281–290 of 321 posts
Author declares themselves a "bitcoiner" and writes things like: > PostNote: This article pairs well with my piece on Bitcoiners having integrity. What it boils down to is there is no integrity in Ethereum and nothing but integrity in Bitcoin Which seems a little...
A lot of comments here criticise the analogies made in the post. While the criticism might be correct, I feel this is like missing the forest because of the trees.. Etherium, and most crypto-currencies for that matter, were initially made to fix a broken financial system, where banks unjustly control too much wealth, and changes the rules so that they will always control too much wealth. Etherium does not fix this, i…
At the end of the day, Ethereum is still community driven. In my opinion the main benefit of Ethereum and other blockchain technologies is transparency. Everyone can choose to go over the books and anyone can check discrepancies in the blockchain if some parties try to cheat. The beauty of this is that because there’s no formalized government, value can be generated by global consensus and currencies can be picked up and dropped based on whether the contributors are faithfully serving the community.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Ethereum is a powerful connecting force that brings trust within the internet. I've got a bridge to sell you when you're ready
Luckily I can afford the bridge having bought Ethereum years ago.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Absolutely, not to mention Eth just rolled out a major update last week. This rambling, bizarre article boils down to a few very basic, extremely played out arguments. Argument 1: Proof of stake concentrates wealth more than proof of work. You can make that argument, but POS advocates have for a long time argued that proof of work mining has more economies of scale than proof of stake and therefore the opposite is ac…
I'll preface that I somewhat dislike how Ethereum has established their PoS consensus. The lack of first class support for delegated staking poses a problem IMHO as it requires handing control of your coins over to a third party considering this is the only option for people without 32ETH(102k USD) that they can tie up. I also have opinions on locking periods but until we see some extended battle tests proving where…
Lido for example, a staking provider, already keeps their new deposits in custody of a contract like this.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The way that's written like Ethereum owes the miners a job strange. Ethereum isn't a work program for miners to manage mining hardware. Ethereum functions on proof-of-work and needs some people to sell their compute time and electricity. Miners aren't doing a generous service that would be useful outside of Ethereum that should be encouraged any further than Ethereum's specific needs. With PoS, the pay for miners is…
> The way that's written like Ethereum owes the miners a job strange I think it's fair that if you've purchased specialized mining equipment, you expect the ROI you were promised. Doesn't seem strange. > Ethereum functions on proof-of-work and needs some people to sell their compute time and electricity So compensation for work. If not 'workers', you could call them 'investors', or perhaps 'sole traders', or 'merchan…
ROI was never promised. Ethereum has always had a "Minimum Necessary Issuance" policy. Keeping issuance constant would be deviation from the policy, reducing it when possible is in line with the policy. From the docs:
> Ethereum's Monetary Policy is defined by the rewards that are paid out by the protocol at any given time. Ethereum's current yearly network issuance is approximately 4.5% with 2 Ether per block and an additional 1.75 Ether per uncle block (plus fees) being rewarded to miners.
> Ethereum does not have a fixed supply because a fixed supply would also require a fixed security budget for the Ethereum network. Rather than arbitrarily fix Ethereum's security, Ethereum's monetary policy is best described as "minimum issuance to secure the network".
> Ethereum has had a history of reducing issuance to these estimated minimums and the network has never increased issuance. The move to proof-of-stake is also part of Ethereum's effort to reduce issuance to minimum amounts without sacrificing security.
Seems like one of the core arguments of this is that the the core devs have pushed the difficulty bomb multiple times because they've missed their original timelines for switching to PoS without any repercussions. It seems to me that this is actually the correct thing to do. I'd rather the core devs take their time and iron out the issues instead of being incentivized to play fast and loose with a system that manages…
Why have this fake deadline at all then? That sounds like it is playing fast and loose with the system, since it practically requires a nontrivial action to postpone.
It forces node operators to come to consensus on whether to fork alongside the developers or to fork in a different direction. It removes the option of doing nothing and letting the Ethereum chain stagnate.
This is overlong and pretty florid, but its conclusion (that a long record of forked changes, each being good for big ETH holders but bad for miners, is roughly equivalent to the self-dealing of wealthy insiders in the traditional financial world) doesn't seem wrong.
Ether's price has risen exponentially. It doesn't make sense (and isn't necessary) to pay miners exponentially higher amounts of money to do the same job, thus the issuance reductions.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
Bitcoin was originally invented as a "peer to peer electronic cash system". The fees have made it impossible to use it as such for quite some time.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Because at some point the banks will fail and one of these ‘scams’ is going to be necessary for you to get along in life. I’m sorry that this is the case; I really wish that the system we live in was sustainable, but it’s not, and it probably won’t be reformed before it’s too late. Maybe this is a matter of opinion, but it happens to be the most common opinion of people that have studied the matter without incentive…
I'm generally optimistic about cryptocurrencies, but these kind of catastrophe scenarios where cryptocurrencies play the role of savior have always seemed pretty silly to me. If the US dollar collapses or experiences hyperinflation, and/or US banks all collapse, pretty much everything is going to be fucked everywhere, most likely. Especially because whatever's driving that catastrophe is probably disrupting lots of o…
But something has to come out of it all, and crypto seems like the most resilient possibility.