41–50 of 184 posts
Assuming a fork is expected and the PoW chain is running alongside the PoS chain, wouldn’t this cause a massive run up in ETH holdings to end up with assets on both chains?
This already happened multiple times, e.g. Ethereum Classic and for Bitcoin with Bitcoin Cash a few years back. It created quite a bit of drama when exchanges refused to give customers the respective forked coins.
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…
> 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…
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…
curl https://match.tovera.com/api/v0/stats/nft/storageMethods
[ { "storage": "https", "ratio": "0.39163250000000000000", "counted_at": "2022-08-20T05:55:01.164Z" }, { "storage": "ipfs", "ratio": "0.58654950000000000000", "counted_at": "2022-08-20T05:55:01.164Z" }, { "storage": "unknown", "ratio": "0.00090250000000000000", "counted_at": "2022-08-20T05:55:01.164Z" }, { "storage": "chain", "ratio": "0.01584000000000000000", "counted_at": "2022-08-20T05:55:01.164Z" }, { "storage": "http", "ratio": "0.00507550000000000000", "counted_at": "2022-08-20T05:55:01.164Z" } ]
2% on chain (almost all SVGs), 60% on IPFS, and 40% on HTTPS (total above 100% because I rounded).
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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…
PoS is tyranny of the majority: You cannot take your business elsewhere.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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…
The difference is that PoW pools are made up of individual miners who are free to go elsewhere if their pool misbehaves. Pools do not have their own mining hardware, and so they have an economic incentive to be well-behaved. If they misbehave, everybody leaves and they vaporize their business overnight. PoS is tyranny of the majority: You cannot take your business elsewhere.
> 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…
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 impractical in major networks. That impracticality can be measured in economic terms — as a dollars-and-cents cost to acquire the assets necessary to take control.
It's harder to buy out 51% of validation stake of a network of size N, than it is to buy the GPUs and the electricity to power them to do 51% of the mining for a network of size N. GPUs are technically unbounded — you can just build your own fabs, if you really care — and so the marginal cost of acquiring another GPU+electricity is constant. But stake is a pie; the marginal cost of acquiring more of it increases as less of it remains available on the market. (And many people will just never give theirs up, for ideological reasons.) Thus, it's harder to Sybil attack PoS than PoW.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
“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 th…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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…
Decoupling of the art and the signature??? Do you read what you write before you write it? There’s a reason NFTs are easy and gallery placements are hard: one has value
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.