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

401–410 of 414 posts

Re: The Merge

#401

Post by sph »

elif wrote: post #138
uncletammy wrote: post #98

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Care to objectively articulate the arguments against switching to proof-of-stake? Why is it controversial?

A common criticism without an obvious rebuke is that by design, the rich get richer. IMO it's preferable to 'the ones with lucrative energy contracts get richer' but obviously not desirable.

You think that, given the choice between these two options, "the rich get richer" is preferable to "the ones that can get cheap energy get richer"? Alright. I don't.

In the first case, you perpetuate the status quo. With the second, miner's greed indirectly helps humanity find cheaper and more available sources of energy, benefiting all. Because Bitcoin or not, as humanity gets more and more advanced, it will need more and more energy. So energy generation is the bottleneck that needs optimisation.

I don't see how creating the world's first trillionaire is positive in any way.

Re: The Merge

#402

Post by sph »

comex wrote: post #277
mattwilsonn888 wrote: post #227

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…

As opposed to miners which are… not heavily centralized?

Miners don't rule the Bitcoin network. Every single Bitcoin client has a vote, in that the most followed branch of the bitcoin network is the one that matters. The more clients, the more resistant the network is.

Your Bitcoin client has the same voting power as the guy running an ASIC farm. That's the point of proof-of-work.

Re: The Merge

#403

Post by lottin »

mastazi wrote: post #383
lottin wrote: post #335

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

If you make money when the price goes down then your overall position is short.

The point is that it can be profitable to crash the price even though you're holding the asset at the same time.

Re: The Merge

#404

Post by mastazi »

lottin wrote: post #403
mastazi wrote: post #383

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

If you make money when the price goes down then your overall position is short. The point is that it can be profitable to crash the price even though you're holding the asset at the same time.

> it can be profitable to crash the price even though you're holding the asset at the same time.

in that case, the less you hold the more profitable it is. I'm not sure I get your point...

Re: The Merge

#407

Post by lottin »

mastazi wrote: post #404
lottin wrote: post #403

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If you make money when the price goes down then your overall position is short. The point is that it can be profitable to crash the price even though you're holding the asset at the same time.

> it can be profitable to crash the price even though you're holding the asset at the same time. in that case, the less you hold the more profitable it is. I'm not sure I get your point...

The point is that your assumption

> 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.

is fundamentally flawed. You can own a large amount of a currency and profit from it losing its value.

Re: The Merge

#408

Post by littlestymaar »

latchkey wrote: post #392
littlestymaar wrote: post #390

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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…

That is an interesting view on things. Where is the 'harm' here? ETH miners had a choice to mine, or not. If you didn't like the rules that were set out LONG in advance, then don't play the game. Similar to how people say not to depend on an API from a single company because that company could shut you down. Except in this case, the company told people, in advance, that some day in the future, they were absolutely go…

Except the whole point of crypto is not to be reliant on a third party company who has the power to pull the carpet from under your feet!

If you don't care about that last point, why not use VISA for transactions or Robinhood for financial stuff? (after all, they always act in compliance with their “long in advance” accepted ToS …).

If you admit that Ethereum is not a decentralized system but a company that can change things on their own terms, then we in fact agree.

Re: The Merge

#409

Post by latchkey »

littlestymaar wrote: post #408
latchkey wrote: post #392

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That is an interesting view on things. Where is the 'harm' here? ETH miners had a choice to mine, or not. If you didn't like the rules that were set out LONG in advance, then don't play the game. Similar to how people say not to depend on an API from a single company because that company could shut you down. Except in this case, the company told people, in advance, that some day in the future, they were absolutely go…

Except the whole point of crypto is not to be reliant on a third party company who has the power to pull the carpet from under your feet! If you don't care about that last point, why not use VISA for transactions or Robinhood for financial stuff? (after all, they always act in compliance with their “long in advance” accepted ToS …). If you admit that Ethereum is not a decentralized system but a company that can chang…

> Except the whole point of crypto is not to be reliant on a third party company who has the power to pull the carpet from under your feet!

The view is that ETH1 bootstrapped with PoW, with the intention of always moving away from it. This isn't pulling the carpet, this is executing on a plan to become as you say, less reliant on any third parties. You are trying to vilify execution on a published plan?

> If you don't care about that last point, why not use VISA for transactions or Robinhood for financial stuff? (after all, they always act in compliance with their “long in advance” accepted ToS …).

I do use those services for certain needs. There is room in the world for both types of services.

> If you admit that Ethereum is not a decentralized system but a company that can change things on their own terms, then we in fact agree.

I admit that ETH PoW was an incremental step and that it isn't perfect. I think anyone can admit that. In the software development land, we call this iterating on a MVP. Whether PoS is the correct future or not is to be seen, but I don't blame them for trying. At least someone is trying.

Re: The Merge

#410

Post by ahtihn »

thesausageking wrote: post #370
ahtihn wrote: post #312

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> so miners can filter out transactions they legally aren't allow to process and all that happens is those transactions get validated in a future block by other miners. You could fairly easily argue that building on a chain that includes sanctioned transactions is also "processing" them. Therefore miners would need to fork the chain to remain in the clear legally or just stop mining altogether.

That doesn't make sense legally and regulators have given their blessing to the approach for Bitcoin I mentioned. I personally think even going after stakers is a bridge too far, but in that case the staker is profiting off of the illegal transaction and they're also directly participating in processing it.

> That doesn't make sense legally and regulators have given their blessing to the approach for Bitcoin I mentioned.

They have? Regulators have made an explicit statement on this? Can you link to it?

Post reply on HN