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

141–150 of 184 posts

Re: The Merge

#141

Post by seibelj »

kareemsabri wrote: post #134
seibelj wrote: post #120

Earlier quoted context omitted.

A sale happens in a marketplace. Marketplaces collect royalties and forward them to the address specified. We are indeed a centralized player, just as all NFT creators are centralized entities (i.e. people) but the assets trade on decentralized networks. I think you have a fundamental misunderstanding of how all of this works and have a sneering, dismissive affect because this is something you don’t understand embrac…

So if they don't use your marketplace are the royalties not collected?

There is an Ethereum protocol standard (similar to RFCs in the internet context) that defines a standard for NFT royalties https://eips.ethereum.org/EIPS/eip-2981

FYI I am an author of this standard. It is widely supported across the ecosystem https://royaltyregistry.xyz/

My company doesn’t care where our NFTs travel or trade on. We get our royalty regardless.

Re: The Merge

#142

Post by garbanz0 »

thedufer wrote: post #98
kranke155 wrote: post #6

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Feel free to do a point by point rebuttal.

> Eventually the computational capacity will reach the levels that virtually any app can be replicated inside of it This only makes sense if blockchains can catch up to traditional methods, because applications in the real world will just continue to get more complex as compute power allows. A defining feature of blockchain computation models is that the same calculation must be run many, many times to verify it. Giv…

> A defining feature of blockchain computation models is that the same calculation must be run many, many times to verify it. Given that each individual one must run on the hardware that blockchain is competing with direct usage of, there's no plausible story for blockchain to close the gap.

This is not true - zero knowledge proofs allow you to verify work much more cheaply than the original computation, and they're used heavily in upcoming ethereum L2s.

Re: The Merge

#143

Post by tradertef »

jrsj wrote: post #19
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 isn't a bug, it's a feature. It's also something Bitcoin maximalists have been warning about for a long time.

I think you meant to say it is not a feature, it is a bug.

Re: The Merge

#144

Post by rufusroflpunch »

landemva wrote: post #136
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.

> they [PoW] are far more resistant to attack Many meanings of "attack". A year ago China attacked the miners and they mostly left China. A nation attacking the btc network is real, and the miners physically moved. It is easier to move a PoS validator, and harder to locate the validator in the first place.

China banning miners strengthened the network instead of weakening it. Within a 3-6 months the hash rate totally recovered and it was more decentralized than ever.

The argument that it is easier to move a validator than a miner is a very surface level argument, honestly. The incentives of mining ensure that miners will spread to every corner of the world, in every jurisdiction, in search of cheap electricity.

Meanwhile, proof of stake validation has no such incentive. It is financialized and it even has a guaranteed yield component. Since validators are financial and not industrial like miners, they will be incentivized to locate near other financial centers, like New York and London, and they will certainly comply with sanctions and other financial practices.

Re: The Merge

#145

Post by jrsj »

tradertef wrote: post #143
jrsj wrote: post #19

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This isn't a bug, it's a feature. It's also something Bitcoin maximalists have been warning about for a long time.

I think you meant to say it is not a feature, it is a bug.

No, I didn't. This is an inherent part of adopting Proof of Stake that anyone paying attention would have been able to predict. The only reasonable possibility is that it's being done intentionally.

Re: The Merge

#146

Post by randomran01234 »

cowtools wrote: post #122
randomran01234 wrote: post #117

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

In PoW, if you control 51% of mining the users can defend by switching to another hash algorithm, meaning the attacker needs to re-buy a lot of new hardware. If they’ve anticipated this, and attack again with new hardware, there is not much further defence. In PoS, users can coordinate a soft fork to burn the attackers funds, each time they re-attack the chain, until they eventually run out of capital.

Re: The Merge

#147

Post by kranke155 »

dale_glass wrote: post #108
kranke155 wrote: post #104

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Throwing the baby with the bath water. The baby is small and there is a lot of water, but the baby is there.

I'm not sure how this comment answers what I said

There are real artists making real art and selling them on NFT marketplaces.

Re: The Merge

#148

Post by rcxdude »

cowtools wrote: post #105
paulgb wrote: post #95

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I agree that it's absurd today, but how many bitcoin halvings until it isn't? When people talk about the security of bitcoin, there's a tendency to pretend that the network's security isn't 98% subsidized by a diminishing pool of unminted bitcoin.

There are cryptocurrencies like monero that have implemented a constant "tail emission" block reward to fight off selfish mining attacks. So that leads me to believe that's a threat specific to bitcoin's tokenomics and not PoW cryptocurrencies in general.

Yes, if you don't bound the number of tokens it's not obviously doomed as time goes to infinity, but there's still no particular reason to assume that the rate of mining rewards is either good enough to secure the network or not massively inefficient.

Re: The Merge

#149

Post by rcxdude »

paulgb wrote: post #95
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.

I agree that it's absurd today, but how many bitcoin halvings until it isn't? When people talk about the security of bitcoin, there's a tendency to pretend that the network's security isn't 98% subsidized by a diminishing pool of unminted bitcoin.

Yeah, this is why I think bitcoin is long term not worthwhile. While the vision was a digital currency which would be widely used to transact with, it was plausible that transaction costs would be sufficient to secure the network (though it would still be difficult to actually price them effectively). But as a 'store of value', it will start to become either expensive or insecure as the mining rewards peter out.

Re: The Merge

#150

Post by rufusroflpunch »

paulgb wrote: post #95
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.

I agree that it's absurd today, but how many bitcoin halvings until it isn't? When people talk about the security of bitcoin, there's a tendency to pretend that the network's security isn't 98% subsidized by a diminishing pool of unminted bitcoin.

There are beliefs that as Bitcoin continues to accrue value and users, the fees will be enough to sustain the network. I understand many are skeptical in this regard and the only thing that will them right or wrong is time.
Post reply on HN