Ethereum Is a Dark Forest • Hacker News Board

Re: Ethereum Is a Dark Forest

#151

Post by young_unixer » Fri, Aug 28, 2020, 9:47 PM UTC

TeMPOraL wrote: post #69

emerged wrote: post #52

Writing this sort of bot seems like a legitimately fun and interesting thing to work on, but somehow I have less than zero interest in actually doing it. There's just something intrinsically repulsive about the entire blockchain world to me where I just don't want to touch it. I don't mean to offend people who do love blockchain tech, in many ways I don't blame you. But is this feeling I have somewhat common? I'm not…

I have it too. I'm not entirely sure where it comes from, but some significant factors are: 1) Proof-of-work systems are pure, unadulterated energy waste (and an ecological disaster as long as we depend on fossil fuels). They cannot, ever, be allowed to become significant in the economy, lest our future will be building a Dyson sphere around the Sun just to power everyone's ability to pay for a hot dog on their way t…

> It's a wild west. Trading unregulated money tends to disproportionately attract the worst kind of people.

It means that you have to take precautions instead of the government telling you what you can or can't do (using money they took from you anyway).

The energy concerns are valid. I hope that the cryptocurrency that ends up winning is energy efficient.

Re: Ethereum Is a Dark Forest

#152

Post by xur17 » Fri, Aug 28, 2020, 9:48 PM UTC

dimmke wrote: post #145

The environment described in this article is horrifying and definitely sounds worse than our current financial system. That person just lost $12k to fraud and has no recourse at all. I agree with the other comments on here. Blockchain/crypto has always made me uncomfortable. I think it's a mix of the slimy get rich quick aspect of it that draws a lot of people and the cyberpunk/dystopian rhetoric around it. I also th…

> The environment described in this article is horrifying and definitely sounds worse than our current financial system.

It's a different system with a different set of tradeoffs. I don't think it's accurate to just call it "worse".

Re: Ethereum Is a Dark Forest

#153

Post by cryptica » Fri, Aug 28, 2020, 9:48 PM UTC

beervirus wrote: post #118

mangecoeur wrote: post #59

I have rarely seen so much effort and intellect expended for something so wildly pointless... conspicuously missing from these whole shenanigans: anyone doing anything that a normal person could recognise as being of practical use.

See also Facebook, as well as large swaths of Google. A generation of our best and brightest are using their talents to spy on users and get ads into their eyeballs.

And the value of those ads is totally speculative. We live in a 0-utility economy. No wonder Warren Buffet's 'intrinsic value' investment strategy doesn't work anymore. Since the 1970s, the true driver of the economy was the Fed and its reckless borrowers; not workers, not consumers.

It took 50 years for rich investors and their descendants to lose touch with reality to the point that they can't tell the difference between something important and something which is completely useless.

Re: Ethereum Is a Dark Forest

#154

Post by cortesoft » Fri, Aug 28, 2020, 9:48 PM UTC

panarky wrote: post #88

marcus_holmes wrote: post #34

Earlier quoted context omitted.

As an outsider looking in, though, it seems that banks are getting better at this, while crypto is getting worse. There's a bajillion fintechs helping the banks sort out their UI issues and make it friendlier/better. Bitcoin is still basically unusable for everyday transactions, and the endless stream of wallet provider hacks is not convincing anyone that it's secure. As TFA says, the hazards for normal folks playing…

> basically unusable for everyday transactions Why is this the acid test? Buying a coffee is a solved problem so why is blockchain tech expected to address this use case? > the endless stream of wallet provider hacks is not convincing anyone that it's secure Does the endless stream of point-of-sale and credit card hacks make you question the security of dollars, euros and yen?

> Does the endless stream of point-of-sale and credit card hacks make you question the security of dollars, euros and yen?

No, because my credit card company gives me my money back when there is fraud.

Crypto promoters always paint the irreversibility of blockchains as a feature, but it always seems like a risk to me.

