Live data from Hacker News

The Merge

ethereum.org

181–190 of 414 posts

Re: The Merge

#181

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is a lot of words to say that PoW involves an inverse-hash problem being solved. Inverse-hash is a mathematical problem. Finding the nonce is solving it.

Here is how I explain it to people: Imagine a page of a book, for each letter a-z, assign a number to it (a=1, b=2, .. , z=26). Compute the sum of all of the letters on the page but reset back to zero when 100 is reached (i.e. 97 + 5 = 2). The resulting number is a kind of signature for the page. Changing a letter would result in a different sum. At this point, people usually understand the utility and irreversible n…

Modulo summation is a good hash function to teach non-CS people what hash functions are in principle. But, judging by my experience in learning about how Bitcoin works, is not sufficient to see why it's a secure currency (and PoW explanations are only invoked in that context). I knew about hash functions long before I knew why bitcoin works.

I think the first thing people need to get over to understand de-centralized currencies like bitcoin is that money is just an illusion, a big fat shared delusion, or more accurately an inter-subjective fantasy, a way of keeping track of labor\value by agreeing on some scarce valuable thing and declaring that it represents every other scarce valuable thing if everybody agrees to trade any scarce valuable thing they have against it. I don't think most people truly relize this at the gut level (and this is not an insult to the intelligence of people, it was mind blowing and deeply enraging\upsetting to me when I worked through it to the end as well). Concept #1 : Money is any (possibly artificially) scarce thing that people with things you care about want to trade against.

Next, you observe that a currency doesn't actually has to be an actual thing you own, it just has to be an entry in a trusty and available record of all the favors you did\was done to you. Physical things are merely a convenient way to maintain a distributed record of favors in real life, but in principle all of our paper money could be replaced by a huge paper spreadsheet recorded by an infalliable angel who never lies or cheats, recording in each entry who did what favor to whom, and the amount of "favorism" that was done (so that it can be traded against other favors in the future). If everyone had an always-updated read-only access to that spreadsheet somehow, then this is a perfectly good and perfectly secure money system. You "pay" by invoking the earlier favors owed to you, "paid" to you by others, invoking favors "spends" them : turns them into the ownership of the entity you are paying. New favors are created by the infalliable angel whenever they deem necessary, they simply write in the spreadsheet "I now own 20 more favors than before, by the sheer force of my will". Concept #2 : Money doesn't actually have to be a scarce thing, it just needs to be a trusty record of transactions, scarce things approximate that fairly well in real life but are not the only way. Money is simply any promise backed by trust, scarce things are just one way of implementing that.

The final push is actually the hardest. You can't understand bitcoin without understanding even the tiniest bit of distributed systems. The fundamental difficulty of distributing a soft record and yet still preserving it's append-only nature while the machines the record is stored on can tick at 4 billion times a second must be appreciated and truly understood in all its impossiblity. Distributed blockchains' delightfully bizarre solution must be appreciated in all its counter-intuitevity. I was stuck at this stage for a long long time, knowing hashing and crypto (public API wise) but finding it difficult to understand why can't I just make-up money as I please, who's going to stop me ? who's going to know ? How can bitcoin stop me or even detect me without a central authority ? Distributed Systems are simply magic, and crypto-currencies get most of their magic and brilliance from that component. But eventually you get there if you're motivated enough and manage to dodge\discard all the trash pop-sci false explanations. Concept #3 : Bitcoin utilized super-smart magic from several apparently-unrelated fields of CS to make the fantastical spreadsheet from concept #2 come to reality.

Anyway, all of that long rant was just to say I don't think hyper-focusing on the intricacies of hashing and public-private cryptography is actually helpful for people to understand the 'why' of decentralized currencies. I don't mean they're not important building blocks, they are invaluable of course, I just mean the vast majority of work in decntralized currencies is done by the decentralized blockchain they are running on, and those work because PoW is a piece of magic and also distributed systems and also NP-hardness.

>The suggestion that a mathematical problem is being solved (while not completely inaccurate) sounds a bit more elegant in my opinion than what is really going on.

That's a very human centric way of putting it, but I agree. If a computer is searching through the library of babel to find a treatment for cancer, the computer is still 'solving' cancer, it just doesn't do it by studying medicine. "Elegance" is a human value, and my personal philsophical belief about intelligence is that its all really Search, Neural Networks and Reinforcement Learning Agents and Evolutionary Computing and Human Brain Heuristics and Knowledge are all really more efficient way of searching spaces and trees. Medicine is just there to tell what branches not to search. So the library of babel computer is just doing intelligence a bit more naively and expensively than its more efficient artifical or natural cousins, but its still "solving" a problem, like all intelligences do.

