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

The Merge

ethereum.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

221–230 of 414 posts

Re: The Merge

#221

Post by mattwilsonn888 »

simias wrote: post #69
repomies69 wrote: post #9

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Bitcoin is never going to change from PoW... That's the point of the system, Bitcoin is unchangable, unlike Ethereum. But you are free to create your own PoS cryptocurrency. If some PoS system offers the same security features as Bitcoin, people will just switch from Bitcoin to that.

Security is not the main reason for Bitcoin's success within the cryptocurrency scene, it's that it's the first and most recognizable name. But because its creator is AWOL it's incredibly difficult to push for any fundamental change to the protocol without creating huge divisions and probably a very controversial fork (of which there already have been a few). Unless Satoshi themselves decides to make a comeback, I do…

> Security is not the main reason

Wrong. Bitcoin has the most security because it has network effect. Most people hop onto the most secure chain, which is Bitcoin, which increases its security. That's what network effect in this context means.

Re: The Merge

#222

Post by osigurdson »

repomies69 wrote: post #9
numlock86 wrote: post #5

> 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/

Bitcoin is never going to change from PoW... That's the point of the system, Bitcoin is unchangable, unlike Ethereum. But you are free to create your own PoS cryptocurrency. If some PoS system offers the same security features as Bitcoin, people will just switch from Bitcoin to that.

>> Bitcoin is unchangable

Bitcoin can and does change. Some aspects, such as the supply cap, are unlikely to change any time soon but are certainly not bounded by physics.

Re: The Merge

#223

Post by mattwilsonn888 »

dragontamer wrote: post #84
icoder wrote: post #83

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Assuminge no one buys up any of the other 94.4%

It doesn't matter if they buy it or not. If they're waiting for profitability, they won't turn those machines on. Or do you think people will spend $100 on electricity to mine $10 of BTC just to keep the security of the token high? A hypothetical 51% attacker isn't doing it for profits, they're doing it for some other reason. Whatever that reason is, the 51% attack gets cheaper-and-cheaper each time these "bust" cycl…

Let us know when you figure out that "some other reason." The primary defense against 51% attacks is waiting the amount of block confirmations that make the cost of attacking the block your transaction is in more than the possible rewards. If we all have to worry about people randomly burning money to 51% attack blockchains then the whole premise is bunko anyways.

Here's a hint, randomly attacking the network in a way that loses you money eventually removes you from the playing field. The network is stronger than a motivated attacker, in principle.

Re: The Merge

#224

Post by null0pointer »

WFHRenaissance wrote: post #30

Ethereum in its current state is using proof-of-work (PoW) to ensure consensus amongst the thousands of nodes in the network. While PoW is reliable and secure, it is also extremely energy intensive. To produce each block on the network participants are required to use powerful and energy-hungry GPUs to solve a complex mathematical problem. Alternatively, proof-of-stake (PoS) guarantees the security of the network in…

What happens in the case of a network partition? I assume the conflict resolution algorithm is longest chain but would all the validators from the shorter chain partition get punished for being offline?

Re: The Merge

#225

Post by 1ark »

simias wrote: post #69
repomies69 wrote: post #9

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Bitcoin is never going to change from PoW... That's the point of the system, Bitcoin is unchangable, unlike Ethereum. But you are free to create your own PoS cryptocurrency. If some PoS system offers the same security features as Bitcoin, people will just switch from Bitcoin to that.

Security is not the main reason for Bitcoin's success within the cryptocurrency scene, it's that it's the first and most recognizable name. But because its creator is AWOL it's incredibly difficult to push for any fundamental change to the protocol without creating huge divisions and probably a very controversial fork (of which there already have been a few). Unless Satoshi themselves decides to make a comeback, I do…

There are only a handful of cryptocurrencies that have the same properties as Bitcoin. While being first sure is a factor, that's at least not how Bitcoin maxis argue.

- Permissionless chain. Anyone can join by just downloading software and start mining. Tbf it has moved beyond this quite a bit with ASICs but you can still validate.

