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

81–90 of 121 posts

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

#81

Post by proto-n »

jstx1 wrote: post #47
gonehome wrote: post #30

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

Honestly, even having the "money" that you send "them" (really it's not them, but a consensus mechanism on chain lol) signals a great amount of trust in the network and its future, including 2.0 transition, adaptation, etc.

It's just a (very) long position in eth. If you hold eth and the 2.0 transition fails to happen, you can practically say goodbye to your money anyways.

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

#82

Post by Tepix »

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…

Well, once you have deployed it it can be used countless times for a much lower fee

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

#83

Post by Tepix »

baby wrote: post #9

I wrote that smart contract as concept art! ( https://cryptologie.net/article/542/project-memento-an-nft-a... ). Nice to see this on the front page :) A few years ago, deploying a smart contract only cost a few dollars. It raised questions like “wouldn’t anyone then spam the blockchain and increase its size in non-scalable way?” I guess pricing “solved” that issue. We considered Avalanche as an alternative, as it sup…

Metamask works with Avalanche, not sure about the others.

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

#84

Post by Tepix »

mFixman wrote: post #68

Does anyone know any examples of useful smart contracts on Ethereum? Most of what I hear on the news in either NFTs or toy problems like lotteries.

Initial Litigation Offering (ILO) is a very useful idea, however it's coming to Avalanche, not Ethereum:

https://www.coinspeaker.com/guides/what-is-initial-litigatio...

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

#85

Post by soco »

proto-n wrote: post #79
soco wrote: post #70

Earlier quoted context omitted.

NFT definition is stored off-chain. Which means the security you defined on the chain protects only the URI to a random file or some database - which can be modified any time DigitalOcean or the hacker decides to modify. So you're right, we can create quickly and safely keys to the metal front door, while the back door is propped with a stick.

What you are saying is that an certificate of authenticity is useless because you can burn the artwork with a torch. Those two things are mostly unrelated.

I say the certificate of authenticity can be easily forged or destroyed with no way to know what it once contained. And because the entire reason to exist of an NFT is based on this certificate of authenticity (unlike a real world artwork which can be touched and estimated by a specialist), I see a problem right there. Of course this is a problem only if the NFT has an artistic value, which is an entire discussion per se.

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

#86

Post by Aeolun »

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.

Then they become kind of pointless right? Nobody would get started with this stuff if they didn’t already have a heap of ether from the initial days.

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

#87

Post by ohgodplsno »

inter_netuser wrote: post #39
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.

scam = didn't buy the presale revolutionary = bought the presale

Now now, I have some self respect, I consider every single one of them a complete scam.

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

#88

Post by 3r8Oltr0ziouVDM »

123pie123 wrote: post #72
hobofan wrote: post #32

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> where does the code actually execute? what's the code writen in? 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…

thanks - I'll do some research on this if the code is sandboxed, then what useful things can it do?

It can modify the state of the blockchain based on the inputs.

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

#89

Post by pa7x1 »

malikNF wrote: post #49
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 wh…

Not a fan of downvoting for contributions that are on topic, in fact I can't downvote on HN and I think I prefer it that way.

But there is a reason why what he posts is just non-sense. Cardano doesn't scale farther than Ethereum or in fact any other blockchain that bets heavily on decentralization. Cardano can do nowadays a theoretical maximum of 6-7 transactions per second [0]. In practice, it's doing around 1 transaction per second because it doesn't see much use [1], which is the true reason why transaction costs are negligible. While Ethereum does 15-20 transactions per second, day in and day out and is working at full capacity [2], which is why Ethereum transactions can be quite costly as the demand is greater than the available blockspace. These are by the way real transactions, not the theoretical maximum I presented for Cardano.

Transaction throughput has nothing to do with the programming language used, it's an intrinsic limitation of the blockchain and is dependent on a bunch of network parameters that you can tweak (block size, block time and transaction size). You can tweak them a bit but if you tweak severely then you pay the cost through decentralization as the compute and network requirements of the node rise quickly, requiring beefier nodes which lead to centralization. A centralized blockchain is pointless, it's like running a SQL database with extra steps. See the recent Solana outage [3].

The programming language thing is just a distraction that has nothing to do with scalability. Ethereum doesn't run Solidity, the Ethereum Virtual Machine (EVM) runs the low-level OPCODES that it has defined [4]. Solidity code is transpiled into lower level languages and converted into the EVM's OPCODES. In fact, there are other programming languages to write Ethereum Smart Contracts like Fe (heavily inspired by Rust) [5] or Vyper (heavily inspired by Python) [6]. In the same way, Cardano doesn't run Haskell or Plutus or Marlowe, it runs the OPCODES defined by its Virtual Machine (IELE). Poor language-design and poor transpiling can lead to some inefficiencies in the performance of the code but in the end the true bottleneck is in the network throughput.

Blockchain scalability is solved via Layer 2s and sharding. Cardano is very far behind Ethereum on this regard considering Ethereum has deployed as of today many different layer 2s [7] while Cardano doesn't have any and you cannot expect to see any for the foreseeable future as they just released smart contracts. Cardano's layer 2 roadmap is also antiquated as it relies on state channels [8], which is a scalability solution that is intrinsically more limited than Rollups. State channels were all the rage a couple of years ago but they have been superseded by rollups as they are far less limited [9].

[0] https://www.reddit.com/r/cardano/comments/prbhp4/cardano_blo...

[1] https://cardanoscan.io/

[2] https://etherscan.io/chart/tx

[3] https://cointelegraph.com/news/solana-attributes-major-outag...

[4] https://ethervm.io/

[5] https://github.com/ethereum/fe

[6] https://vyper.readthedocs.io/en/stable/

[7] https://l2beat.com

[8] https://cardanians-io.medium.com/hydra-cardano-scalability-s...

[9] https://www.reddit.com/r/cardano/comments/pf25jk/comment/hb1...

Post reply on HN