Live data from Hacker News

What does $100 Ether mean?

medium.com

101–110 of 117 posts

Re: What does $100 Ether mean?

#101
post #82

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What do you think about the idea that people in failed states with unstable currencies would want to store their wealth in Bitcoin? Or the idea that people would want to use it for international money transfers? "Just pump and dump" implies you don't believe legitimate uses underlie the coin.

> What do you think about the idea that people in failed states with unstable currencies would want to store their wealth in Bitcoin? It's a stupid idea because there's always two parties to any transaction. You know why they don't just store their wealth in dollars? Because nobody is insane enough to sell them dollars for a worthless piece of paper. Bitcoin works the same way. How much Bitcoin would you give for a Z…

> Insofar as Bitcoin represents a single world currency, the problem is that on a macro level this isn't a good idea.

I don't think a scenario in which bitcoin became the single currency that the world used is very likely to happen.

I suspect what is going to happen is that bitcoin is going to be the world's first Electronically Tradable Liquid Asset (ETLA) that is frictionless and uncensorable. Its going to legitimize the concept of a much wider class of ETLAs being acceptable as money. Any company stock that has high price stability could function as money if we had a platform whereby people could trade fractional shares of stock at low fees.

This is going to take away the ability of central banks to manipulate the money supply. If a given country's CB tried to print money to cause inflation, the population would figure it out quickly and the price of ETLAs in that currency would immediately rise.

Re: What does $100 Ether mean?

#102

I think it means a lot of people are going to lose a lot more money than $1 Ether would have meant. 1. The halting problem states you can't predict what a turing complete program will do, until you run it. This means to some degree, that you can't predict what your "smart" contract will do, until it does it. Thus turing completeness causes security to be far, far harder than non turing completeness. This is how you l…

[deleted]

Re: What does $100 Ether mean?

#103
post #82

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> What do you think about the idea that people in failed states with unstable currencies would want to store their wealth in Bitcoin? It's a stupid idea because there's always two parties to any transaction. You know why they don't just store their wealth in dollars? Because nobody is insane enough to sell them dollars for a worthless piece of paper. Bitcoin works the same way. How much Bitcoin would you give for a Z…

> Insofar as Bitcoin represents a single world currency, the problem is that on a macro level this isn't a good idea. I don't think a scenario in which bitcoin became the single currency that the world used is very likely to happen. I suspect what is going to happen is that bitcoin is going to be the world's first Electronically Tradable Liquid Asset (ETLA) that is frictionless and uncensorable. Its going to legitimi…

> I don't think a scenario in which bitcoin became the single currency that the world used is very likely to happen.

What I mean is the concept of it becoming an international currency where people actually transact business in it directly, instead of it being a commodity that needs to be converted to and from a local currency.

As such there will always inherently be exchange fees for international transaction, just like when you pay a fee for a credit-card transaction in a foreign currency. You're paying a middleman to hold those currencies so you can convert on-demand.

What I'm jabbing at here is the idea that there are "no fees" in Bitcoin, which is a point often used by its advocates.

The transaction fee is actually absurdly high nowadays - the average transaction fee is now above $1 [0]. For all the effort spent complaining about credit card fees - this is a totally absurd price, you only break even with the standard credit card fee at $23 dollars or more. Just from the transaction fees.

And of course every time you use a middleman of some kind they will (naturally) take their own cut. Buy Bitcoin? The exchange takes their cut. Buy something from a retail store? Bitpay takes their cut. Of course that's how capitalism works, but you pay that on top of the transaction fees.

Some people have the idea that somehow Bitcoin becomes the currency that you only make big transactions in, and transactions will happen off-chain somehow. But that necessarily involves a lot more middlemen taking their own cuts. Even if that's automatic, you know someone's gonna get paid.

> This is going to take away the ability of central banks to manipulate the money supply. If a given country's CB tried to print money to cause inflation, the population would figure it out quickly and the price of ETLAs in that currency would immediately rise.

Yeah, governments are going to love having a complete ledger of everyone's transactions. No more tax evasion, no more drug trafficking. We're halfway there with electronic clearing as it is - this will finally get rid of that pesky untraceable cash once and for all. Can't wait. /s

Bitcoin isn't anonymous, it's pseudonymous. As long as you're transacting something in real life, or exchanging it for another currency it's relatively easy to track you down. And you can easily track back through multiple transactions. When I hand you a cash bill - that's it.

Anyway, any cryptocurrency that gets adopted by a country would certainly include the ability to control the rate at which currency is issued. If governments wanted their currency to be tied to a commodity which they had no control over, they would never have left the gold standard.

Also, the whole "coin mining" thing is really pointless with a national currency. The point of the distributed ledger is that you don't have to trust someone. But really the government can trust themselves, and centralized systems have tons of advantages over distributed ledgers. For starters, massively greater transaction rates, also it's trivial to correct mistakes, or debit people as needed.

