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

91–100 of 121 posts

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

#91

Post by inter_netuser »

baby wrote: post #57
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.

That’s why I’m really curious about Algorand. I think they did two interesting things, although I haven’t really looked at it, but they: - removed execution from consensus. I believe consensus just gets the execution result from elsewhere and thus doesn’t get slowed down by execution (the bottleneck when I was working on libra/Diem) - have a random committee that verifies the execution, as opposed to everyone on the…

so individual nodes in Algorand cannot verify the smart contract execution, they must trust the verification committee to some extent?

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

#92

Post by sprafa »

ilaksh wrote: post #90

Huge fan of Algorand here. Fees less than a penny per transaction. NFTs built in. Pretty soon will be able to generate transactions from a contract.

Undervalued comment. The thing OP is criticising are already solved problems in some blockchains.

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

#93

Post by anaganisk »

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.

So merchants have to pay like 1000% in their transactions fees, if we are to setup a payment gateway on ethereum?

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

#95

Post by vmception »

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…

Just change the network ID and any EVMs work

Avalanche is no different

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

#96

Post by vmception »

inter_netuser wrote: post #71
satellite2 wrote: post #64

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Gasless is made possible by meta transactions, a proposal from last year: https://eips.ethereum.org/EIPS/eip-2771 For which Openzepplin proposes documentation and an implementation https://docs.openzeppelin.com/contracts/4.x/api/metatx https://github.com/OpenZeppelin/openzeppelin-contracts/tree/... Proxied versions of standard contracts are also proposed by Openzeppelin: https://docs.openzeppelin.com/upgrades-plugins…

> Swiss contract reference and proposes one: https://github.com/CMTA/CMTA20 Amazing, someone went thru the headaches of trying to make ERC20 compliant with some local laws, wow, I'm just speechless. I suppose there can be some value in unlocking company equity, but placing freezable contract on a public blockchain? I suppose that might make audits easier or something. However, might as well put full trust into the pe…

My experience with Switzerland was an amazing experience in what goverment could be.

Like, the biggest culture shock was how it wasnt adversarial. My extremely low bar was just hoping I wasn't fighting intentionally onerous or ignorant bad laws. But Switzerland offers very high bar in this sector, one of collaboration and help!

In other day to day areas there is a lot of red tape. But in fintech and crypto protocols they are doing great things at the right time.

I’ve always contended that public resources could be spent on simply making better smart contracts for the industry to optionally use, as opposed to state actors still incoherently ranting about "regulating crypto" 10 years in, while achieving no consumer or investor protection with any regulatory action or proposal. Consumers and investors can weigh and vet projects more easily partially based on its use of vetted contracts from the state. Thats crazy talk here in the US right now, but not in Switzerland.

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

#97

Post by proto-n »

soco wrote: post #85
proto-n wrote: post #79

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 pe…

But you can't really touch the certificate (the blockchain entry), only the "artwork" behind it (png stored on digitalocean).

What is and isn't art and artistic value, and whether an indistinguishable copy of the mona lisa should be valued the same is an entire discussion, yes, but it isn't tied to NFT-s. By the way when I say indistinguishable I don't neccessarily mean by world class experts, but for example my guests who happen to spot my (hypothetical) fake mona lisa in my living room.

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

#98

Post by soco »

proto-n wrote: post #97
soco wrote: post #85

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 pe…

But you can't really touch the certificate (the blockchain entry), only the "artwork" behind it (png stored on digitalocean). What is and isn't art and artistic value, and whether an indistinguishable copy of the mona lisa should be valued the same is an entire discussion, yes, but it isn't tied to NFT-s. By the way when I say indistinguishable I don't neccessarily mean by world class experts, but for example my gues…

There is no certificate on the chain. There is only an URI to the certificate, see ERC-721.

Edit: yes I have only NFTs as defined in Ethereum in mind. If there are other solutions working better/safer, I am not aware of them...

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

#99

Post by proto-n »

soco wrote: post #98
proto-n wrote: post #97

Earlier quoted context omitted.

But you can't really touch the certificate (the blockchain entry), only the "artwork" behind it (png stored on digitalocean). What is and isn't art and artistic value, and whether an indistinguishable copy of the mona lisa should be valued the same is an entire discussion, yes, but it isn't tied to NFT-s. By the way when I say indistinguishable I don't neccessarily mean by world class experts, but for example my gues…

There is no certificate on the chain. There is only an URI to the certificate, see ERC-721. Edit: yes I have only NFTs as defined in Ethereum in mind. If there are other solutions working better/safer, I am not aware of them...

We may have differing concepts of what a certificate of authenticity is. To me, the certificate of authenticity is what guarantees that it can't be copied. That is the NFT with the uri that lives on the blockchain.

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

#100

Post by soco »

proto-n wrote: post #99
soco wrote: post #98

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There is no certificate on the chain. There is only an URI to the certificate, see ERC-721. Edit: yes I have only NFTs as defined in Ethereum in mind. If there are other solutions working better/safer, I am not aware of them...

We may have differing concepts of what a certificate of authenticity is. To me, the certificate of authenticity is what guarantees that it can't be copied. That is the NFT with the uri that lives on the blockchain.

You are right, it cannot be copied, and the URI lives on the blockchain. But the resource pointed by that URI does not. So the server doing the redirection via that JSON can redirect to whatever else, because even in the JSON we only have the asset URI, and a blockchain navigator can only check whether the JSON is according to the schema. So yes, nobody can steal your NFT, but your NFT might tomorrow be instead of a Beeple, a picture of my cat. Rickrolling on a whole new level.
Post reply on HN