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

381–390 of 414 posts

Re: The Merge

#381

Post by pixelbro »

simonebrunozzi wrote: post #369
mondoveneziano wrote: post #82

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> required to use powerful and energy-hungry GPUs to solve a complex mathematical problem. No mathematical problem is getting "solved". It is much more akin to playing the lottery: Entirely random numbers are being tried out, by sending them through an energy-intensive algorithm (being energy-intensive is the algorithm's only purpose in proof-of-work), until what comes out is less than another number. That other numb…

You're nitpicking. Poster was trying to explain things in a simple way. Side question: what about your username? I live in Venezia and I'm curious now.

It's not nit-picking. A layman presented with this explanation might get the impression that a "problem" is being "solved", which implies there is some utility to the PoW algorithm, rather than energy being wasted for the sole purpose of proving that energy has been wasted. In fact, even the word "Work" in "Proof of Work" implies the same. Proof of Waste would be a much more apt description of what is actually happening.

Re: The Merge

#382

Post by baobabKoodaa »

pixelbro wrote: post #379
baobabKoodaa wrote: post #340

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Quoted post unavailable.

Oh, get off it. He's not "pretending to disagree", merely providing further context for the anti-utility of the PoW algorithm. The point is that the colloquial understanding of "solving a problem" implies more utility than what is actually happening, which is equivalent to guessing a random number. The mere statement that a problem is being solved at all implies that useful work is being done, which is not the case a…

> Oh, get off it. He's not "pretending to disagree", merely providing further context for the anti-utility of the PoW algorithm. The point is that the colloquial understanding of "solving a problem" implies more utility than what is actually happening, which is equivalent to guessing a random number. The mere statement that a problem is being solved at all implies that useful work is being done, which is not the case and the parent comment is right to point that out.

You're either trying to confuse others intentionally, or if I'm interpreting charitably, you are merely confused yourself. In neither case is this attitude warranted. You just re-explained that the crux of the issue is useful work vs non-useful work. This is exactly the same point that Josde explained. This point was contested by lottin. I don't understand why they would contest it, as they very clearly agree with that point (based on reading other messages they wrote in this thread). According to you, lottin is not "pretending to disagree", they are "merely providing further context". This is very obviously not true. Either you are lying on purpose or you are confused, maybe you didn't read their message properly. Here it is again for you to read:

> It's worse than that, they're aren't solving anything at all. They're taking part in a lottery, in which participants have to guess a number, and the winner gets to update the ledger. Nobody is solving complex mathematical problems.

Does that sound to you like "yes, I agree, and here is some further context"? Obviously not. That message is expressing strong disagreement, not further agreement.

Please stop spreading misinformation.

Re: The Merge

#383

Post by mastazi »

lottin wrote: post #335
johnthewise wrote: post #311

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If you hold eth, you are long eth.

Not really, you can be long in one market, and short in the derivatives market, and your net position be short. You'd be holding eth, but you'd be short.

not really, in that case you have two separate positions, one long and one short.

Re: The Merge

#384

Post by bhaak »

sktrdie wrote: post #293
bhaak wrote: post #112

Earlier quoted context omitted.

All the nodes that have been online long enough will know that the fake chain is fake. Because it doesn't match the state that they have been observing all along. So as long as you have no extended downtime, your nodes know what the right chain has to look like. Ethereum dynamically adds checkpoints so that block reorgs can't reach too far into the past but that is mostly a convenience function as it alone couldn't s…

Thanks, this answers my main concerns. I guess that same level of validation applies also for the wallet software we download: we need to make sure the app comes from a source that people have agreed upon, and that usually means applying some sort of general intuition on where to find stuff (googling, forums, reddit etc.). And as you mention, the same trust-game is applied to finding the right chain. But then, I wond…

> But then, I wonder, if we're all anyway looking for the trustworthy data ourselves (based on general human intuition), why use blockchain at all? Why not just apply the same level of trust towards, say, a regular database?

You don't have the same level of transparency with a regular database. You can't look into the databases of Google or Facebook or of your bank and see what's going on. You have to trust them to some degree.

From a high level view, any blockchain solution is less efficient than a centralized one. If you don't care about trust and transparency, a centralized solution will always be better.

> It does seem a bit scary though that so much money is going into a system where "you have to find the trustworthy data yourself based on your own social network".

The whole cryptocurrency thing is about reducing trusting third parties. But that adds burden on your part. With Bitcoin's POW you have to do less work for getting to the trust level you are comfortable with because we are pretty certain that no human can change physics. With POS, you need to compensate for the loss of the physical part.

Re: The Merge

#385

Post by mastazi »

troutwine wrote: post #196
mastazi wrote: post #134

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If you own a large amount of a currency, you want to ensure that the currency in question is trusted, or otherwise that currency would end up losing its value. It is your greed that is guiding you, not your benevolence.

