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

It costs $436 to deploy a smartcontract on Ethereum

twitter.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

41–50 of 121 posts

Re: It costs $436 to deploy a smartcontract on Ethereum

#41

Post by inter_netuser »

grey-area wrote: post #22
inter_netuser wrote: post #12

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?

Why does a contract between two counterparties need to use a network with thousands of nodes at all? What enforcement benefit does the network provide? I'd contend it's entirely superfluous to a smart contract system, which could just offer building blocks from a trusted third party instead for constructing contracts, and that trusted third party could also notary the transaction and provide arbitration. All of these…

That's because they are not contracts per se, smart or otherwise.

They are autonomous agents that act as your counterparty.

Re: It costs $436 to deploy a smartcontract on Ethereum

#42

Post by drawkbox »

gonehome wrote: post #30
jstx1 wrote: post #23

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> There are already billions being staked in ETH2 validators today in preparation for the switch I find it mindblowing that people willingly lock in so much money given how uncertain the whole thing is. There's no specific explanation about what happens if the 2.0 release is delayed repeatedly (like it has been in the past) or if it isn't successful and fails in some way. There's a lot of "trust Vitalik" going around…

Lack of leadership is why BTC elevated a con artist pretending to be satoshi and is still arguing over block size. I think hard improvements require effective coordination and someone who can pull that off. Vitalik is part of the reason I think ETH is more likely to be successful than competitors in the space (in addition to their head start).

A programming language needs a BDFL in the early days of design and value creation. Even content/entertainment creation needs a director, a novel should have only one writer and a game should have a consistent design. However, a "distributed" financial system that requires a BDFL is a single point of failure.

Re: It costs $436 to deploy a smartcontract on Ethereum

#43

Post by inter_netuser »

anizan wrote: post #10
tac0_ wrote: post #6

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Regular blockchains are already utterly useless Curious why you think so? Also agree Solana is quite centralized but I wouldn't say it's a scam.

This is just one of many VC backed coins trying to be the next Ethereum. These VC coins don't enable mining so there's no dilution on the initial holders. Saving the environment is just a nice alibi to lock in the cap table. There's also no disclosure on what price did the initial round happen at. 40 cents/80 cents /1$? If you buy Gold/Copper you have a fair idea on what the mining cost is for the industry. These are…

And Ethereum didn't have a presale of 70%+ of the supply? That somehow didn't lock-in the captable? ETH foundation (which is completely non-transparent btw) doesn't control the trademark and employs go-eth team?

I guess 30% for miners is a nice alibi.

Re: It costs $436 to deploy a smartcontract on Ethereum

#44

Post by xiphias2 »

gonehome wrote: post #30
jstx1 wrote: post #23

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> There are already billions being staked in ETH2 validators today in preparation for the switch I find it mindblowing that people willingly lock in so much money given how uncertain the whole thing is. There's no specific explanation about what happens if the 2.0 release is delayed repeatedly (like it has been in the past) or if it isn't successful and fails in some way. There's a lot of "trust Vitalik" going around…

Lack of leadership is why BTC elevated a con artist pretending to be satoshi and is still arguing over block size. I think hard improvements require effective coordination and someone who can pull that off. Vitalik is part of the reason I think ETH is more likely to be successful than competitors in the space (in addition to their head start).

ETH had only one war so far (ETH vs ETC) where Vitalik won the leadership role. But at some point governments will want to control Vitalik (which isn't that hard, as he's just 1 person). I believe that something like the blocksize wars with BTC is inevitable in the ETH space as well.

Re: It costs $436 to deploy a smartcontract on Ethereum

#45

Post by theelous3 »

prvc wrote: post #20
lalaland1125 wrote: post #7

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".

As long as storage, electricity, and network costs are somewhat in the ballpark of where they are now, and interest in eth is sufficiently high, there's no way around it.

You can't just put something on thousands of devices, indefinitely, for low to no cost.

In fact, it _has_ to be at least more expensive that whatever the cheapest highly reliable storage provider offers. Otherwise I'm going to be using everyone's machines to host all sorts. Same with webhosting, and any other kind of hosting.

Re: It costs $436 to deploy a smartcontract on Ethereum

#46

Post by prvc »

6nf wrote: post #34
prvc wrote: post #20

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>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".

Every contract has to be verified by every node on the network, usually many many times over. The network is huge.

>The network is huge.

That is only one factor in the equation. The cost of performing a calculation is tiny, on the other hand. How you would, even conceptually, be able to arrive at some minimum dollar figure for such a thing, that is large in comparison to, say a person's average income is unclear.

Re: It costs $436 to deploy a smartcontract on Ethereum

#47

Post by jstx1 »

gonehome wrote: post #30
jstx1 wrote: post #23

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> There are already billions being staked in ETH2 validators today in preparation for the switch I find it mindblowing that people willingly lock in so much money given how uncertain the whole thing is. There's no specific explanation about what happens if the 2.0 release is delayed repeatedly (like it has been in the past) or if it isn't successful and fails in some way. There's a lot of "trust Vitalik" going around…

Lack of leadership is why BTC elevated a con artist pretending to be satoshi and is still arguing over block size. I think hard improvements require effective coordination and someone who can pull that off. Vitalik is part of the reason I think ETH is more likely to be successful than competitors in the space (in addition to their head start).

Having strong leadership isn't a substitute for having clear rules and stipulations about the different outcomes when taking people's money. Right now the ETH 2.0 staking rules are "you'll get it back when 2.0 is ready, trust us".

There's also the fact that strong leadership trades away most of the decentralisation.

I'm sure this software project which has changed scope and has been delayed many times and is led by a 20-something-year-old with a personality cult around him will be successful. So convinced that I'll send them money which they promise they'll send back at an unspecified date.

Decentralised and trustless? Please...

Re: It costs $436 to deploy a smartcontract on Ethereum

#48

Post by inter_netuser »

satellite2 wrote: post #37

That's cute. Now if you want to add a few modules like KYC, make it upgradeable (need to deploy a proxy and a proxy admin) and gasless (deployment through a forwarder) and you'll be around ~3000$. 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…

is there a standard eth cookbook that you are referencing? proxy and proxy admins, gasless forwarders?

is there a standard body of knowledge compiled somewhere abuot this?

Re: It costs $436 to deploy a smartcontract on Ethereum

#49

Post by malikNF »

xvilka wrote: post #21

This is why Cardano[1] might be interesting with their Plutus [2] and Marlowe[3] languages. [1] https://cardano.org/ [2] https://github.com/input-output-hk/plutus [3] https://alpha.marlowe.iohkdev.io/

Why is this comment so heavily down-voted? The parent provides an alternative blockchain, that has been really well engineered by a world class team of developers. Is decentralized, has the ability to write smart contracts, has already implemented some of the features eth 2.0 is promising, currently sitting 3rd place in terms of market-cap right behind Ethereum (which we are talking about here).

Some of you people who down-vote without providing a proper reason are down right evil.

Re: It costs $436 to deploy a smartcontract on Ethereum

#50

Post by inter_netuser »

encryptluks2 wrote: post #8
ohgodplsno wrote: post #5

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Having an issue due to bugs exacerbated by market volatility and IPOs don't mean that something is centralized as indicated by the issue report, it just means it still has kinks—which is why mainnet is still considered beta until it proves otherwise. Additionally, anyone can run a validator node but the specs needed are beefier compared to something like Algorand, so the more people running nodes then the more decent…

It was DDOSed. Someone actually attacked it.
Post reply on HN