261–270 of 532 posts
Every time I read about anything related to cryptocurrency it reads like a high-school opera. With several orders of magnitude more money involved. I really don’t like this whole industry, and I cannot see how anyone would. It’s like a cult.
Yet, you're here, reading the article and commenting.
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…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Miners don’t dictate protocol rules. Miners do one job - hash blocks. And they get rewarded for it. Miners are only one participant in the ecosystem, there are also users, merchants and developers. Governance of any cryptocurrency is extremely touchy subject and one thing you don’t want to do is setting a precedent for making a controversial change. If you justify such change by “majority of miners want it” - you’re…
>> Miners don’t dictate protocol rules. Miners do one job - hash blocks. And they get rewarded for it. What? Not really. Miners do indeed dictate the protocol rules, its is the miners agreeing to following a certain version of the consensus algorithm that makes a blockchain do what it does. So they are partly responsible for more than just mining blocks. Like I said initially it is hard to say who the actual decision…
Who dictates the rules is who controls the logic of the chain where the value resides. The miners can create their own fork, and Vitalik can create his own fork. I think we know where the value will go.
> Who dictates the rules is who controls the logic of the chain where the value resides. The miners can create their own fork, and Vitalik can create his own fork. I think we know where the value will go.
Vitalik only has this power because he appears to be choosing freely and the public agrees with him. If it appeared he was being forced to do something, or he did something that people didn't like, the value wouldn't follow him.
It is in this economic sense, and only this economic sense, that crypto is democratic. The only votes that matter are the dollars people trade to buy Ethereum.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The thing that matters is how valuable the 32ETH stake the validators put up is as that is the amount of penalty for trying any attack. The theoretical attacks on Proof of Stake are well known and discussed but generally require 33% - 51% of all staked ETH for various annoying attacks on the blockchain but not actually killing it. 3,491,906 ETH is currently staked right now which is actually way lower than will event…
> The thing that matters is how valuable the 32ETH stake the validators put up is as that is the amount of penalty for trying any attack. Well, there wouldn't be much point in attempting an attack if the attacker didn't have the ~1/3 voting power to successfully execute it, right?
Also: People stake ETH under the expectation that the ETH they generate are worth just as much or more as the ETH they staked. If the price would continuously go down, less and less people would stake. The less people stake, the easier it is to buy 1/3 of voting power.
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…
> Am I the only one who thinks No, there are plenty of blockchain snake oil salesmen out there promoting the same misleading talking points while bypasssing legitimate concerns. First, you have to understand that at least half of the concepts you're talking about have completely not broken through the barrier between the mindshare of the Blockchain community and the rest of the tech industry. Your post was the first…
No, that's not true. It's just those types are the loudest. So that'd be your impression when you haven't spent time looking into it.
But it sounds like you've at least looked at Vitalik's writings. The Eth core has plenty of hard core tech in various corners of crypto. It's just that they're organized by project, and not all in one place.
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…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
You should think of miners as bodyguards. They aren't intended to be active participants on the network, they are intended to provide the service of securing the network and serving the interests of the users of the network. If a group of bodyguards at a concert vote democratically and 51% of them decide the singer shouldn't be allowed to go on stage and sing (because of a grudge or whatever), is that a problem? Yes…
Tbh, I don't get your analogy, why should the miners be looked at as bodyguards? While I agree the miners are responsible for protecting the network, I don't think you can draw a distinction that easily between an eth holder vs a miner, because anyone can become a miner and anyone can become a holder and an entity can be both a miner and a holder. Everyone who participates in the eth network should have the power to…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The video wouldn't be valuable, because it's trivial to duplicate. However, should it be impossible to copy videos and the only way to do a video would be to capture the events as they happen, then perhaps your video would have value.
I'm surprised there aren't a ton of NFTs for videos of people digging holes and filling them up, riffing on both "proof of work" and keynesian ideas.
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…
I don't think it was visionary. Ever since, blockchain has struggled to find a real-world use case. We know how blockchain works, the concept is thousands of years old. This problem existed in the past (coordinating in an environment where no one trusts anyone). However if this was a real problem in the real world, companies would have built blockchains long ago. This is rather survivor bias. Apparently blockchain fo…
Smart contracts allow that i can swap any currency to any other withoit kyc or even registering. I can move USD from ETH to Tron and so on within seconds for a low fee.
Cashing out to IRL money is simpler and faster than even paypal or paysafe for example.
Even if the crypto market is unstable, the last years it generally went up while holding USD or EUR basically was a loss game valued against ex. CHF.
I personally cant imagine a world without blockchains anymore.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
They've been investing money to make money. They're running a business, not a charity. Changes like these are part of the process of improvement, this is exactly what they signed up for.
You're missing my point: yes, they have benefited from the whole thing, no doubt there. But a responsible leader at the very least tries to address the fact that his proposal will throw a major chunk of the ecosystem under the bus and what's worse, on a completely unplanned timeline. And maybe propose mitigating solutions. Instead he immediately paints them as the enemy. Some leader you got there.