Eh, I think it’s naive to believe that greed is sufficient protection. Owning a bunch of ETH so you can set ETH on fire would be a waste of money, only so long as the person setting the fire didn’t value the mischief more than the ETH. I don’t see why nation states wouldn’t attack each other by burning down the crypto assets of citizens, either.

> I think it’s naive to believe that greed is sufficient protection.

I never said that, I actually agree with you. I was just explaining GP's point to parent who in my opinion missed it.

Re: The Merge

#386

Post by pixelbro »

baobabKoodaa wrote: post #382
pixelbro wrote: post #379

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Oh, get off it. He's not "pretending to disagree", merely providing further context for the anti-utility of the PoW algorithm. The point is that the colloquial understanding of "solving a problem" implies more utility than what is actually happening, which is equivalent to guessing a random number. The mere statement that a problem is being solved at all implies that useful work is being done, which is not the case a…

> Oh, get off it. He's not "pretending to disagree", merely providing further context for the anti-utility of the PoW algorithm. The point is that the colloquial understanding of "solving a problem" implies more utility than what is actually happening, which is equivalent to guessing a random number. The mere statement that a problem is being solved at all implies that useful work is being done, which is not the case…

> Obviously not. That message is expressing strong disagreement, not further agreement.

Not obvious to me. But sure, I'm confused all right. Confused at how lottin's comment could be interpreted as contesting Josde's, when it reads as a reinforcing restatement to me. Confused at your hostility and accusations of misinformation.

Perhaps you're confused about how online conversations work? Sometimes people reply with a restatement when they feel the original doesn't go quite far enough. I mean, lottin's comment was arguably ineloquent, but he wasn't "muddying the waters". Do you perhaps have some expectation that the act of replying implies disagreement? Is it the strongly negative tone that gave you that impression? It certainly isn't the content, since you correctly interpreted my own restatement of lottin's comment as agreement.

I'm not trying to confuse others, I'm trying to enlighten you, specifically, about what happened here so that you might reconsider next time before jumping on someone for something they didn't say.

Re: The Merge

#387

Post by detaro »

baobabKoodaa wrote: post #382
pixelbro wrote: post #379

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Oh, get off it. He's not "pretending to disagree", merely providing further context for the anti-utility of the PoW algorithm. The point is that the colloquial understanding of "solving a problem" implies more utility than what is actually happening, which is equivalent to guessing a random number. The mere statement that a problem is being solved at all implies that useful work is being done, which is not the case a…

> Oh, get off it. He's not "pretending to disagree", merely providing further context for the anti-utility of the PoW algorithm. The point is that the colloquial understanding of "solving a problem" implies more utility than what is actually happening, which is equivalent to guessing a random number. The mere statement that a problem is being solved at all implies that useful work is being done, which is not the case…

> Does that sound to you like "yes, I agree, and here is some further context"?

Yes, very much.

Re: The Merge

#388

Post by WFHRenaissance »

mattwilsonn888 wrote: post #269
WFHRenaissance wrote: post #230

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

I think its for the worst that most people would rather gloss over the fundamental flaws in Bitcoin, Ethereum and most other chains. They are significant and important.

Name one

Re: The Merge

#389

Post by littlestymaar »

aaaaaaaaata wrote: post #353
littlestymaar wrote: post #268

Earlier quoted context omitted.

At the expense of the “permissionless” nature of crypto, moving from “anybopdy can join with his GPU” to “you must pay the insiders to join the party”. I also reveals how centralized ethereum really is in terms of who holds the power: a blockchain where the devs can screw the miners like this isn't really reassuring… Bitcoin's carefully crafted balance of power (and the disapearance of Satoshi) lead to a technologica…

> a blockchain where the devs can screw the miners like this isn't really reassuring… It's not a screwing if they've known the roadmap the whole time....

Then you don't have issues with VISA or Mastercard censoring things, as it was in their TOS the whole time, right?

Re: The Merge

#390

Post by littlestymaar »

latchkey wrote: post #272
littlestymaar wrote: post #260

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Especially given Ethereum's decision power being entirely centralized in the hands of the developers (unlike bitcoin for instance) who has shown willingness to hard-fork when they consider it necessary. In fact, the move from PoW to PoS illustrate this concentration of power: the miners lose a lot but they had no say in the decision.

Miners knew from day one that PoS was eventual. As a very large ETH miner, I'm not that concerned about that part of things. Why? The business model for my company was built around a larger idea than just mining. Mining was just a great way for us to bootstrap the business. Let's also not forget that there are other coins out there to mine. There is a huge potential for something to take ETH's place... whether that h…

> Miners knew from day one that PoS was eventual.

It keep getting repeated over and over as if it was an argument, but if someone warns that they will harm you, then do it, and eventually gets away with it, it is actually a proof that they have unchecked power over you, and clearly not an argument against the existence of such a power imbalance…

Post reply on HN