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

MIT Chose Ethereum’s PoS as Top Technological Breakthrough

maxbit.cc

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

61–70 of 77 posts

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

#61

Post by capableweb »

drdeca wrote: post #47
capableweb wrote: post #27

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Is it similarly misleading calling "Stripe Press" "Stripe"? Since people expect Stripe to just handle payments and related areas, while "Stripe Press" describes themselves the following way:

> Stripe Press produces works about technological, economic, and scientific advancement

I'd say, call things the way they want to be called. If you put "MIT" in your organizations name, then I'm gonna assume your organization is associated/related to MIT. If you're not related to MIT but your name is "MIT $ORGANIZATION", then I'd say that is misleading, not the other way around.

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

#62

Post by capableweb »

ketzal wrote: post #35

And their website has a poll to vote for the 11th breakthrough between four choices: one being the metaverse, and another being NFTs. https://www.technologyreview.com/2022/02/23/1045416/10-break... Sigh...

Such a shallow dismissal. What about all the other breakthroughs? What about the two other options you didn't mention, "AI-powered robots" and "Aging clocks"? To me, all of those options seems like over-hyped choices, but I guess sometimes breakthroughs are over-hyped before they suddenly have injected themselves into our world and we can't be without them. But "AI-powered robots" feels as likely as Metaverse and NFTs to be breakthroughs, but then I'm bearish on all of the options mentioned.

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

#63

Post by thebean11 »

etherael wrote: post #60
thebean11 wrote: post #59

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> you claim that Bitcoin Cash split off BTC despite their pursuing the original architecture of Bitcoin proper I'm not talking about an ideological split. Node operators who didn't intentionally switch over to the Bitcoin Cash software were mining on the original Bitcoin chain, not the other way around. The bcash "original vision" argument is extremely tiresome. If you think that's the "real Bitcoin" then you are fre…

> Node operators who didn't intentionally switch over to the Bitcoin Cash software were mining on the original Bitcoin chain, not the other way around. Which is to say; they were entirely duped by the complete change in direction and went right on just mining the way they were beforehand despite the difference. > The bcash "original vision" argument is extremely tiresome. If you think that's the "real Bitcoin" then y…

> so silently with so little fanfare

lol, were you around when this was going on? People were absolutely losing their shit about bcash. This post really takes me back to that honestly.

> And so it has been with BTC, it was turned from decentralised currency to disintermediate central banks to a shitty, low quality, captured centralised settlement layer for those exact same central banks, and all the while it mostly kept the public relations layer from the original project, and most people still claim that's why they're interested in it, screaming calves in the abattoirs or not.

We are not going to agree on that point. Consensus disagreed with you here, so I'm not sure what exactly you want to happen. Any system, not just a cryptocurrency, has the potential to split off from your specific viewpoints at any time. In this case it did, so what remediation do you want beyond the ability to sell out of the currency?

> The core point is they hold absolute power over BTC

Who is "they"? If you mean tiny group of developers I disagree. If you mean the developers + users + exchanges + merchants then yes, you are right. They reached a consensus and you are in the minority.

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

#64

Post by etherael »

thebean11 wrote: post #63
etherael wrote: post #60

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Node operators who didn't intentionally switch over to the Bitcoin Cash software were mining on the original Bitcoin chain, not the other way around. Which is to say; they were entirely duped by the complete change in direction and went right on just mining the way they were beforehand despite the difference. > The bcash "original vision" argument is extremely tiresome. If you think that's the "real Bitcoin" then y…

> so silently with so little fanfare lol, were you around when this was going on? People were absolutely losing their shit about bcash. This post really takes me back to that honestly. > And so it has been with BTC, it was turned from decentralised currency to disintermediate central banks to a shitty, low quality, captured centralised settlement layer for those exact same central banks, and all the while it mostly k…

> lol, were you around when this was going on? People were absolutely losing their shit about bcash. This post really takes me back to that honestly.

I was, and I recall that the vast majority of trade volume was not constituted in USDT also. Both those things are no longer true, most trade now is USDT, and near enough to nobody has the faintest idea what actually happened back then.

> We are not going to agree on that point.

It's not a point of "agree or not agree". It's a point of fact. If you won't acknowledge the fact that a currency needs more than seven transactions per second across the globe in order to actually be used as a global currency, or that the lightning whitepaper itself says very clearly that it was designed to resemble the banking settlement network, that's just your ignorance, not something to be argued about.

> Consensus disagreed with you here

There wasn't any consensus, there was just centralised exchanges tagging the output of the core node software as BTC and that's all there was to it, I can dig up the bitfinex announcement of exactly that if you want to dispute the point, but once again, it's a simple fact.

> so I'm not sure what exactly you want to happen.

I'm completely out of that fight so I don't want anything to happen of course aside from the entire thing to fail miserably and be viewed as a cautionary tale. I don't think that will actually happen though, because the world is simply too full of ignorant and stupid people who desperately want to believe the lie they've been sold and moon lambo doing it.

> Who is "they"? If you mean tiny group of developers I disagree

Yes I mean the tiny group of core developers who actually already did this back in 2017, so once again, this is just a point of fact and there's nothing to dispute, and to the extent you try, you're simply outright wrong.