- Fair launch (just filtering all cryptocurrencies on this criteria will result in ~10 or so)

- Devs, anyone can make a PR or write BIPs.

- No foundation/community/devs that extract a fee from the operation of the chain. Communities and companies operate outside of the Bitcoin network. - Hard cap on 21m coins.

Most others compromise on some of these to use less energy, be faster, enrich themselves, or all.

Re: The Merge

#226

Post by randomran01234 »

adrr wrote: post #218
randomran01234 wrote: post #207

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Their actions would most likely be visible on the network because it is transparent. The community can then decide whether to activate a fork and punish the colluding nodes.

Who is the community and how do they decide to fork(eg: is there a vote?)?

Users, developers, other stakers.

Re: The Merge

#227

Post by mattwilsonn888 »

You do not need to wait for the merge to see the effects. Staking pools are already heavily centralizing power in the network on centralized exchanges and """"decentralized"""" contract pools like Lido which can be manipulated and changed with the keys of a small group of people.

Vitalik is already preparing to organize social enforcement and democratic slashing for when these pools have their arms twisted to censor transactions by state actors.

https://bitcoinist.com/vitalik-buterins-take-on-possible-eth...

Before the merge has even happened, you have a central network leader preparing to use his influence to secure the network through what amounts to outside or meta-intervention (we're forking the chain because we see something is wrong) to prevent the technically possible "attack" (in Buterin's own words in agreement with most reasonable blockchain folk) from people already consolidating power for the post merge network.

This is no longer a trustless and open system. Bitcoin does not scale, but it's proof of work distributed block ordering mechanism is not killing the planet or reliant on high demand energy - it is actually most profitable to mine Bitcoin with otherwise wasted, low demand energy. Even the premise for moving to PoS (at least as a foil to Bitcoin) is wrong.

Re: The Merge

#228

Post by Ancapistani »

fizzynut wrote: post #164
hackernudes wrote: post #132

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.

Nope - price is a function of supply and demand.

In your hypothetical, demand stays the same. The supply stays the same, too - because the gold mines are still limited to the same amount of gold they get out of the ground.

So long as the amount of gold is mined unchanged, the fact that the processing is cheaper makes the mine more profitable but doesn’t change the price of gold.

Re: The Merge

#229

Post by osigurdson »

hunter-gatherer wrote: post #205
jrm4 wrote: post #169

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I definitely think it matters. The metaphor of "some moron pulling a slot machine over and over and over" (which is what I use) is more accurate and I think better represents what's actually happening than something like "solving," which evokes the image of smart person (or machine) sitting down and using their brain to discover useful information. When you say "solve" it implies that the information that is produced…

I agree with this point for the same reason; what matters is how people interpret it. Of course if I'm talking to a CS type I can go right into the details. The analolgy I use with laymen is solving a large rubiks cube by randomly moving pieces instead of using any other sophisticated methods. Somebody please correct my if I'm wrong as I haven't been in the cryptocurrency space for a minute, but I believe most of the…

The only problem with the rubik's cube analogy is that it may suggest that there are more optimal methods to solve it and they just aren't being used.

Re: The Merge

#230

Post by WFHRenaissance »

mattwilsonn888 wrote: post #217
WFHRenaissance wrote: post #30

Ethereum in its current state is using proof-of-work (PoW) to ensure consensus amongst the thousands of nodes in the network. While PoW is reliable and secure, it is also extremely energy intensive. To produce each block on the network participants are required to use powerful and energy-hungry GPUs to solve a complex mathematical problem. Alternatively, proof-of-stake (PoS) guarantees the security of the network in…

Only when explaining to laymen can you make PoS, and Ethereum's implementation of it, sound reasonable, open and secure.

Yeah I veiled a lot of complexity for sure, but honestly that's for the best. If we talked too in-depth about the implementation of most protocols, I'm sure we'd find something to scoff about XD.
Post reply on HN