No post body was provided.
MIT Chose Ethereum’s PoS as Top Technological Breakthrough
31–40 of 77 posts
Re: MIT Chose Ethereum’s PoS as Top Technological Breakthrough
#32Earlier quoted context omitted.
The title is "MIT Chose Ethereum’s PoS As Top Technological Breakthrough", not "MIT declares Ethereum’s PoS As First PoS". Implementation matters more than "first!!11!". Obviously, starting with PoS is gonna be easier than creating a network and currency on PoW and then enabling the transition from PoW to PoS. "Dragging their feet" is a funny way of saying "taking their time to implement it correctly". None of this s…
I think the real problem is that PoS tokens have a huge legitimacy problem. Even Ethereum continues to be plagued with their 60% premine and presale to early investors, of which we have little visibility into who those investors were. There is some evidence floating around of Vitalik and company working with very wealthy clients to obscure the size of Ethereum presale purchases. Years of PoW mining helps a bit to leg…
I would argue they already did achieve large scale trust, based on how many billions of assets are traded on the network.
Re: MIT Chose Ethereum’s PoS as Top Technological Breakthrough
#33Earlier quoted context omitted.
They may be grifters and scammers but at least they are not burning down the planet. But I am curious about this: Etherium is not the first crypto to go PoS. Are there any significant technical advantages compared to other PoS implementations?
> Bitcoin’s Energy Usage Isn’t a Problem. Here’s Why. https://www.lynalden.com/bitcoin-energy/
So then PoS was pointless right? This whole article was bullshit too right?
Or maybe, just maybe, the author holds a not insignificant amount of Bitcoin and is working overtime to dismiss criticism.
Re: MIT Chose Ethereum’s PoS as Top Technological Breakthrough
#34Earlier quoted context omitted.
Don't get me wrong, plenty of griftcoin junk tech exists, but Ethereum is the most capable platform and moving away from Proof Of Work is a significant step.
I don't see why someone needs to wait 'years' on a coin for such a move when others already exist that are neither Proof-of-Work or Proof-of-Stake, unless you just plan on speculating on the cryptocurrency.
Like which coins? As someone in the industry, I highly recommend taking claims like that with a grain of salt.
Re: MIT Chose Ethereum’s PoS as Top Technological Breakthrough
#35And their website has a poll to vote for the 11th breakthrough between four choices: one being the metaverse, and another being NFTs.
https://www.technologyreview.com/2022/02/23/1045416/10-break...
Sigh...
Re: MIT Chose Ethereum’s PoS as Top Technological Breakthrough
#36Compact fusion reactors exist and are functional… and they chose griftcoin junk tech.
>Compact fusion reactors exist and are functional
Functional as in works as intended? Maybe but certainly not functional as in "Useful as powerplants"
Re: MIT Chose Ethereum’s PoS as Top Technological Breakthrough
#37Earlier quoted context omitted.
I think the real problem is that PoS tokens have a huge legitimacy problem. Even Ethereum continues to be plagued with their 60% premine and presale to early investors, of which we have little visibility into who those investors were. There is some evidence floating around of Vitalik and company working with very wealthy clients to obscure the size of Ethereum presale purchases. Years of PoW mining helps a bit to leg…
I would argue they already did achieve large scale trust, based on how many billions of assets are traded on the network.
For sure. I certainly have trusted a significant single digit percentage of my wealth in Ethereum. But that's only predicated on them using PoW. I own no PoS tokens.
I will likely dump my Eth once they lock in PoS and it becomes clear that they can't back peddle.
Re: MIT Chose Ethereum’s PoS as Top Technological Breakthrough
#38Earlier quoted context omitted.
I think the real problem is that PoS tokens have a huge legitimacy problem. Even Ethereum continues to be plagued with their 60% premine and presale to early investors, of which we have little visibility into who those investors were. There is some evidence floating around of Vitalik and company working with very wealthy clients to obscure the size of Ethereum presale purchases. Years of PoW mining helps a bit to leg…
I would argue they already did achieve large scale trust, based on how many billions of assets are traded on the network.
The whole point of a public blockchain is for it to be trustless. Why do you even need to factor in achieving 'Large scale trust' with the largest Ethereum stakeholders to not say, attempt to revert a massive hack in 2016 to save the investors lost money?
Why should I have to trust them to not do that again if another hack happened, even if they migrate to PoS and it causes a giant fork once again?
Re: MIT Chose Ethereum’s PoS as Top Technological Breakthrough
#39Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Bitcoin’s Energy Usage Isn’t a Problem. Here’s Why. https://www.lynalden.com/bitcoin-energy/
So then PoS was pointless right? This whole article was bullshit too right? Or maybe, just maybe, the author holds a not insignificant amount of Bitcoin and is working overtime to dismiss criticism.
Here's her thoughts on proof of stake, https://www.lynalden.com/proof-of-stake/
> Or maybe, just maybe, the author holds a not insignificant amount of Bitcoin and is working overtime to dismiss criticism.
No shit Sherlock. This is a ridiculous point to make to try to dismiss someone's argument. If you believe something is a good investment, then of course you're going to own a lot of it and promote your reasoning to think it's good and alternatives are bad. Literally everyone one the planet does that and you're deluding yourself if you think anyone who has put in enough time and effort to understand the complexity of things is going to be bias free.
Re: MIT Chose Ethereum’s PoS as Top Technological Breakthrough
#40Well, technically this is an MIT publication, but MIT Turing Award winning cryptographer Silvio Micali along with some other MIT folks actually created a different cryptocurrency. It is also a type of proof of stake but arguably more advanced than that of Ethereum.
Very fast (seconds), good programming support and documentation, very tiny fees. It seems that bots or people automatically bury my comments if I mention the cryptocurrency by name on HN, so I am going to leave that for people to look up if they are interested.
EDIT: Screw it. Algorand.