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

151–160 of 184 posts

Re: The Merge

#151

Post by wegfawefgawefg »

jjulius wrote: post #71
kranke155 wrote: post #7

Earlier quoted context omitted.

NFTs work and they allow artists to - make money off digital art in a global permissionless market (didn’t exist before) - easily charge royalties in perpetuity for resale of their art Some aspects of DeFi - the ones that were properly audited and whose function is not a ponzi derivative - work absolutely fine. Compound, AAVE, Uniswap, Curve Finance.

>... easily charge royalties in perpetuity for resale of their art... Hi. Artist here. I have yet to actually see any example of this occurring with a piece of NFT art. Do you have an example of an NFT that is actively collecting royalties for the artist via resale?

web3 dev here. nft contracts are turing complete. you can put whatever code you want in them. usually people inherit the openzeppelen base nft contract which doesnt have royalties turned on by default (perhaps new version has the functionality already implemented. but you can (and its not that uncommon) to go in the ownership transfer function and add a fractional fee that either goes to the contract host or a creators address. its very very trivial to do. and ive seen it a zilion times. 3 lines of code.

if ur a coder go check out the openzeppelin nft contract and find the function used for transfer of ownership. and look up the "payable" and payment functionality in solidity. if not then youll never understand what im saying anyways hahahaha. base concept though is correct. royalties are contractual, settable, and enforced by the contract. no way around them when theyre there

Re: The Merge

#152

Post by rufusroflpunch »

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

If you are accepting that the network can hard fork to change the hash algorithm, then why not accept that they can do a soft fork to blacklist UTXOs or any one of who-knows-how many possible defenses? Changing the hashing algorithm is a nuclear option and probably not necessary in the astronomically unlikely event that someone managed to get 51% of hash rate for any amount of time.

edit: Blacklisting UTXOs is entirely possible as I mentioned, and as I said, it should be achievable by soft fork. This would be the proof of work equivalent of slashing. I have a hard time believing Vitalik doesn’t know this. Is he being dishonest? I don’t know.

Re: The Merge

#153

Post by randomran01234 »

rufusroflpunch wrote: post #152
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

If you are accepting that the network can hard fork to change the hash algorithm, then why not accept that they can do a soft fork to blacklist UTXOs or any one of who-knows-how many possible defenses? Changing the hashing algorithm is a nuclear option and probably not necessary in the astronomically unlikely event that someone managed to get 51% of hash rate for any amount of time. edit: Blacklisting UTXOs is entire…

Good question, I’d be interested to hear a core dev’s thoughts on this.

Re: The Merge

#154

Post by Kbelicius »

kranke155 wrote: post #101
Kbelicius wrote: post #90

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Does that answer your question? No it doesn't. Your claim was that NFTs make authenticating art easier. What you wrote has nothing to do with art authentication. Basically I can take some digital art made by somebody else and be the first to release an NFT of it. What now? How does an NFT help us here?

It doesn’t. It just allow for a market of digital signatures for digital art. but technical solutions to the problems you’re talking about are conceivable.

Than why did you claim that:"it is better than a standard contract because the previous method of authenticating work is hugely expensive for the artist and has immense gatekeeping.", when by your own admission NFTs play no part in authenticating art??

Re: The Merge

#155

Post by seydor »

i am unsettled by the attention that cryptos receive from VCs . This is supposed to be a new economy, not the old one in sheep's clothing. And now they can buy their way into ETH government. No thanks, i hope it tanks

Re: The Merge

#156

Post by pcthrowaway »

choppaface wrote: post #128
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.

What unstated financial conflict of interest are you speculating this article has?

Re: The Merge

#157

Post by RandomLensman »

silentsea90 wrote: post #130
RandomLensman wrote: post #67

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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. Ol…

How is crypto not another fiat? It is not backed by convertability into a commodity either. It's (currently typically) not issued by a state actor but otherwise just like a typical fiat currency brought into being by something akin to a (community) decree.

I know from the US perspective often legal tender concepts are brought into the definition of fiat but the legal tender concept doesn't quite exist in the same way in a lot of other countries.

Re: The Merge

#158

Post by thesz »

derefr wrote: post #47
yuan43 wrote: post #34

> Proof of Stake systems (of which they are many in the market already like Solana, Avalanche, etc) are considered more secure because the likelihood of a 51% attack is much lower. I don’t plan to lay out the argument here, but suffice it to say that Ethereum is moving to a consensus mechanism that many consider to be more resistant to attack, making it even more secure than it has been. I don't think so. At best, we…

This wasn't supposed to be an argument about the relative exploitability of the attack-surfaces presented by implementations of the technologies of PoW and PoS consensus systems, though; but rather about the economics inherent in "cornering the market" in PoW vs PoS. PoW and PoS both allow a single party to unilaterally control the network when they're working exactly as intended — just under conditions that are impr…

The hardness works both ways - these with stake can decline to process what they deem ungood and there's nothing one can do about it.

You see "hardness of Sybil attack", I see "rule of unelected comittee".

The very fact that GPUs are not pie, that GPUs are minted, gives an opportunity for a change if things do not go well for actual majority of users-as-persons.

Re: The Merge

#159

Post by csomar »

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.

> It is easier to move a PoS validator, and harder to locate the validator in the first place.

I'd say it's much easier to single out PoS validators. Especially when they are congregating under unified capital and they are US based. Also, argument could be made that they are responsible for the transactions that they are making. The same can be hard to argue for Bitcoin, since anyone with a bit of a hashrate could generate a block and it's permission-less to contribute to the hashrate (and also anonymous)

Re: The Merge

#160

Post by Ekaros »

rufusroflpunch wrote: post #150
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 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.

And with most common type of attack discussed the 51% double spend... You get to keep the fees... On all that happen during attack period transactions... Depending on situation on network you might not even lose anything if there isn't enough well paying transactions around.
Post reply on HN