31–40 of 121 posts
I get the scary part but I don't really understand what's the beautiful one here.
That kind of certainty has a beauty to it.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
why does one need to execute the contact on thousands of nodes, when a verification proof (e.g. pinocchio) would be sufficient?
as a complete newbie to this, where does the code actually execute? what's the code writen in? whats stopping malicious code running?
On every Ethereum node that verifies it. It's usually written in Solidity and compiled to EVM (Ethereum Virtual Machine) bytecode (so it can also be written in other higher-level languages).
> whats stopping malicious code running?
It's sandboxed and since it's limited to the EVM, there isn't really any "malicious" code that could break out of the EVM AFAIK. Inside the EVM it's probably more of a philosophical question whether any code can actually be considered "malicious".
These sorts of extreme costs are inherent to any trustless decentralized system like Ethereum. Storing and verifying contracts across tens if not hundreds of thousands of nodes is not free.
That isn't true. Other blockchains technology that support higher throughput are providing exactly the same capabilities for a few pennies. Etherum has taken the same place bitcoin has occupied for a while for currency transaction, here for smart contract: expensive. But it has, like bitcoin, huge network effect, so demand sustains and even continues to grow.
There are many networks that claim to do this, but we have yet to see how this is going to play out. A big question here is if these networks are in practice as resistant to attacks and decentralized as (post DAO) ETH.
These sorts of extreme costs are inherent to any trustless decentralized system like Ethereum. Storing and verifying contracts across tens if not hundreds of thousands of nodes is not free.
>These sorts of extreme costs are inherent to any trustless decentralized system like Ethereum. Do you have a demonstration of that proposition? I see no reason why that needs to be true at all. There's a big gap between "free" and "extreme costs".
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Proof of stake has little to do with transaction costs. The roadmap to scaling is sharding + layer 2 tech (optimistic and zk rollup, some of it is already live like arbitrum).
But storing things off-chain kinda kills the entire concept, doesn't it? If I hack into DigitalOcean I can mess everybody's NFTs by tampering with one database.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
That isn't true. Other blockchains technology that support higher throughput are providing exactly the same capabilities for a few pennies. Etherum has taken the same place bitcoin has occupied for a while for currency transaction, here for smart contract: expensive. But it has, like bitcoin, huge network effect, so demand sustains and even continues to grow.
> Other blockchains technology that support higher throughput are providing exactly the same capabilities for a few pennies There are many networks that claim to do this, but we have yet to see how this is going to play out. A big question here is if these networks are in practice as resistant to attacks and decentralized as (post DAO) ETH.
I mention those modules as those are the ones needed to provide the same services as a notary. This raise the issue that ETH is starting to no longer be competitive with the establishment. It's a bit aggravating as for many this was the main purpose.
I get the scary part but I don't really understand what's the beautiful one here.
Once you deploy it it will be there, forever running on a decentralized immutable computation machine which is made up of nodes and miners all over the world being incentivized a certain way. That kind of certainty has a beauty to it.
Solana FTW! It appears to be the top alternative, especially if you love Rust.
Solana is a fully centralized chain completely controlled by its creators, as evidenced by their recent unilateral shutdown on the last bug. Regular blockchains are already utterly useless, but they have the benefit of being decentralized. Solana is a scam, and so are 99% of the chains being created.
revolutionary = bought the presale
Earlier quoted context omitted.
But storing things off-chain kinda kills the entire concept, doesn't it? If I hack into DigitalOcean I can mess everybody's NFTs by tampering with one database.
If the whole world uses DigitalOcean for NFTs sure, but maybe we end up in a world where there are many providers. And not one that controls everything (by which point it's not centralized). Similar to right now many crypto is stored in exchanges but not one exchange holds all.