonsense, it's vital to the survival and stability of a coin. The #1 complaint about Bitcoin (especially on HN) is its excessive use of power. Moving to POS solves this problem. Moving to POS allows ETH to scale transaction processing where BTC cannot. Miners are obviously angry because they spent millions (probably billions) on GP…
And how much power does Google or Facebook consume? How much power does each Google and Facebook click take?
There are good power sources like renewables and nuclear. Power is not a problem.
And I'm not sure POS is a good solution because Satoshi would've used it or would've switched to it.
Obviously the high gas makes it feel a lot less like magic when every button click is 30-100$ but really this all gives me so much hope for a better post-mobile app based internet.
I was so cynical for a long time about where tech was heading but this gives me hope that in 10 years we might be in a better place owned by the people and with better monetization outside of megacorps.
This could get really ugly. (Not only per se, but, also, as it really shows how "centralized" these suposedly decentralized systems are ... ... and -this- could have consequences.)
it's centralized in both directions. Small development team and small group of powerful miners.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Developers can't do anything the users don't want. They can't make people adopt the new software. The miners are losing here because everybody else in the ecosystem wants proof-of-stake and 1559, including users, ETH holders, and app developers.
Absolutely, all the stuff built on ETH (defi, automated exchanges, nfts) can't truly take off when gas fees can cost 20-80 USD per action. There's already a blockchain that acts as a store of value, the world doesn't need a second bitcoin.
Regardless of the current issues with the updates, gas prices, different opinions on the community, devs vs miners vs users... Am I the only one who thinks people underestimate Ethereum and its EVM invention? In 2013 this guy (who I think is a visionary) wrote a document with a proposal that led to the creation of a world-wide turing-complete distributed computer. And still, people are just starting to realize its po…
The point of Ethereum is not really to be a distributed computer. It also seems misleading to describe it that way, as it doesn't distribute computations. Every node computes the same thing.