81–90 of 532 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I disagree in factually but I agree in optics and I think him being so active makes it easy to get that impression.
Can you give me an example where he purposefully declined to give his opinion to make sure that people are impartial?
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.…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> and changes take much longer to implement and activate on Bitcoin That's a funny way of saying BTC doesn't innovate. > Going from PoW to PoS in such a small timeframe is pretty aggressive no matter how you look at it. It's been the plan for years. I first heard of it in 2017 and if I'm not mistaken I think it was also in the whitepaper. So it's neither coming out of the blue or an aggressive timeframe.
> That's a funny way of saying BTC doesn't innovate. Or another way of saying you can expect some stability (and majority consensus) when there's more than a trillion dollars worth of value at stake. It's been discussed for a longtime, yes, but the expectation is that it would roll out in phases over the next year or two, not rushed out because of a potential 51% attack.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It is a problem. That's a big reason for moving from proof-of-work to proof-of-stake- to more directly make the _holders_ of Ethereum in charge of the chain. It's a difficult thing to do, though. Hashpower based mining is easier to get going. Proof of stake has issues like the nothing-at-stake problem, where theoretically you could stake-mine on multiple chains: https://ethereum.stackexchange.com/questions/2402/what-…
Isn’t half of our current money supply controlled by 1% of people? If the asset holders controlled things, why wouldn’t they just demand everyone else hand over their cash? https://www.cbsnews.com/news/richest-1-percent-control-more-...
(2) social power with blockchains (i.e. having people's ears on the social networks) is far more important than $$ power: If nobody wants to install and use your blockchain, no amount of $$ can fix that.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It is a problem. That's a big reason for moving from proof-of-work to proof-of-stake- to more directly make the _holders_ of Ethereum in charge of the chain. It's a difficult thing to do, though. Hashpower based mining is easier to get going. Proof of stake has issues like the nothing-at-stake problem, where theoretically you could stake-mine on multiple chains: https://ethereum.stackexchange.com/questions/2402/what-…
Isn’t half of our current money supply controlled by 1% of people? If the asset holders controlled things, why wouldn’t they just demand everyone else hand over their cash? https://www.cbsnews.com/news/richest-1-percent-control-more-...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> 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.
Except in this case, this is going against presumably 51% of the miners and changes take much longer to implement and activate on Bitcoin (taproot activation for example will be done over a very long period and needs a very high threshold). 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.
> There are a wide variety of benefits to this proposal, such as potentially making Ethereum deflationary Interesting that this is framed as a benefit.
A high price of ETH as an asset creates a higher security level for Ethereum the blockchain. The ecosystem of projects, apps, protocols, organizations, etc on Ethereum is healthier when the blockchain is guaranteed secure and stable for everyone to use. It's a benefit to everyone.
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.
Or, to put that another way: as long as all nodes can trust each-other (and so run entirely in fast sync, with no redundant verificational executions of the same blocks), then Ethereum does in fact allow N computers to work on pieces of N subproblems in parallel and use the state trie as a blackboard for syncing/linearization between those subproblems. (The actual heavy computation would have to occur outside the chain, in oracle sibling processes, but they could at least load their binaries from the state trie. Think of it like AI bot-clients cooperatively playing a MOO where users can define object code.) Essentially, Ethereum is a distributed database with Turing-complete CRDTs.
Mind you, nobody’s using Ethereum that way, but that doesn’t mean the underlying tech isn’t natively capable of being used that way. (Just like, say, oldschool fixed-function-pipeline GPUs could be used as GPGPUs, if you could translate your linear-algebra problem into an equivalent scene-geometry rendering problem.)
Earlier quoted context omitted.
A high price of ETH as an asset creates a higher security level for Ethereum the blockchain. The ecosystem of projects, apps, protocols, organizations, etc on Ethereum is healthier when the blockchain is guaranteed secure and stable for everyone to use. It's a benefit to everyone.
That has been repeated many times but is not true, the price of an arbitrary unit of currency or crypto has no relationship to its security. That price going up or down has no relationship on the "security level" of the blockchain.