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

The Problem with Ethereum

tomerstrolight.medium.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

31–40 of 321 posts

Re: The Problem with Ethereum

#31

Post by h0l0cube »

DenseComet wrote: post #6

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…

There's a little more to the argument:

> This time the working class has their pay reduced from 4 Eth to 3 Eth per block, a 25% pay cut. Miners now earn 40% less per block than at the time of the community’s constitution, which promised that code was law, and which the ruling class later said they would break only once, for what was an especially good reason. But the code is law promise has now been broken so many times people expect it to occur at regular intervals and even worry that “progress” is slowing down if there aren’t frequent enough hard forks (to break that promise yet again).

Re: The Problem with Ethereum

#32

Post by BLKNSLVR »

hamburgerwah wrote: post #26

Ethereum is and has always been the toy of Vitalik Buterin and his cronies. They control roughly 64% of all ETH. Everyone else is just share cropping suckers.

From what I've read and heard of Vitalik Buterin, he seems most unlikely to have "cronies". The reason Charles Hoskinson left the Ethereum Foundation is that Vitalik wanted it to be non-profit, whilst Charles wanted it to be commercial / for-profit.

Most of what I've heard of Vitalik paints him as having a saint-like aura (my own admittedly hyperbolic description). But then maybe we'd all appear that way if we had $billion resources at hand...

Re: The Problem with Ethereum

#33

Post by latchkey »

FeepingCreature wrote: post #5

Is there any network where the inflationary half-life of the currency is something like a week? I've been looking for something like that since I heard that Bitcoin was deflationary. (I was excited about Eth until I learnt its currency had persistent value...)

This week with EIP-1559, ETH has been deflationary several times now... more fees have been burnt than emitted within a block. It is quite fascinating to watch.

https://etherchain.org/burn

Re: The Problem with Ethereum

#34

Post by BLKNSLVR »

dcow wrote: post #22
cliftonk wrote: post #14

That this gets upvoted to #2 speaks poorly of HN. Why on earth are we still talking about the DAO? This is a collection of tired, irrelevant arguments that entirely ignores product-market fit and a large, vibrant community of developers. [edit] ah, of course. a bitcoin maximalist. how dare there be an alternative use-case for crypto that involves people using it. the thing bitcoin has going for it is a large communit…

Uhmm.. what product market fit? And why is proof of steak good?

Proof-of-steak is quite satisfying to pass.

And since I'm committing to this literal shitpost, the proof-of-steak misspelling is entirely appropriate to the amount of salt in the article.

Re: The Problem with Ethereum

#35

Post by Tenoke »

fastball wrote: post #9
DenseComet wrote: post #6

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…

The actual core idea seems to be that the core devs can do whatever they want without cooperation from miners, which is... the opposite of true.

Miners were very opposed to EIP-1559 and in the end when the talks failed they mostly just ignored them. It's kind of true.

Re: The Problem with Ethereum

#36

Post by nathanvanfleet »

dash2 wrote: post #7

"Something here seems awfully similar to the system that crypto-currency was meant to fix. It was meant to eliminate rulers. It was meant to make everyone accountable for their actions. It was meant to reward the intelligent, the hard working and the capable, and not reward the incompetent, or the makers-yet-breakers of promises. However, this repeat of the broken old system seems to be playing out again." One respon…

Isn't the issue that there are people in control of these new currencies, new people who are sometimes frightening?

Re: The Problem with Ethereum

#37

Post by Tenoke »

teruakohatu wrote: post #3

> working class — a group that does the work the community needs to operate it. It would be more correct to call miners a Merchant Class. They exploit capital to make profit. Like merchants of old, they take risks that regulations (real-world and the "ruling class") won't impede profit. Hardware gets outdated quickly as mining difficulty rises, so a timely exit is not difficult - wait until cards die, or offload them…

>Hardware gets outdated quickly as mining difficulty rises,

People can and still do mine Ethereum with the cards they did 5 years ago, and the difficulty is irrelevant to whether your hardware is outdated or not.

Re: The Problem with Ethereum

#38

Post by latchkey »

fastball wrote: post #9
DenseComet wrote: post #6

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…

The actual core idea seems to be that the core devs can do whatever they want without cooperation from miners, which is... the opposite of true.

It isn't quite that simple. There is a whole bunch of game effects happening here that add a lot of complexity to a statement like that.

One key one is price, another is that most miners barely understand how the network works and therefore couldn't exert any force even if they wanted to.

Pools concentrate the force, but miners can move to whatever pool they like the best (usually the most profitable... which is where the main store of wealth is)...

disclosure: large scale eth miner

Re: The Problem with Ethereum

#39

Post by kristofferR »

ineptech wrote: post #21

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.

The distinction he makes between miners and holders seems totally arbitrary in my view, it's not like the miners aren't also holders. The more you mine the more you hold.

Re: The Problem with Ethereum

#40

Post by Havoc »

Author is looking for perfection in what is essentially a Wild West.

I also think it’s asking the wrong questions in a way. Whether Bill Gates should have made billions or not whether he should be in charge and corporate structure is largely irrelevant to Silicon Valley crushing it.

Fairness equitability and consistency would be nice but is not compulsory at all

Post reply on HN