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

Sticking to 8192 signatures per slot post-SSF: how and why

ethresear.ch

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

21–30 of 30 posts

Re: Sticking to 8192 signatures per slot post-SSF: how and why

#21

Post by whynotkeithberg »

polygamous_bat wrote: post #18
pants2 wrote: post #8

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't envy the client teams that have to keep up with all these changes. Ethereum really is the most impressive open source project in the world, IMO, because it's a live system with half a dozen different clients written in different languages that all have to interoperate with each other and perform complex cryptography in short timeframes. Not a lot of space for bugs and any breaking change has to have an elabor…

> Ethereum really is the most impressive open source project in the world, IMO, because it's a live system with half a dozen different clients written in different languages that all have to interoperate with each other and perform complex cryptography in short timeframes. I am curious, are you aware of linux?

Seriously... Too many people just buy the excuses of these systems even though there are massively distributed systems that work on existing technology quite well. Crypto is just an excuse to scam others with the promise of $$ rewards using words they don't understand and seeming to be high tech.

Re: Sticking to 8192 signatures per slot post-SSF: how and why

#22

Post by chrisco255 »

treyd wrote: post #19
edm0nd wrote: post #14

Earlier quoted context omitted.

OP and Polygon L2s. Fees are like fractions of a penny or max 1-2 cents. and/or sharding

What people normally refer to as "Polygon" is their Matic sidechain, which is not a "layer 2" system. It's its own consensus system with its own stake who can steal funds transferred to it from the main Ethereum network. To be considered a L2 system it has to not require additional economic majority-trust assumptions like that. See also extended explanation: https://ethereum.org/en/layer-2/ (which doesn't mention sys…

Polygon zkEVM is still in alpha, but it is live and it has more than $100m in assets live on chain. Other rollups with close to $10B in assets, like Arbitrum, do exist though:

https://l2beat.com/scaling/summary?#active

Re: Sticking to 8192 signatures per slot post-SSF: how and why

#23

Post by chrisco255 »

polygamous_bat wrote: post #18
pants2 wrote: post #8

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't envy the client teams that have to keep up with all these changes. Ethereum really is the most impressive open source project in the world, IMO, because it's a live system with half a dozen different clients written in different languages that all have to interoperate with each other and perform complex cryptography in short timeframes. Not a lot of space for bugs and any breaking change has to have an elabor…

> Ethereum really is the most impressive open source project in the world, IMO, because it's a live system with half a dozen different clients written in different languages that all have to interoperate with each other and perform complex cryptography in short timeframes. I am curious, are you aware of linux?

Linux is of course very impressive and most Ethereum nodes run on Linux. But you can peg a machine to a specific version of Linux and never have to upgrade if you desire. Your machine is ultimately independent of other Linux machines. The key challenge with a blockchain is that you have to keep what amounts to a globally distributed and permissionless data center in sync with protocol upgrades and the cost of making a critical mistake can be in the billions of dollars. You have to account for not just technical vulnerabilities but game theory vulnerabilities.

The challenges are of course, entirely different in OS kernel land. All of them are impressive.

Re: Sticking to 8192 signatures per slot post-SSF: how and why

#24

Post by pants2 »

polygamous_bat wrote: post #18
pants2 wrote: post #8

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't envy the client teams that have to keep up with all these changes. Ethereum really is the most impressive open source project in the world, IMO, because it's a live system with half a dozen different clients written in different languages that all have to interoperate with each other and perform complex cryptography in short timeframes. Not a lot of space for bugs and any breaking change has to have an elabor…

> Ethereum really is the most impressive open source project in the world, IMO, because it's a live system with half a dozen different clients written in different languages that all have to interoperate with each other and perform complex cryptography in short timeframes. I am curious, are you aware of linux?

I'm fully aware of Linux... It's also a very impressive open-source project. To elaborate, reason I consider Ethereum to be more impressive is the collaboration between maintainers and releases of different clients and client versions in different languages. This happens with different packages in Linux to some degree but on Ethereum it's a different ballgame because it's a live system, it's not like you can just let some users upgrade to beta versions and fix bugs as you go, everything has to work together perfectly with a system-wide change happening in under 12 seconds globally with billions of dollars on the line. There are testnets but no true analogue for mainnet. (Edit: chrisco255 below said it better)

Re: Sticking to 8192 signatures per slot post-SSF: how and why

#25

Post by giantrobot »

zacksiri wrote: post #13
andsoitis wrote: post #7

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> As much as I believe in the mission of crypto. What is the mission of crypto and what is the most impactful application to date? If the latter is underwhelming, perhaps that should make one question whether the mission is worthy.

