91–100 of 153 posts
Democracy where one party wins every vote isn't really democracy.
Benevolent dictator works for software projects, but not for currencies.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
We'll see. Stablecoins are a workaround for the current price fluctuations, if the cryptos stabilize they might replace the stablecoins at some point in the future.
If cryptos stabilize 99% of users will lose interest.
EIP 1559 is a substantial change to the handling of gas fees on the network. In addition to making gas fees be 2 parts (base and "priority" fees), this includes a provision for "burning" the base fee, reducing the overall ETH supply. From the code itself: # miner only receives the priority fee; note that the base fee is not given to anyone (it is burned) Models i have seen suggest this will not make ETH deflationary,…
Will anyone ever be able to answer the question "what will be the max number of ETH in circulation on date X?" ?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Well, PoS is 4 years behind schedule. That's the reason the bomb has been pushed back for 4 years.
Fair. But it feels pretty close now. I'm running multiple mainnet ETH2 validators at home, in good company with nearly 200_000 validators worldwide (see https://beaconcha.in ). The teams behind the ETH1 and ETH2 node software (the latter has multiple independent implementations, while for ETH1 go-ethereum dominates the scene) are working hard to make "the merge" (PoS for mainnet) viable ASAP. Disclosure: I work for s…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
That's largely an orthogonal point. You may be suspicious of USDT or USDC's claim. But the point is that at least some fraction of the market is not, which is why USDT trades at $1.00. Now that may turn out in the future to be revealed to be a sham, and the market will lose faith. But right now USDT only has market value because some segment of people believe in the promises made by the Tether Corporation. If I fork…
not quite. stablecoins do not get stability from belief in the backing assets. they get stability merely from a shared agreement to pretend the coin is stable, so as not to lose whatever stake they have put in.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
That would explicitly break the one promise they made, which is that their coins are backed 1:1.
I meant what if USDC and USDT pick two different chains to bless as their “official” chain? Is that not possible? EDIT: I just realized the last letter in your examples are “A” and “B” to signify two versions of the same thing. My eyes aren’t what they used to be!
Eth isn't yet a grown up ecosystem when one party can push for a major network change like this, and there not be any question that it'll go through. Democracy where one party wins every vote isn't really democracy. Benevolent dictator works for software projects, but not for currencies.
If it's not majority rule, what would you suggest (for alt-coins, not for politics, I mean; though answering both is fine).
Politics-wise we can mitigate some of the effect by having proportional representation, but I'm not sure what the crypto-currency equivalent of that would be, nor really if it works as a concept.
Eth isn't yet a grown up ecosystem when one party can push for a major network change like this, and there not be any question that it'll go through. Democracy where one party wins every vote isn't really democracy. Benevolent dictator works for software projects, but not for currencies.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
In think there's a subtle difference. A side effect of Bitcoin's rules is that people with more hashing power have a disproportionate amount of weight in deciding the future of the protocol. Eth solves this by putting a hard deadline on some replacement being chosen. This can be the current maintainer's updated fork, or it can be a fork someone made that's identical to eth today with the date pushed back a few more y…
95% of Bitcoin miners voted to increase the block size and it didn't happen, but you're right about the benefit of the ice age.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
That's largely an orthogonal point. You may be suspicious of USDT or USDC's claim. But the point is that at least some fraction of the market is not, which is why USDT trades at $1.00. Now that may turn out in the future to be revealed to be a sham, and the market will lose faith. But right now USDT only has market value because some segment of people believe in the promises made by the Tether Corporation. If I fork…
not quite. stablecoins do not get stability from belief in the backing assets. they get stability merely from a shared agreement to pretend the coin is stable, so as not to lose whatever stake they have put in.