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

#65

Post by thebean11 »

etherael wrote: post #64
thebean11 wrote: post #63

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> so silently with so little fanfare lol, were you around when this was going on? People were absolutely losing their shit about bcash. This post really takes me back to that honestly. > And so it has been with BTC, it was turned from decentralised currency to disintermediate central banks to a shitty, low quality, captured centralised settlement layer for those exact same central banks, and all the while it mostly k…

> lol, were you around when this was going on? People were absolutely losing their shit about bcash. This post really takes me back to that honestly. I was, and I recall that the vast majority of trade volume was not constituted in USDT also. Both those things are no longer true, most trade now is USDT, and near enough to nobody has the faintest idea what actually happened back then. > We are not going to agree on th…

Nobody is disputing that BTC needs to scale throughput, you misunderstand my point. Bcash was a disagreement on how to scale it. Again, it's been discussed to death. What I'm trying to get out of you is how the "winning fork" should be decided, beyond just "I think my fork should have won".

How should the exchanges have done it? Just listed both at BTC? I really don't get what you want here.

> Yes I mean the tiny group of core developers who actually already did this back in 2017

The group of developers running the centralized exchanges, who you also blame?

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

#66

Post by kordlessagain »

adamsmith143 wrote: post #42
kordlessagain wrote: post #4

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

I do talk to GPT-3 frequently, but unfortunately all these tokens came from my brain.

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

#67

Post by etherael »

thebean11 wrote: post #65
etherael wrote: post #64

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> lol, were you around when this was going on? People were absolutely losing their shit about bcash. This post really takes me back to that honestly. I was, and I recall that the vast majority of trade volume was not constituted in USDT also. Both those things are no longer true, most trade now is USDT, and near enough to nobody has the faintest idea what actually happened back then. > We are not going to agree on th…

Nobody is disputing that BTC needs to scale throughput, you misunderstand my point. Bcash was a disagreement on how to scale it. Again, it's been discussed to death. What I'm trying to get out of you is how the "winning fork" should be decided, beyond just "I think my fork should have won". How should the exchanges have done it? Just listed both at BTC? I really don't get what you want here. > Yes I mean the tiny gro…

> Nobody is disputing that BTC needs to scale throughput, you misunderstand my point. Bcash was a disagreement on how to scale it.

And changing a bridge into an airport might be characterised as a disagreement on how to cross the river in question, but that characterisation would be utterly dishonest. The fact that people accepted the same dishonest characterisation when it came to "lets change decentralised global peer to peer currency to a settlement network for central banks and let them handle the last mile of transactions" is exactly my point and exactly why things are so utterly hopelessly broken.

People really didn't question this nonsense as much as they actually saw it, and most people never even saw it to begin with to question it, it's ancient history now, buried, but absolutely undisputed that while the exchanges simply bless whatever the core devs say is BTC as such, they hold the power to define what that is.

> What I'm trying to get out of you is how the "winning fork" should be decided, beyond just "I think my fork should have won".

Exactly how it was going to be done before bitfinex (who is also invested in blockstream, whose CTO at the time was the head of the faction responsible for this inane nonsense) changed to the "whatever the core devs say is what we'll bless as BTC" and then all the other exchanges backed off and followed bitfinex assumedly as to not allow the chaotic confusion that would ensue if the original plan to follow the hashpower was held to.

And that is how I believe it should've been done. That's how it was done on later splits between BCH and BSV, and then again between BCH and XEC. In fact that's how it's always done, generally speaking, except in this isolated case when it is likely because of the incestuous relationship between all the parties involved to fix the match to castrate BTC entirely.

> The group of developers running the centralized exchanges

The group of developers who get to decide entirely on their own what is the canonical chain, in light of the fact that for this precedent, the exchanges allocate them that privilege as discussed above.

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

#68

Post by adenozine »

kordlessagain wrote: post #13
adenozine wrote: post #10

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It almost reads like a GPT-3 bot wrote it, I thought I was having a stroke trying to understand it.

I've provided a link to ease your stress.

It seems rude now, what I wrote. I do apologize, I chose not to overlook a clunky sentence, you did not deserve that! You're a very understanding person for replying this way, despite my remark.

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

#69

Post by [deleted] »

etherael wrote: post #67
thebean11 wrote: post #65

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Nobody is disputing that BTC needs to scale throughput, you misunderstand my point. Bcash was a disagreement on how to scale it. Again, it's been discussed to death. What I'm trying to get out of you is how the "winning fork" should be decided, beyond just "I think my fork should have won". How should the exchanges have done it? Just listed both at BTC? I really don't get what you want here. > Yes I mean the tiny gro…

> Nobody is disputing that BTC needs to scale throughput, you misunderstand my point. Bcash was a disagreement on how to scale it. And changing a bridge into an airport might be characterised as a disagreement on how to cross the river in question, but that characterisation would be utterly dishonest. The fact that people accepted the same dishonest characterisation when it came to "lets change decentralised global p…

[deleted]

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

#70

Post by thebean11 »

etherael wrote: post #67
thebean11 wrote: post #65

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Nobody is disputing that BTC needs to scale throughput, you misunderstand my point. Bcash was a disagreement on how to scale it. Again, it's been discussed to death. What I'm trying to get out of you is how the "winning fork" should be decided, beyond just "I think my fork should have won". How should the exchanges have done it? Just listed both at BTC? I really don't get what you want here. > Yes I mean the tiny gro…

> Nobody is disputing that BTC needs to scale throughput, you misunderstand my point. Bcash was a disagreement on how to scale it. And changing a bridge into an airport might be characterised as a disagreement on how to cross the river in question, but that characterisation would be utterly dishonest. The fact that people accepted the same dishonest characterisation when it came to "lets change decentralised global p…

I see, I definitely don't disagree that hashpower would have been a good way to decide this.

I also don't see how force centralized exchanges to follow those rules though.

I don't expect the hashpower would have gone in the BCH direction, but I may be wrong.

Post reply on HN