> A purely peer-to-peer version of electronic cash would allow online payments to be sent directly from one party to another without going through a financial institution. Depends on how you read this, but to me, this is a replacement for fiat, I should be able to pay my butcher / baker, that hasn't happened yet. If i walk to a merchant near my house they will all reject crypto in any form.

For one no cryptocurrency is really designed to be used for actual payments. They all are deflationary by design so the future value of cyber bucks will be higher than today's value. If you spend cyber bucks today you're losing out on those future gains. It's irrational then to ever spend cyber bucks.

Unless cyber bucks are accepted to pay taxes in your jurisdiction (they're not) they need to be converted to a currency that is accepted. Thanks to the deflationary nature of cyber bucks, their conversion rates fluctuate wildly and constantly. The conversion rate can even change while waiting for a transaction to complete.

To boot every transaction is caveat emptor, there's no protections against fraud or even simple errors. Access to a wallet's private keys (even if they're not your keys) confers access to the wallet and all of its cyber bucks.

If the goal of cryptocurrency is to replace fiat currency transactions it's like the worst possible design for the task.

Re: Sticking to 8192 signatures per slot post-SSF: how and why

#26

Post by giantrobot »

ekianjo wrote: post #16
colesantiago wrote: post #6

Unfortunately I don’t think that there is no amount of changes to blockchain that would make it useful in any way in the real world. There are way too many negative externalities of crypto. And after nearly 15 years, we should just stop this.

[flagged]

I need a greater fool to believe in the validity of cryptocurrency so I can cash out my position! This shit is just worthless!

Re: Sticking to 8192 signatures per slot post-SSF: how and why

#27

Post by BriggyDwiggs42 »

colesantiago wrote: post #6

Unfortunately I don’t think that there is no amount of changes to blockchain that would make it useful in any way in the real world. There are way too many negative externalities of crypto. And after nearly 15 years, we should just stop this.

Yep. Crypto is a solution searching for a problem and it still hasn’t found it. Imo the best use case remains and likely will be drug/black market purchases. Otherwise, it doesn’t have enough practical advantages to beat traditional digital currency, philosophy aside.

Re: Sticking to 8192 signatures per slot post-SSF: how and why

#28

Post by BriggyDwiggs42 »

ekianjo wrote: post #16
colesantiago wrote: post #6

Unfortunately I don’t think that there is no amount of changes to blockchain that would make it useful in any way in the real world. There are way too many negative externalities of crypto. And after nearly 15 years, we should just stop this.

[flagged]

The most likely use of crypto tech is in a cbdc.

Re: Sticking to 8192 signatures per slot post-SSF: how and why

#29

Post by [deleted] »

zacksiri wrote: post #13
andsoitis wrote: post #7

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> As much as I believe in the mission of crypto. What is the mission of crypto and what is the most impactful application to date? If the latter is underwhelming, perhaps that should make one question whether the mission is worthy.

> A purely peer-to-peer version of electronic cash would allow online payments to be sent directly from one party to another without going through a financial institution. Depends on how you read this, but to me, this is a replacement for fiat, I should be able to pay my butcher / baker, that hasn't happened yet. If i walk to a merchant near my house they will all reject crypto in any form.

[deleted]

Re: Sticking to 8192 signatures per slot post-SSF: how and why

#30

Post by Aerbil313 »

giantrobot wrote: post #25
zacksiri wrote: post #13

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> A purely peer-to-peer version of electronic cash would allow online payments to be sent directly from one party to another without going through a financial institution. Depends on how you read this, but to me, this is a replacement for fiat, I should be able to pay my butcher / baker, that hasn't happened yet. If i walk to a merchant near my house they will all reject crypto in any form.

For one no cryptocurrency is really designed to be used for actual payments. They all are deflationary by design so the future value of cyber bucks will be higher than today's value. If you spend cyber bucks today you're losing out on those future gains. It's irrational then to ever spend cyber bucks. Unless cyber bucks are accepted to pay taxes in your jurisdiction (they're not) they need to be converted to a curren…

Seriously, check out Monero.
Post reply on HN