Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Ethereum London Mainnet Announcement

blog.ethereum.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

111–120 of 153 posts

Re: Ethereum London Mainnet Announcement

#111

Post by ur-whale »

casi18 wrote: post #104
ur-whale wrote: post #93

Earlier quoted context omitted.

ETH supply equation was already hard (some would say impossbile) to predict. It looks like this is making things worse. Will anyone ever be able to answer the question "what will be the max number of ETH in circulation on date X?" ?

The answer is easy and has always been the same: The amount will be what we have all collectively decided is the right amount to keep the system alive and secure. Minimum Viable Issuance. The only certainty in life is change. Saying "we will have x amount on date y" isn't helpful for developing coordination tools that will actually last into the future. Isn't it much better to have a system where we can say "this is…

>The only certainty in life is change.

Thank you for the platitude.

And then, there's Bitcoin with its perfectly predictable supply curve, which flatly derails your argument.

Re: Ethereum London Mainnet Announcement

#112

Post by [deleted] »

nly wrote: post #101
vvpan wrote: post #40

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Sometime in 2017/18 it has been found that one of the biggest bottlenecks for the network were propagation speeds and that those were largely weighed down by disk writes. Thus pretty much the whole network switched to SSDs and things improved tremendously. Some other networks have implemented stateless clients and Ethereum has been working on going in that direction for a while with a lot of effort being dedicated to…

Doesn't make sense. Most people have faster spinning rust write speeds than they do internet bandwidth. Unless the client is generating a lot of data client side, how can writes ever be a problem? Just buffer appropriately

[deleted]

Re: Ethereum London Mainnet Announcement

#113

Post by T0Bi »

tobltobs wrote: post #109
RoboTeddy wrote: post #86

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Not quite: under typical Ethereum chain conditions, you can include a small constant-sized priority fee to encourage miners to include your transaction. (This is really simple, and can be a default which most users are never even aware of.) This priority fee is free money for the miner; the only reason they would not include your tx is because it would make their block slightly larger, which would make it propagate o…

High gas prices are often caused by bidding wars between front-running bots. This upgrade will not stop this dynamic.

This is already a thing of the past past as those bots now use flashbots to pay the miners which doesn't result in high fees.

https://github.com/flashbots/pm

Re: Ethereum London Mainnet Announcement

#114

Post by bhaak »

ur-whale wrote: post #111
casi18 wrote: post #104

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The answer is easy and has always been the same: The amount will be what we have all collectively decided is the right amount to keep the system alive and secure. Minimum Viable Issuance. The only certainty in life is change. Saying "we will have x amount on date y" isn't helpful for developing coordination tools that will actually last into the future. Isn't it much better to have a system where we can say "this is…

>The only certainty in life is change. Thank you for the platitude. And then, there's Bitcoin with its perfectly predictable supply curve, which flatly derails your argument.

A condescending answer that totally ignores everything else that is in the comment you are replying to.

You have with no word said why one would want a predictable supply curve. Ethereum's supply curve is lower than it was promised in the ICO.

Just because Bitcoin has now a "perfectly predictable supply curve" that is no guarantee that it will be in the future? In a few years the block reward will be so small that the security of the chain will be reliant on the fees. A fee market has lots of negative implications, one of the worst is that you can pay miners directly to include transactions without using Bitcoin for the fees.

Re: Ethereum London Mainnet Announcement

#119

Post by space_rock »

londons_explore wrote: post #91

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.

Democracy doesn't work for a decentralised currency either. Democracy often fails for a currency fullstop.

Democracy currency is not novel. The US dollar in notes and digital form and other currencies created by democracies have existed for a long time.

Re: Ethereum London Mainnet Announcement

#120

Post by rssoconnor »

pbhjpbhj wrote: post #99
wmf wrote: post #52

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

You mean 95% by people, not by mining capacity, presumably. How is that determined, do you have a reference?

I don't know about 95%, but from https://bitcoinmagazine.com/technical/2x-or-no2x-why-some-wa...

> Over 90 percent of miners (by hash power) are currently signaling support for SegWit2x.

Post reply on HN