We could call it a "bank account". And then to authorize a transaction, a physical token you carry could communicate with this bank account to cryptographically authenticate you. We could call that a "chip and pin card". No warehouses full of graphics cards doing useless hashes are needed in this groundbreaking new system.

Now Ethereum? That's actually fairly cool in its own way. It's certainly not changing the world right now but these are the early days. I question its utility versus any other cloud computing - at the end of the day there is no "cloud", only someone else's computer - but hooking that directly to what's basically pre-authenticated chip-and-pin transactions is fairly cool in its own way.

We could replace a lot of the useless Etherium hashing with "first person to submit a valid block wins" though - so basically you are paying someone to watch for conditions X,Y,Z to be met. Getting rid of the mining and going with first-watcher-to-submit-a-validated-transaction would incentivize speed and efficiency over doing math that doesn't matter. But again, that is probably something where you could serve millions of people with one big server.

In comparison, Bitcoin is just digital gold, it's a whole lot of sound and fury but at the end of the day it just sits there and does nothing (except burn electricity).

But hey, everyone agrees it has value and therefore it does. It's just not actually backed by anything, the math itself is relatively pointless (unless you happen to need a giant hashtable of course).

[0] https://themerkle.com/average-bitcoin-transaction-fee-has-ex...

Re: What does $100 Ether mean?

#104
post #84

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't think I follow - why would you need to reason about your callers' internal states in order to prove properties about your own contract?

Because in practice, I'm trying to reason about the consequences of submitting a given transaction. A transaction can invoke many smart contracts in addition to mine. It's not enough for my code to be correct; every piece of code the transaction causes to run has to be correct as well.

If you want to know what a given transaction will do, you can simply run it locally; no need for formal analysis. Formal analysis is useful for proving properties about your program like "the total balance will always equal the sum of the accounts" and "transfers never increase the sender's balance".

Re: What does $100 Ether mean?

#105
post #97

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I agree that our terminology is often terrible. "Smart contract" could well have been "conditional payment" which for most purposes is clearer. Do you know about http://erights.org ? They are good - great - on terminology.

if we're going to simplify language then call it what it is: a program. the only reason they're called contracts is because they were theorized within the context of future financial instruments, smart contract is a historical artifact for a kind of automated thing that might have one day appeared in many forms, but now we know. calling them programs would have been more immediately accessible to programmers which is…

Yes I think this is right and we lose something when we limit to finance or legal terminology.

Re: What does $100 Ether mean?

#106
post #66

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Pre-fork ETH owners didn't necessarily have to pick one over the other. Miners had to allocate their resources between the two chains (but could split their bets, and some did so). Pre-fork ETH owners ended up with both chains in a kind of 2-for-1 special. Every market transaction since then has been a referendum on which model the market prefers. Ultimately, the market price dictates a LOT of down-stream behaviors,…

But that's completely beside the point: the point is that you can't have the libertarian-utopia-chain without also getting the hacker-got-away-with-his-loot chain.

Well yeah, you can't have a libertarian-utopia chain. You can only have a libertarian chain.

Re: What does $100 Ether mean?

#107

The problem with smart contracts is that they are only 100% trustless as long as all the input data is already present on the blockchain. Even something banally simple as "if such and such win the world cup deposit earnings there" cannot be 100% trustless. How does one overcome this problem? I don't think smart contracts can overcome this problem while remaining 100% trustless.

Trustlessness is not a requirement for having a robust system.

Re: What does $100 Ether mean?

#108

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> What do people need any of this for? I can write an app for managing a business, fund it, and then walk away forever. Ethereum is a platform for hosting autonomous corporations.

Is that something we want? Because it doesn't sound like something I want. I like that there's some level of the human element in the personal transactions I conduct with businesses, and I don't think I'm alone given how hackneyed the joke about bypassing automated phone support systems has become. If something falls outside company procedures there's usually someone who can help me out by bending the rules or deferr…

> I like that there's some level of the human element in the personal transactions I conduct with businesses, and I don't think I'm alone[...]

I'm quite sure the same argument was being used by many brick and mortar stores at the dawn of e-commerce.

In certain businesses empathy matters, in many of them it doesn't. There are also businesses that would never be built without the blockchain - and that's the most interesting part.

Re: What does $100 Ether mean?

#109
post #12

They forgot the feature where if a smart contract doesn't go the way they want it, they create a default-opt-in hard fork of the currency. Sorry if I don't trust the "small group of legends" more than the government.

Can you provide a solution to force all miners to run the same software forever? Exactly

Re: What does $100 Ether mean?

#110
post #84

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Because in practice, I'm trying to reason about the consequences of submitting a given transaction. A transaction can invoke many smart contracts in addition to mine. It's not enough for my code to be correct; every piece of code the transaction causes to run has to be correct as well.

If you want to know what a given transaction will do, you can simply run it locally; no need for formal analysis. Formal analysis is useful for proving properties about your program like "the total balance will always equal the sum of the accounts" and "transfers never increase the sender's balance".

I want to know what any possible transaction can do. See my sibling comments.
Post reply on HN