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

131–140 of 153 posts

Re: Ethereum London Mainnet Announcement

#131

Post by lottin »

JumpCrisscross wrote: post #124
arcticbull wrote: post #12

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The loss of coins means it will likely be massively deflationary over time. I don't have the numbers for ETH but off hand I believe 20% of all BTC has been lost already, since just 2009. That's an annualized 1.55% effective supply deflation rate during a period where new supply was quickly generated. Basically every random walk down the timeline leads to 100% of coins lost in the course of time. This is of course sep…

> loss of coins means it will likely be massively deflationary Friendly note that money supply is only correlated to whether a currency is inflationary or deflationary. Over the past weeks, for instance, Bitcoin has been inflationary--its purchasing power dropped.

Bitcoin proponents argue that bitcoin is deflationary based on a misinterpretation of the Quantity Theory of Money. At any rate, QTM is a theory of money, and as such it only applies to money. It doesn't apply to random assets, such as bitcoin. And, no, the fact that bitcoin has been declared "legal tender" in this or that country doesn't mean bitcoin is money in the context of QTM.

Re: Ethereum London Mainnet Announcement

#132

Post by xur17 »

tomc1985 wrote: post #32
michaelsbradley wrote: post #7

If readers are curious how to get up-and-running with a (non-mining) full node (ETH1) at home, it's quite simple. This is how I did/do it on my Intel NUC running Ubuntu Server 20.04: 1. Download a prebuilt binary from https://geth.ethereum.org/downloads/ . 2. Unpack it. Optionally make it (or a symlink) available in your PATH. 3. Create a service definition, enable it, and start it: [Unit] Description=Go Ethereum [Se…

I don't understand, why is spinning metal not good enough? For the large amount of storage required it seems like it would be a good idea.

You can actually put the older, less frequently accessed data on a spinning disk using this parameter:

> --datadir.ancient /media/disk1/goethereum/ancient

I've been using it, and I have 225gb on my ssd, 229gb on my regular hard drive.

Re: Ethereum London Mainnet Announcement

#133

Post by nootropicat »

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.

Bitcoin supply curve is a lie because security from fees is too low and unstable. Bitcoin only had $548k in fees yesterday, and the trend is downwards. A fundamentally insecure chain has a negative feedback loop: no reason to pay any fees to use it, which makes it even more insecure.

Bitcoin in the future is going to either be forced to introduce tail inflation in a hard fork, or start depending on secure external consensus (most likely ethereum) in a soft fork. Either option completely destroys any narrative bitcoin ever had.

https://cryptofees.info/

Re: Ethereum London Mainnet Announcement

#134

Post by imtringued »

user-the-name wrote: post #96
koolba wrote: post #55

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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!

USDT is already running on multiple chains. That is trivially possible. The question is what happens if one of those chains were to split.

Because anyone can create a fork of a chain the forks have to be authorized. The easiest way to authorize a chain would be to let the custodian (is that the right word?) of USDT decide which chains are authorized for USDT. If the custodian authorizes overlapping USDT then it is equivalent to creating an empty chain and creating USDT out of nothing to fill the newly created chain. In other words it would dilute the value of USDT.

This is an interesting problem because it shows a fundamental flaw in blockchains. They only have authority over themselves. No wonder cryptocurrencies and their advocates are so self centered. Because nothing that exists outside their chain (even other cryptocurrencies) is graspable!

It's not trustless because the trust (in the algorithm) is still there, the difference is that they minimized the need for trust to the absolute minimum. It's no longer about how much you trust but about what you trust.

Re: Ethereum London Mainnet Announcement

#135

Post by nootropicat »

jaco8 wrote: post #127

I compiled and run an ethereum beaconnode on a raspberry 4. How much is this helping the ecosystem ? Why is running a beaconnode which helps validators to find the next transaction faster not being supported by fees (however tiny they may be). There seems to be no incentive to run this at all ... or am I missing something ?

The direct incentive is gain from staking ether and transaction fees.

Re: Ethereum London Mainnet Announcement

#136

Post by imtringued »

space_rock wrote: post #119
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.

Politicians are weird. When it comes to peaceful activity they are going to turn over every single penny When it comes to war they do the exact opposite. The broken window fallacy is therefore not an answer to broken capitalism but rather broken politics.

It's probably because laws accumulate and don't expire. Getting rid of counterproductive laws is an action. Revolution is just an instantaneous loss of power. Maybe we should have a system with a continuous loss of power, the same way we have a money system with a continuous loss of purchasing power to prevent an abrupt loss of purchasing power.

Re: Ethereum London Mainnet Announcement

#137

Post by eingaeKaiy8ujie »

cryptica wrote: post #125
whitepaint wrote: post #121

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> They will never deliver anything meaningful. Never. https://ethereum.org/en/dapps/#explore

I said meaningful. Unscalable DeFi scams don't count. All these ERC20 projects force their community to pay between $10 to $20 per transaction to Ethereum miners who add no real value to their project/token. No real project based on real underlying value would force their users to pay such extortionate fees to some set of third-party validators who have nothing to do with their project aside from wedging themselves a…

The project is only 6 years old... This entire industry is still very young, lol. We've got smart contracts, that's an amazing idea and it works, the next step is to solve scalability issues. But it's not an easy task and needs time.

Re: Ethereum London Mainnet Announcement

#138

Post by NationalPark »

delaaxe wrote: post #108
Andrew_nenakhov wrote: post #82

Earlier quoted context omitted.

'Ethereum leadership' did a rollback once, so there is zero reasons to believe they won't do this again if this will be in their interests. You see, 'code is a contract', but then it isn't.

In “their” interest, as in, in the interest of thousands of people that got rug pulled because of a hack

I think he’s talking about the DAO situation which was not a hack, the contract executed exactly as it was written. But it was also a long time ago.

Re: Ethereum London Mainnet Announcement

#139

Post by wmf »

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?

No, presumably I mean 95% of the hashrate which is the only thing that is measurable on-chain.

https://github.com/bitcoin/bips/blob/master/bip-0009.mediawi...

https://github.com/bitcoin/bips/blob/master/bip-0091.mediawi...

Re: Ethereum London Mainnet Announcement

#140

Post by arcticbull »

JumpCrisscross wrote: post #124
arcticbull wrote: post #12

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The loss of coins means it will likely be massively deflationary over time. I don't have the numbers for ETH but off hand I believe 20% of all BTC has been lost already, since just 2009. That's an annualized 1.55% effective supply deflation rate during a period where new supply was quickly generated. Basically every random walk down the timeline leads to 100% of coins lost in the course of time. This is of course sep…

> loss of coins means it will likely be massively deflationary Friendly note that money supply is only correlated to whether a currency is inflationary or deflationary. Over the past weeks, for instance, Bitcoin has been inflationary--its purchasing power dropped.

Thank you for calling that out, I agree, which is why I mentioned "supply inflation" and "supply deflation." To your point, that's only 'inflation' in the Austrian sense which I personally couldn't disagree with more. After all the M2 supply grew 15X since the 1970s but inflation only decreased the buying power to 1/7th so the fact they're equal seems trivially disprovable.
Post reply on HN