Re: The Merge

#182

Earlier quoted context omitted.

A magnificently misinformed waste of bytes. Thanks for sharing.

I can't tell if "waste of bytes" is referring to the blog post shared by GP, or to proof of stake as a whole. If the former; as someone with little knowledge of cryptocurrency the post read fairly convincingly to me. In what ways is it misinformed?

You can read more here when it was posted previously: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=29366310

Basically he built up a strawman and then burned it to the ground.

Re: The Merge

#183

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I believe the zk provers will only be for L2s. The base layer will always be the way it is now. The base layer will be settlement for various shards, as it is now for Arbitrum and Optimism.

I don't understand how that comment applies to the discussion. Are you implying that L2s are somehow lower power requirements?

I’m saying there will be no requirement for ASICS in Ethereum. There may be L2s to scale Ethereum that require ASICS but that would be a voluntary decision by users who want to use said L2.

Re: The Merge

#184
post #34
post #25

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Bitcoin is still software. Software can change. It's the people who refuse to change it

A huge chunk of the miners fought tooth-and-nail to not increase the maximum block size. The chance of them agreeing to something like this seems very low indeed.

Doesn't actually need the miner's consent, only needs the market to agree. Problem is there isn't really any entity with sufficient authority for the market to follow, so it will tent to bias towards the status quo, and miners tend to have a lot of money and so influence in the market (both hard and soft).

Re: The Merge

#185

> The Merge will reduce Ethereum's energy consumption by ~99.95%. That's something Bitcoin needs ... or even better get rid of it altogether. https://ccaf.io/cbeci/index https://digiconomist.net/bitcoin-energy-consumption/

That's something Bitcoin needs ... or even better get rid of it altogether. As the price keeps falling, presumably so will energy consumption. The energy consumption problem fixes itself as the bubble bursts and people lose interest and mining becomes unprofitable, without the need for regulation.

Yes, if the price goes sufficiently low, the problem with solve itself, though probably somewhat abruptly once really bad positive feedback effects kick in, especially if there's a sufficiently fast and large drop. But bitcoin hasn't really hit anything big enough yet: it would take something like a 90% drop from the current price to see much of this start to kick in: bitcoin mining is still very profitable.

Re: The Merge

#186
Awesome

If crypto wasn't contributing causing a crash in the GPU market and contributing even more to climate change, I don't think it would have nearly as much hate as it does. Sure it's largely used for scams and money laundering, but at least it's used for scams and money laundering in a way I can ignore.

Right now Bitcoin and Etherium, the leading cryptocoins, are absurdly slow and expensive, on top of causing all sorts of issues. Maybe blockchain is the technology of the future, maybe there are smaller coins, but right not whenever I hear "crypto" it's always something bad. Actually carrying this out and switching to a system which doesn't lead to absurd amounts of wasted computation is a great start to actual crypto usefulness.

Re: The Merge

#187

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't understand what you mean. Stakers get ETH "for free" and therefore they crash the price? But the demand for ETH will still be there just like it was for mining. I don't really understand how Ethereum works very well. They are trying to tweak the ETH generation to make the merge work (see the ultra sound money memes). Just because stakers don't have to work hard doesn't mean ETH will crash. The whole thing doe…

Ok, a real life comparison, lets say there are 1000s of real life mines around the world that currently mine gold for say $50 per gram, but suddenly a processing technique lowers that cost for all miners to $0.50 per gram. In any normal market the price of gold should trend down.

You would be right if it continues to be proof of work. More miners would mine more ETH.

But this is not the case, the 'mined' ETH will come from proof of stake. Some people with more than 32 ETH and an online server will keep the engines rolling and get 5% in return for their service.

The less power is because the electricity is used for serving instead of mining.

Re: The Merge

#190

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Fiat currencies are backed by huge financial sectors. If all you need are numbers in a database, what are all those towers in NY for?

There's nothing about crypto that shows it wouldn't have exactly the same size of a financial sector in addition to proof of work, so the two aren't doing the same things. Forget fiat. When money was gold in a vault, that's proof of stake, not proof of work. For proof of work, you'd have to disintegrate the gold. I wouldn't put my trust in a dollar backed by the absence of gold. edit: I think maybe bitcoin enthusiast…

[deleted]
Post reply on HN