MIT Chose Ethereum’s PoS as Top Technological Breakthrough • Hacker News Board

Re: MIT Chose Ethereum’s PoS as Top Technological Breakthrough

#41

Post by anonporridge » Tue, Mar 01, 2022, 4:39 PM UTC

rvz wrote: post #38

thebean11 wrote: post #32

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I would argue they already did achieve large scale trust, based on how many billions of assets are traded on the network.

The whole point of a public blockchain is for it to be trustless. Why do you even need to factor in achieving 'Large scale trust' with the largest Ethereum stakeholders to not say, attempt to revert a massive hack in 2016 to save the investors lost money? Why should I have to trust them to not do that again if another hack happened, even if they migrate to PoS and it causes a giant fork once again?

There's some nuance here.

A public blockchain is supposed to be "trustless" in that you don't have to trust humans to be honest, because the system is harshly fair and enforced by computation and the laws of physics that no one can trivially bullshit their way around. The important function of proof of work is that it solves the Byzantine generals problem such that everyone can trust the system without caring much about who else is using or controlling it.

Proof of stake is problematic because it shifts the burden of trust back into the hands of humans, and we all know that "the hearts of men are easily corrupted".

Re: MIT Chose Ethereum’s PoS as Top Technological Breakthrough

#42

Post by adamsmith143 » Tue, Mar 01, 2022, 4:49 PM UTC

kordlessagain wrote: post #4

adenozine wrote: post #2

Compact fusion reactors exist and are functional… and they chose griftcoin junk tech.

People who write articles, submit articles, admin articles and comment on articles can't buy fusion reactors and profit from them. So, we have biases with cryptocurrency. Opinions about unknowable consensus mechanisms aside, I have serious doubts about PoS given there's no clear associated PoW presented alongside the staking. But what do I know? I have grey hairs. I still like Bitcoin and Lightning because the PoW an…

This is 100% written by GPT but poorly tuned. Bot needs work imo.

Re: MIT Chose Ethereum’s PoS as Top Technological Breakthrough

#43

Post by thebean11 » Tue, Mar 01, 2022, 4:51 PM UTC

rvz wrote: post #38

thebean11 wrote: post #32

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I would argue they already did achieve large scale trust, based on how many billions of assets are traded on the network.

The whole point of a public blockchain is for it to be trustless. Why do you even need to factor in achieving 'Large scale trust' with the largest Ethereum stakeholders to not say, attempt to revert a massive hack in 2016 to save the investors lost money? Why should I have to trust them to not do that again if another hack happened, even if they migrate to PoS and it causes a giant fork once again?

I mean trusting the network (to continue working, to not have large reorgs etc). I don't mean trusting individuals.

Re: MIT Chose Ethereum’s PoS as Top Technological Breakthrough

#44

Post by thebean11 » Tue, Mar 01, 2022, 4:53 PM UTC

anonporridge wrote: post #41

rvz wrote: post #38

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The whole point of a public blockchain is for it to be trustless. Why do you even need to factor in achieving 'Large scale trust' with the largest Ethereum stakeholders to not say, attempt to revert a massive hack in 2016 to save the investors lost money? Why should I have to trust them to not do that again if another hack happened, even if they migrate to PoS and it causes a giant fork once again?

There's some nuance here. A public blockchain is supposed to be "trustless" in that you don't have to trust humans to be honest, because the system is harshly fair and enforced by computation and the laws of physics that no one can trivially bullshit their way around. The important function of proof of work is that it solves the Byzantine generals problem such that everyone can trust the system without caring much ab…

Miners are run by humans too, though, who could also theoretically attack the network. In both PoW and PoS they are incentivized not to.

Re: MIT Chose Ethereum’s PoS as Top Technological Breakthrough

#45

Post by michaelsbradley » Tue, Mar 01, 2022, 5:03 PM UTC

anonporridge wrote: post #37

thebean11 wrote: post #32

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I would argue they already did achieve large scale trust, based on how many billions of assets are traded on the network.

For sure. I certainly have trusted a significant single digit percentage of my wealth in Ethereum. But that's only predicated on them using PoW. I own no PoS tokens. I will likely dump my Eth once they lock in PoS and it becomes clear that they can't back peddle.

Are you aware of how proof-of-stake works in the Ethereum Beacon Chain?

To activate one validator node you stake 32 ETH (just ETH, no special token), no more and no less, i.e. your node can't be activated with less than 32 ETH staked and depositing more than 32 ETH is pointless (makes no difference). There are queues for activation and exit, so a node can't just jump in or out of that role on a moment's notice, needs to be anticipated over days and if it does immediately "drop off" then there will be penalties.

All validators have equal weight and are randomly selected over time, for limited amounts of time, to carry out various responsibilities: attestations, block proposals, sync committees, slashing.