Re: Ethereum Is a Dark Forest

#155

Post by TeMPOraL » Fri, Aug 28, 2020, 9:50 PM UTC

AnthonyMouse wrote: post #139

TeMPOraL wrote: post #61

Earlier quoted context omitted.

And of course, if cryptocurrencies ever become anything more than Internet play money (and environmental disaster), the legal systems of countries worldwide will make sure the same protections apply. So yes, your newest cryptoanarchist token may have totally irreversible transactions (cross my heart, here's the math proof!), but the court can still order the thief to send back the money they stole in a separate trans…

> Because that's what real-world security ultimately boils down to: men with guns, ready to drag you where the law tells them to. But that's assuming the judge knows who the thief is. One of the main characteristics of cryptocurrency is that you can hold it without giving anyone your social security number. In that respect it's much the same as cash -- if you get away with it you keep the money, but if you get arrest…

> But that's assuming the judge knows who the thief is. One of the main characteristics of cryptocurrency is that you can hold it without giving anyone your social security number.

You can, but AFAIK it's harder to do that when you're trying to cash out your cryptocoins in fiat (though arguably, this becomes less of a problem for criminals with the growing numbers of goods and services you can pay for with crypto). Still, I think if governments ever allow for a mainstream, sanctioned adoption of digital currency, they won't let it keep this level of anonymity.

Re: Ethereum Is a Dark Forest

#156

Post by ak_111 » Fri, Aug 28, 2020, 9:50 PM UTC

TeMPOraL wrote: post #69

emerged wrote: post #52

Writing this sort of bot seems like a legitimately fun and interesting thing to work on, but somehow I have less than zero interest in actually doing it. There's just something intrinsically repulsive about the entire blockchain world to me where I just don't want to touch it. I don't mean to offend people who do love blockchain tech, in many ways I don't blame you. But is this feeling I have somewhat common? I'm not…

I have it too. I'm not entirely sure where it comes from, but some significant factors are: 1) Proof-of-work systems are pure, unadulterated energy waste (and an ecological disaster as long as we depend on fossil fuels). They cannot, ever, be allowed to become significant in the economy, lest our future will be building a Dyson sphere around the Sun just to power everyone's ability to pay for a hot dog on their way t…

This is a well-articulated list, and captures a lot of my negativity towards crypto.

But as I like to keep an open mind about new tech, I always wonder if something like this could have been said about the early days of Linux:

1) Open-source is pure unadulterated theft of other peoples' work. This model cannot ever be allowed to become significant in the software economy.

2) That people who are into open source have naive ideas about how economy and society works.

3) That the main users of Linux are into other shady activities like hacking (the bad kind) and ripping other people's work.

The main reason I think the analogy doesn't hold that well is that we are now a decade into crypto with few signs of adaptability, while within a much shorter duration you could say that Linux was already showing signs that it was going to lead to a paradigm shift in the software industry.

Having just typed this I realise that one can argue that within a decade the market valuation of bitcoin (whatever that means) reached $200B which is a spectacular achievement, and one can argue that that is its way of showing that it will be a paradigm shift of something in finance.

Re: Ethereum Is a Dark Forest

#157

Post by TeMPOraL » Fri, Aug 28, 2020, 9:52 PM UTC

young_unixer wrote: post #151

TeMPOraL wrote: post #69

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I have it too. I'm not entirely sure where it comes from, but some significant factors are: 1) Proof-of-work systems are pure, unadulterated energy waste (and an ecological disaster as long as we depend on fossil fuels). They cannot, ever, be allowed to become significant in the economy, lest our future will be building a Dyson sphere around the Sun just to power everyone's ability to pay for a hot dog on their way t…

> It's a wild west. Trading unregulated money tends to disproportionately attract the worst kind of people. It means that you have to take precautions instead of the government telling you what you can or can't do (using money they took from you anyway). The energy concerns are valid. I hope that the cryptocurrency that ends up winning is energy efficient.

