211–220 of 515 posts
Hmm ... "proto-danksharding" which activated the "blobscriptions protocol" so that blobs are "much cheaper than calldata", all of this helping it to become an "L2-centric ecosystem". In the end, this leaves them "not confident enough in the complex code of an optimistic or SNARK-based EVM verifier". I'm sold ... just tell me where to transfer the money.
[flagged]
Wait, this isn't reddit.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The day a network exists where you can reliably send like $0.001 of value with little/no fees is the day the internet changes forever. So many ideas are infeasible right now because CC fees are high, and making any payment is extremely high friction.
In Europe sending money from one bank account to another is generally free and often almost instant
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Its main purpose is internet currency. The only serious uses surround that via smart contracts, like decentralized exchanges or provably fair gambling (unsavory as that is). Any time someone says "the currency aspect is separate from blockchain," I'd be wary, seeing how the entire point of blockchain is decentralization via proof of work or stake. NFTs can make sense in theory as an alternative to the already-popular…
The day a network exists where you can reliably send like $0.001 of value with little/no fees is the day the internet changes forever. So many ideas are infeasible right now because CC fees are high, and making any payment is extremely high friction.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Hence my explicitly noting that Dr. Liskov continued this research and grew it in scope long after it had become clear that one of if not the primary application was clearly going to be tamper-resistant ledgers of financial transactions. It’s also why I gave the example of Dr. Wadler FRS FRSE as someone who even more explicitly did extremely sophisticated research well-received by the academic community unambiguously…
I'm not against cryptocurrency at all, but you're saying that Dr. Liskov was researching algorithms for that purpose when she really wasn't. Byzantine fault tolerance has lots of other applications, in fact if you search "currency" in the paper she worked on, you'll only find a single match: "concurrency." https://pmg.csail.mit.edu/papers/osdi99.pdf
If you’re going to nitpick in an effort to discredit a robust argument by beam-searching for the weakest-looking link in the argument and go directly after it, then at a minimum, be right.
Don’t refute intentional misquotations.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
"Bitcoin but its anonymous" does not make Monero a real currency. I guess it helps that its value is relatively stable. But I still can't realistically use it. I can't walk in a store, buy something, then pay with Monero which is obviously disqualifying on it's own. But in addition to that, if I want to give a friend some Monero I would have to walk them through making a new account with some new app which they won't…
Shopify for monero is an idea being kicked around, there are also monero marketplaces for non- illegal things Monero could be used in a store and some stores do take monero! Its quick, with low fees
It has the exact same practical problems every other distributed cryptocurrency has preventing it from being useful as an actual currency. If Monero ever started seeing adoption as an actual currency it would fall apart just like Bitcoin.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Its main purpose is internet currency. The only serious uses surround that via smart contracts, like decentralized exchanges or provably fair gambling (unsavory as that is). Any time someone says "the currency aspect is separate from blockchain," I'd be wary, seeing how the entire point of blockchain is decentralization via proof of work or stake. NFTs can make sense in theory as an alternative to the already-popular…
The day a network exists where you can reliably send like $0.001 of value with little/no fees is the day the internet changes forever. So many ideas are infeasible right now because CC fees are high, and making any payment is extremely high friction.
It will change absolutely nothing whatsoever.
> So many ideas are infeasible right now because CC fees are high, and making any payment is extremely high friction.
Making payments will always be, is inherently high friction, and reducing the amount does nothing below a threshold that is much, much higher than $0.001.
There have been lots and lots of micropayment schemes, and they have all failed because the very fact that there is a payment already introduces mental friction that's effectively higher than current CC fees.
Any idea that is infeasible because there is no way to reliably send $0.001 is in fact easily feasible today by monetizing it some other way, usually via ads.
Lower fees are only relevant for high-volume fully automated transactions with a substantial financial incentive behind them, and those can already be done basically for zero marginal cost, see HFT. The only micropayments that people are willing to engage in individually is when they involve addiction, and that as well can and is already done in gambling apps masquerading as games.
> Basically, Ethereum is no longer just a financial ecosystem. It's a full-stack replacement for large parts of "centralized tech", and even provides some things that centralized tech does not (eg. governance-related applications). And we need to build with this broader ecosystem in mind. I have respect for ethereum. It seems like one of the few cryptocurrency projects actually trying to push those ideas as far as th…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
5 cents per transaction is high for many parts of the world, and exceptionally high if every interaction in normal life is turned into a financial transaction.
If their vision is "applications" it feels like any price is too high. Would you sign up for hn if it cost 5 cents? Even though that is nothing in terms of money (for most of us), the friction of money actually being involved in and of itself probably makes it not worth it. Especially when its just a silly internet thing.
You're trying to imagine away the use cases because you don't agree with them.