In the big scheme of things, the main reason to run a validator node is the opportunity cost re: the estimated APR on the 32 ETH per rewards accumulated for correctly carrying out the various responsibilities mentioned above, versus doing something else in that time period with resources equivalent to 32 ETH + hardware/resource costs of running the node.

Re: MIT Chose Ethereum’s PoS as Top Technological Breakthrough

#46

Post by anonporridge » Tue, Mar 01, 2022, 5:09 PM UTC

thebean11 wrote: post #44

anonporridge wrote: post #41

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There's some nuance here. A public blockchain is supposed to be "trustless" in that you don't have to trust humans to be honest, because the system is harshly fair and enforced by computation and the laws of physics that no one can trivially bullshit their way around. The important function of proof of work is that it solves the Byzantine generals problem such that everyone can trust the system without caring much ab…

Miners are run by humans too, though, who could also theoretically attack the network. In both PoW and PoS they are incentivized not to.

The difference between miners and stakers...

If miners start acting bad, anyone else on the planet can acquire chips and electricity to peacefully countervail their power.

If stakers start acting bad, the only options you have are 1) abandon the monetary system or 2) violently coerce the top stakers and torture them into giving you control of their stake.

This is why bitcoin is the only cryptocurrency likely to become the truly global, monetary asset that nation states use for trade and monetary reserves. No way in hell nation states will trust Vitalik and his gang to honestly secure their money.

Re: MIT Chose Ethereum’s PoS as Top Technological Breakthrough

#47

Post by drdeca » Tue, Mar 01, 2022, 5:12 PM UTC

capableweb wrote: post #27

jpm_sd wrote: post #5

Technology Review is not "MIT", it's an attempt at competing with Wired and Popular Science.

How is something called "MIT Technology Review" not MIT? This is how they describe themselves: > Founded at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology in 1899, MIT Technology Review is a world-renowned, independent media company whose insight, analysis, reviews, interviews and live events explain the newest technologies and their commercial, social and political impacts. Take a look at their website: https://www.techn…

It may be MIT legally or whatever, but calling it “MIT” could still be misleading when people expect “MIT” to refer to the research and education institution.

Just because Facebook decided to rename itself (but not the website) “Meta” instead of “Facebook”, doesn’t mean I should respect that decision and call the organization Facebook by the name “Meta”. Similarly, but in kind of the opposite way, here.

Re: MIT Chose Ethereum’s PoS as Top Technological Breakthrough

#48

Post by etherael » Tue, Mar 01, 2022, 5:15 PM UTC

anonporridge wrote: post #46

thebean11 wrote: post #44

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Miners are run by humans too, though, who could also theoretically attack the network. In both PoW and PoS they are incentivized not to.

The difference between miners and stakers... If miners start acting bad, anyone else on the planet can acquire chips and electricity to peacefully countervail their power. If stakers start acting bad, the only options you have are 1) abandon the monetary system or 2) violently coerce the top stakers and torture them into giving you control of their stake. This is why bitcoin is the only cryptocurrency likely to becom…

And why would you trust Greg Maxwell and his gang?

Re: MIT Chose Ethereum’s PoS as Top Technological Breakthrough

#49

Post by thebean11 » Tue, Mar 01, 2022, 5:16 PM UTC

anonporridge wrote: post #46

thebean11 wrote: post #44

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Miners are run by humans too, though, who could also theoretically attack the network. In both PoW and PoS they are incentivized not to.

The difference between miners and stakers... If miners start acting bad, anyone else on the planet can acquire chips and electricity to peacefully countervail their power. If stakers start acting bad, the only options you have are 1) abandon the monetary system or 2) violently coerce the top stakers and torture them into giving you control of their stake. This is why bitcoin is the only cryptocurrency likely to becom…

I disagree that this is a realistic threat in a world where Ethereum tokens are reasonably distributed. Stakers will simply defect and sell their tokens as the price increases. Conversely, this kind of attack would bring the price down as investors lose confidence, further encouraging people to defect and either validate honestly or sell tokens.

Re: MIT Chose Ethereum’s PoS as Top Technological Breakthrough

#50

Post by thrill » Tue, Mar 01, 2022, 5:16 PM UTC

anonporridge wrote: post #24

jpm_sd wrote: post #5

Technology Review is not "MIT", it's an attempt at competing with Wired and Popular Science.

MIT is a brand. If the owners of MIT are attaching their brand to the Technology Review, then yes, it is MIT. If the people who actually do the hard science and education work that has made MIT a valuable and trusted brand don't like this dilution and selling out of the trust they earned, then they have a responsibility to either push against it or vote with their feet and their attention and stop contributing to the…

No, if it was MIT then it would be an official communique from the Office of the President of MIT. It's MIT Technology Review, and the distinction exists for a reason.