> It means that you have to take precautions instead of the government telling you what you can or can't do (using money they took from you anyway).

That's true! And I do prefer the world in which I pay the government to take care of this, because as an individual I have no chance against organized, professional scammers. Wild West is a fun thing to watch in movies (or at least the fictional recreation of it, with more shooting and less filth); but definitely not a nice time to live in, compared to today.

> I hope that the cryptocurrency that ends up winning is energy efficient.

That needs to be a structural change though; shaving off factors of the exponent in the middle of PoW isn't going to help. But 'spir here says that Ethereum cracked the proof-of-stake, which is the exact development that needed to happen for crypto to be feasible.

Re: Ethereum Is a Dark Forest

#158

Post by rglullis » Fri, Aug 28, 2020, 9:52 PM UTC

alkonaut wrote: post #58

Analemma_ wrote: post #46

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> And let's be honest, the competition is still "Oops, I accidentally sent $900M to the wrong party." [1] The counterargument there is that Citibank is currently pursuing a resolution in the courts to that issue, and if they win they will get their $900M back. If you flub a DeFi transaction, you're shit outta luck.

Exactly. There is no way I'd ever want to anything remotely important, or remotely high value, on a system that isn't run by humans and with transactions reversible in courts. Who is it that uses these smart contracts, and for what? Is it mostly a gadget for research and speculation (still)?

For all the scams, ponzi schemes and outright theft that has happened in the blockchain space, I can bet a good amount of money that we as a society lose more every year to corrupt officials, subverted institutions and petty theft than we will ever lose on a system that is not run by humans.

Re: Ethereum Is a Dark Forest

#159

Post by michaelsbradley » Fri, Aug 28, 2020, 9:54 PM UTC

spir wrote: post #143

TeMPOraL wrote: post #128

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Thank you for the thoughtful response. I'll preface with saying that I listed my points as a contributors to the source of feelings I have about the crypto space - they're observations subject to selection bias. RE 1. I keep hearing this for years now; I'll believe in PoS when I see it actually working. RE 2., I just tend to keep finding (or being approached with) really bad ones. Last time I got excited was with Fil…

Thanks for your reply! You might be interested to check out https://medalla.launchpad.ethereum.org - this is a public testnet of Ethereum proof of stake https://beaconcha.in/ - this is an explorer for the proof of stake testnet. The proof of stake chain is called the "beacon chain". If you want to believe in PoS when you see it actually working, this site is actually that! The public testnet launched in the last mont…

Re: Ethereum Is a Dark Forest

#160

Post by WalterSear » Fri, Aug 28, 2020, 9:55 PM UTC

TeMPOraL wrote: post #61

Analemma_ wrote: post #46

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> And let's be honest, the competition is still "Oops, I accidentally sent $900M to the wrong party." [1] The counterargument there is that Citibank is currently pursuing a resolution in the courts to that issue, and if they win they will get their $900M back. If you flub a DeFi transaction, you're shit outta luck.

And of course, if cryptocurrencies ever become anything more than Internet play money (and environmental disaster), the legal systems of countries worldwide will make sure the same protections apply. So yes, your newest cryptoanarchist token may have totally irreversible transactions (cross my heart, here's the math proof!), but the court can still order the thief to send back the money they stole in a separate trans…

By definition, if it can be regulated, it's no longer decentralized. And if it's not longer decentralized, blockchains have no benefits over regular databases.

Blockchains solve a very specific problem - decentralized transactions. Unfortunately solving that problem for the world's organized criminals brought a massive amount of heretofore hidden financial activity to light. Consequently, people, most of which don't actually understand blockchains, are trying to replicate this 'bonanza', like moths chasing a light bulb.

There many other use cases for decentralized transactions. But, with so much perceived opportunity at stake, industrial -strength pretzel logic is being applied to the problem, along with eye-popping amounts of venture and FOMO money.