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

The Problem with Ethereum

tomerstrolight.medium.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

101–110 of 321 posts

Re: The Problem with Ethereum

#101

Post by [deleted] »

BLKNSLVR wrote: post #32
hamburgerwah wrote: post #26

Ethereum is and has always been the toy of Vitalik Buterin and his cronies. They control roughly 64% of all ETH. Everyone else is just share cropping suckers.

From what I've read and heard of Vitalik Buterin, he seems most unlikely to have "cronies". The reason Charles Hoskinson left the Ethereum Foundation is that Vitalik wanted it to be non-profit, whilst Charles wanted it to be commercial / for-profit. Most of what I've heard of Vitalik paints him as having a saint-like aura (my own admittedly hyperbolic description). But then maybe we'd all appear that way if we had $b…

[deleted]

Re: The Problem with Ethereum

#102

Post by javert »

kristofferR wrote: post #90
tofukid wrote: post #71

Earlier quoted context omitted.

https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/commits/master I wouldn’t consider that stagnate.

Sure, it's just moving very slowly after the block size civil war. I remember the early years when the talk was about interesting developments instead of just the value.

Bitcoin has chosen consistency with its original principles over "innovation." A good choice, in my book.

What we should think of as constituting sound money has not changed since 2008.

That is what bitcoin is supposed to be - sound money.

Ethereum is supposed to be something else - and it makes sense for Ethereum to "innovate" much more than bitcoin does.

Re: The Problem with Ethereum

#103

Post by denton-scratch »

silasdavis wrote: post #92

There's plenty wrong with Ethereum, but casting miners as 'the working class' is a flawed analogy. The mercantile class would be closer to the mark. Notably, their hashing power is based in real world economic power and they extract an annuity from capital expenditure on mining operations and hardware. I also question whether miners are really providing the labour power, as you might expect the working class to do. T…

> There's plenty wrong with Ethereum, but casting miners as 'the working class' is a flawed analogy.

Agreed.

Marx's working class consists of those who do not own means of production, and are therefore compelled to sell their labour.

Miners do not lack means of production; they operate expensive mining machinery. That machinery continues to run, and earn money for the miner, even while the miner sits on the beach. Selling their labour really isn't a good model for what's going on. Miners are just ordinary capitalists, exploiting a market opportunity.

Re: The Problem with Ethereum

#104

Post by kristofferR »

bluebit wrote: post #97
kristofferR wrote: post #87

Earlier quoted context omitted.

True, Taproot is looking promising. Yet, it's the only major change since 2017, I don't think they're moving fast enough. And what's the next major improvement on the cards for Bitcoin after Taproot? I haven't heard much, and that is worrying in and of itself IMO.

I'm not sure we should treat the base money of the internet the same way we do tech startups - to "move fast and break things". I would like to know that my BTC is stored in a network backed by code that is secure with slow and steady progress.

There's certainly a good middle ground between moving slowly and moving quickly, I think Ethereum has found that middle ground.

Half of this article is complaints about how Ethereum is moving too slowly with the PoS transition. They're certainly not of the "move fast and break things" mindset.

Re: The Problem with Ethereum

#106

Post by javert »

BLKNSLVR wrote: post #32
hamburgerwah wrote: post #26

Ethereum is and has always been the toy of Vitalik Buterin and his cronies. They control roughly 64% of all ETH. Everyone else is just share cropping suckers.

From what I've read and heard of Vitalik Buterin, he seems most unlikely to have "cronies". The reason Charles Hoskinson left the Ethereum Foundation is that Vitalik wanted it to be non-profit, whilst Charles wanted it to be commercial / for-profit. Most of what I've heard of Vitalik paints him as having a saint-like aura (my own admittedly hyperbolic description). But then maybe we'd all appear that way if we had $b…

Vitalik is a saint in comparison to Hoskinson, but that doesn't mean Ethereum is sound money. It is what it is; lots of good innovation there, but sound money, it is not.

Re: The Problem with Ethereum

#107

Post by javert »

Havoc wrote: post #40

Author is looking for perfection in what is essentially a Wild West. I also think it’s asking the wrong questions in a way. Whether Bill Gates should have made billions or not whether he should be in charge and corporate structure is largely irrelevant to Silicon Valley crushing it. Fairness equitability and consistency would be nice but is not compulsory at all

Bitcoin itself isn't the Wild West, and that's part of what the author is saying.

Re: The Problem with Ethereum

#108

Post by TimJRobinson »

bluebit wrote: post #97
kristofferR wrote: post #87

Earlier quoted context omitted.

True, Taproot is looking promising. Yet, it's the only major change since 2017, I don't think they're moving fast enough. And what's the next major improvement on the cards for Bitcoin after Taproot? I haven't heard much, and that is worrying in and of itself IMO.

I'm not sure we should treat the base money of the internet the same way we do tech startups - to "move fast and break things". I would like to know that my BTC is stored in a network backed by code that is secure with slow and steady progress.

I agree. Bitcoin is a better store of value, Ethereum is a better tech stack for innovation. They serve different purposes and so should have different development schedules and risk aversion.

Re: The Problem with Ethereum

#109

Post by Dylan16807 »

denton-scratch wrote: post #103
silasdavis wrote: post #92

There's plenty wrong with Ethereum, but casting miners as 'the working class' is a flawed analogy. The mercantile class would be closer to the mark. Notably, their hashing power is based in real world economic power and they extract an annuity from capital expenditure on mining operations and hardware. I also question whether miners are really providing the labour power, as you might expect the working class to do. T…

> There's plenty wrong with Ethereum, but casting miners as 'the working class' is a flawed analogy. Agreed. Marx's working class consists of those who do not own means of production, and are therefore compelled to sell their labour. Miners do not lack means of production; they operate expensive mining machinery. That machinery continues to run, and earn money for the miner, even while the miner sits on the beach. Se…

And there's a fixed amount of mining labor to be done, requiring far less than 1% of the current effort spent. So why are the pay cuts a problem? (Especially if you chart payout in USD.)
Post reply on HN