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

The Merge

avc.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

121–130 of 184 posts

Re: The Merge

#121

Post by zionic »

TakeBlaster16 wrote: post #8

No mention of sanctions? It's estimated that ~50% of staked value is held by US companies. These companies are going to have to make an impossible choice. Either: 1. Sign transactions coming from the sanctioned addresses, inviting the wrath of OFAC. or: 2. Refuse to sign these transactions. 2a. If between 33% and 66% of the network refuses, the network will penalize dissenters by slashing their staked coins, until th…

This is in fact already a problem with PoW and is happening right now. AFAIK ether mine stopped including TC transactions in their blocks.

Re: The Merge

#122

Post by cowtools »

randomran01234 wrote: post #117
rufusroflpunch wrote: post #93

The idea that Proof of Stake is more secure against attack is beyond absurd, frankly. However you feel about the energy usage of proof of work consensus mechanisms, they are far more resistant to attack and centralization.

Why? PoW can only afford to be attacked twice. It even has a name: “spawn camping.” In proof of stake, this is pretty easy to defend against repeatedly. https://vitalik.ca/general/2020/11/06/pos2020.html

I don't understand how PoS changes this. Also, that blog post does not consider CPU-mined PoW which is unprofitable for miners and sustained attackers.

Re: The Merge

#123

Post by kortilla »

RichardCNormos wrote: post #40
TakeBlaster16 wrote: post #8

No mention of sanctions? It's estimated that ~50% of staked value is held by US companies. These companies are going to have to make an impossible choice. Either: 1. Sign transactions coming from the sanctioned addresses, inviting the wrath of OFAC. or: 2. Refuse to sign these transactions. 2a. If between 33% and 66% of the network refuses, the network will penalize dissenters by slashing their staked coins, until th…

In the US, it would end up in court. It directly pits fiduciary duty against OFAC. For example, if a US-based CEX that operates in New York has a slashing event, that brings regulatory consequences from NYDFS, regardless of the reason for the slashing.

Not really. You can’t have a fiduciary duty to break the law. The downside risk is much higher to violate OFAC.

Re: The Merge

#124

Post by aboodman »

TakeBlaster16 wrote: post #8

No mention of sanctions? It's estimated that ~50% of staked value is held by US companies. These companies are going to have to make an impossible choice. Either: 1. Sign transactions coming from the sanctioned addresses, inviting the wrath of OFAC. or: 2. Refuse to sign these transactions. 2a. If between 33% and 66% of the network refuses, the network will penalize dissenters by slashing their staked coins, until th…

I guess another potential option is that companies that stake large amounts of ETH don't exist in the US?

Re: The Merge

#125

Post by rglover »

kranke155 wrote: post #3

People should really try to understand what’s happening in blockchain. Eventually the computational capacity will reach the levels that virtually any app can be replicated inside of it, with a much lower fee for the developers/owners/users and often having full open source code for the components. The blockchain development environment is fundamentally less terrible than the centralised database world, and eventually…

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UAVImvzFhXI

Re: The Merge

#126

Post by zimpenfish »

kranke155 wrote: post #61
rcthompson wrote: post #54

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Of all the artists I follow, not a single one has had anything good to say about NFTs. Their only interaction with NFTs has been dozens of scammers fraudulently minting NFTs of all their work, followed by exchanges putting the burden of proof on the artist to show that each individual NFT is fraudulent. Maybe there's some legitimate business happening in the art NFT space, but if so, it's a drop in an ocean of fraud.

There's huge amounts of legitimate business happening in NFTs. I would find it hard to imagine an argument that Beeple's huge sale was somehow not legitimate. I'm hoping a technical solution appears soon for fraud. NFT fraud is no different from a person on the street doing a high quality print of someone else's artwork, and unlike that situation, a technical solution for NFT fraud is conceivable.

> I would find it hard to imagine an argument that Beeple's huge sale was somehow not legitimate.

An argument that Beeple's huge sale was somehow not legitimate: https://amycastor.com/2021/03/14/metakovan-the-mystery-beepl...

Re: The Merge

#127

Post by silentsea90 »

wmf wrote: post #83
silentsea90 wrote: post #41

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Exchanges refused to give customers forked coins? Why?!

It takes a certain amount of development work for an exchange to support a new coin so sometimes they don't do it.

I'm not sure it's that much work if there's something of tangible current value being held from their rightful owners, esp when they keep adding all sorts of coins. There should at least be a way to extract them even if the exchange doesn't support trading them

Re: The Merge

#128

Post by choppaface »

superb-owl wrote: post #2

This disclosure should be at the top of the article: > Disclosure: My family and USV have large holdings in ETH and other crypto assets and may continue to add to them in the coming weeks, months, and years.

You can trust that any link from avc.com has unstated financial conflict of interest. These links get on the front page because people gawk at “VC said X” not because there’s technical or even truthful discussion of X.

Re: The Merge

#129

Post by silentsea90 »

HelloNurse wrote: post #48
silentsea90 wrote: post #36

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You present a problem with Proof of Stake as an inevitable run in with the law and/or some folly of the crypto community. That's not very sound logic. I personally believe in apolitical decentralized money winning against fiat which is governed on the whims of central bankers and crony capitalism. Every system where technology brings fairness, power to all, and hard rules wins. This will not be an exception. It is th…

What "hard rules" can compete with actually enforced law? Don't you expect more "whims" (and scams) from private adventurers than from governments?

I expect all parties to act in their own best interests. I do in fact expect more scams from private bodies, but the government conducts a much larger scam in printing without accountability a currency unbacked by anything and not bound to any rules, a billion ton gorilla that moves the "free" markets at it's whim.

The people's interest imo is in fairness to all not asset owners who aren't as affected by money printing etc

The law isn't sacrosanct, but of course it needs to be followed. It is malleable and comes from lawmakers who may or may not represent the interest of the people, unwittingly or otherwise

Re: The Merge

#130

Post by silentsea90 »

RandomLensman wrote: post #67
silentsea90 wrote: post #36

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You present a problem with Proof of Stake as an inevitable run in with the law and/or some folly of the crypto community. That's not very sound logic. I personally believe in apolitical decentralized money winning against fiat which is governed on the whims of central bankers and crony capitalism. Every system where technology brings fairness, power to all, and hard rules wins. This will not be an exception. It is th…

It's fine to want a different society/policies, but you need to expand on how that new society should look like then: How would sanctions work, for example? Or if there are none, will there be other means of defense/offense? Who would set the rules of the monetary system and what would give legitimacy to those rule setters? How to move from the old system to the new without (too much) disruption? ... The endings of p…

Sanctions don't stem from the existence of Fiat currency (at least directly), and may still exist depending on power dynamics. The move is on the way and will continue. It will be disruptive but I'm not sure exactly how it'll go. Regular military offense and defense systems will exist but just not ones where the US say prints infinite money for war and incurs sovereign debt. Wars might be a lot smaller scale then. Old world wars required rulers to raise money, taxation etc. They didn't print out of thin air, or bankrupt entire nations (eg Weimar Germany)

Non Fiat money has been the norm pre unpegged Fiat. It's been around for 2-3k years at least, whereas unpegged Fiat is 50 years old. I'm surprised we find the fall of Fiat as hard to imagine:)

Post reply on HN