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

31–40 of 184 posts

Re: The Merge

#31

Post by camjohnson26 »

randomran01234 wrote: post #25
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 was not an issue with the old proof of work scheme. Censorship of transactions because of OFAC is already happening in PoW mining. https://twitter.com/takenstheorem/status/1560690035955011585...

That appears to be a single miner, so the transactions will still go through.

Re: The Merge

#32

Post by Kbelicius »

kranke155 wrote: post #21
foepys wrote: post #12

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> - easily charge royalties in perpetuity for resale of their art Can they really? The art itself is not recorded on any blockchain. Just the link and/or hash can be stored there because of costs. Both can change without noticeably modifying the art. Thus a working legal system is still required and blockchain does not provide any meaningful benefit over a standard contract.

Those two things don’t cancel each other out. The art being recorded on a blockchain or not doesn’t matter - what you’re selling in an NFT is a signature not the art. An NFT is a decoupling of the art and the signature, because digital art is infinitely reproducible. The NFT introduces scarcity - but only for an authentic signature (which can’t be faked) not the digital art itself. And want you’re saying is not neces…

> In this particular case - it is better than a standard contract because the previous method of authenticating work is hugely expensive for the artist and has immense gatekeeping. Minting an NFT takes 30 seconds.

As you said NFT is just a signature so how do the NFTs solve the problems of authenticating art?

Re: The Merge

#33

Post by camjohnson26 »

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.

Most of the most knowledgeable people in the space probably have large holdings, since otherwise there’s not much incentive to learn about it.

Re: The Merge

#34

Post by yuan43 »

> 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 can say that the attack surface will have changed. How it has changed will unfold. But to claim that POS is "more resistant to attack" is complete rubbish and a sign the author is clueless about the technological ramifications.

It's kind of like saying that traveling 2 miles below the ocean's surface by submarine is safer than traveling by car because you can't get hit by a drunk driver.

Re: The Merge

#35

Post by randomran01234 »

globalreset wrote: post #29
randomran01234 wrote: post #25

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> This was not an issue with the old proof of work scheme. Censorship of transactions because of OFAC is already happening in PoW mining. https://twitter.com/takenstheorem/status/1560690035955011585...

Except in in PoW it only means delayed transactions, because only one miner has to "sign off" the block - everyone else accept it passively. A single miner, even with 0.1% mining power is enough to keep the network censorship resistant. In PoS majority of validators has to actively approve a block containing "illegal" transactions, leading to permanent censorship. The exact interpretation of validation vs mining resp…

Interesting, so this is a problem if 66% or more decide to reject a transaction. How many blocks are currently signed by solo miners in PoW? Almost all blocks are signed by pools which looks like the PoS committees in practice yo my naive eyes. A miner with 0.1% hash power would probably be a very long delay.

I do agree this is probably the most concerning thing that Tornado Cash sanctions have shown us. Still don’t think the energy cost of PoW is worth it, and would rather see PBS and crList solve this problem.

https://notes.ethereum.org/@fradamt/H1ZqdtrBF

Re: The Merge

#36

Post by silentsea90 »

kranke155 wrote: post #11
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…

“The idea of apolitical money is a fantasy” Yannis Varoufakis, London, circa 2017 Either crypto follows the law or it gets banned. IMO this was inevitable.

You present a problem with Proof of Stake as an inevitable run in with the law and/or some folly of the crypto community. That's not very sound logic.

I personally believe in apolitical decentralized money winning against fiat which is governed on the whims of central bankers and crony capitalism. Every system where technology brings fairness, power to all, and hard rules wins. This will not be an exception. It is the separation of money and state, not very dissimilar from church and state, monarchy and nationhood etc.

Re: The Merge

#37

Post by eduction »

camjohnson26 wrote: post #33
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.

Most of the most knowledgeable people in the space probably have large holdings, since otherwise there’s not much incentive to learn about it.

People don’t need incentives to learn about technologies that solve real problems though. I saw the value in Macs, for example, without ever buying Apple shares, I use AWS without owning Amazon, I learned about Linux without profiting from its spread, etc.

Update: My point is simply that if “most knowledgeable people in the space probably have large holdings” as was claimed, this is arguably an indictment of the technology under discussion here. Useful technologies tend to have enthusiasts with no direct financial stake in their success. The fact that people happen to invest in tech companies and do well, or that many have indirect financial incentives to embrace tech, is orthogonal to my point. It is weird if a given tech is entirely or largely carried by people directly invested in it. It raises questions of whether it is generally useful. People who want Fred to front load his disclaimer are probably thinking by along these lines.

Re: The Merge

#38

Post by [deleted] »

kranke155 wrote: post #28
0xcde4c3db wrote: post #17

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Eventually the computational capacity will reach the levels that virtually any app can be replicated inside of it, with a much lower fee for the developers/owners and having full open source code. How do you figure? Skilled developers have struggled to efficiently scale an application from one to two rack servers connected with Infiniband, never mind a hodgepodge of heterogeneous hardware and WAN interconnects runn…

I assume something like Moore’s Law applies tbh. I agree of course it makes order of magnitude slower. The point is - how long until this slow is good enough to perform immensely useful things, with a better distribution of wealth generation than the current datacenter model? I would say in the next 5 years we’ll start seeing breakthrough apps. Like I said above I don’t expect everything ever to go on chain in the ne…

[deleted]

Re: The Merge

#39

Post by pionar »

kranke155 wrote: post #24
ctxc wrote: post #14

Earlier quoted context omitted.

- Who pays for the low latency high capacity data storage costs? - The ad-model subsidizes almost all costs for the end user. I couldn't even DREAM of storing an arbitrary amount of photos and videos and text spanning years, highly available all the time, ability to search and communicate with anybody etc for free without this. There are huge costs involved with this that the "data moat" subsidizes. Note that I'm not…

Those are all great questions. I honestly don’t expect rich media to be stored on chain for a long, long time - not unless some Pied Piper type solution shows up! On monetisation structures - no idea, the only thing blockchain does is build a permissionless system where people will be able to experiment wildly with different models. Like Jobs said when he launched the iPhone “I’m excited about the stuff we don’t know…

> actively promote their NFTs from which they can make good money out of.

People pay for inherently worthless NFTs with inherently worthless tokens, so they're not making good actual money unless they happen to cash out on an upswing.

Re: The Merge

#40

Post by RichardCNormos »

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…

In the US, it would end up in court. It directly pits fiduciary duty against OFAC.

For example, if a US-based CEX that operates in New York has a slashing event, that brings regulatory consequences from NYDFS, regardless of the reason for the slashing.

Post reply on HN