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

71–80 of 184 posts

Re: The Merge

#71

Post by jjulius »

kranke155 wrote: post #7
boh wrote: post #5

Earlier quoted context omitted.

People do understand. Please stop telling us how hypothetically, possibly, sometime in the future things may one day be somehow better and more amazing than it is today for some yet to be understood reason. You must not be paying attention to say something like "The blockchain development environment is fundamentally less terrible than the centralised database world" given the perpetual controversy in the developer c…

NFTs work and they allow artists to - make money off digital art in a global permissionless market (didn’t exist before) - easily charge royalties in perpetuity for resale of their art Some aspects of DeFi - the ones that were properly audited and whose function is not a ponzi derivative - work absolutely fine. Compound, AAVE, Uniswap, Curve Finance.

>... easily charge royalties in perpetuity for resale of their art...

Hi. Artist here. I have yet to actually see any example of this occurring with a piece of NFT art. Do you have an example of an NFT that is actively collecting royalties for the artist via resale?

Re: The Merge

#72

Post by klez »

kranke155 wrote: post #57
Kbelicius wrote: post #32

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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?

I'm sure what you mean. NFTs allow for a market for digital art, in that there's an immutable ledger where artists can say "I am selling 10 'signed artworks' of this piece". Because the ledger is known to be immutable, and it allows for transactions between users, you have a market where there wasn't one before. The problem of authenticating art before this, for a digital artist, was that you HAD to have a gallery do…

That rises another question, imho: who cares?

I don't mean that in a dismissive way, I actually mean why is authenticity important or even desirable when using a medium that allows for infinite copies at near-zero marginal cost?

It's just not the right medium for it. It would be like expecting to be able to digitally transfer a statue.

Re: The Merge

#73

Post by dale_glass »

kranke155 wrote: post #66
dale_glass wrote: post #59

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I assume something like Moore’s Law applies tbh. We're nearing the limits of physics already. I do expect hardware to get much faster still, but not forever and not as fast as now. > 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 think…

Mostly everything can be done in the traditional way - and much faster indeed. The point of blockchain is a superior social solution, not technical. I agree with you we will use blockchain where it’s necessary, but I suspect that’s a decent percentage of our future digital world.

> Mostly everything can be done in the traditional way - and much faster indeed. The point of blockchain is a superior social solution, not technical.

That's highly arguable. It's a superior social solution if you buy into a very, very specific kind of "social", and are happy with systems that operate within a very limited realm.

Eg, if you like the existence of things like chargebacks, then the blockchain isn't the kind of solution you want.

And you also need for the entire problem to reside inside the blockchain ideally. Blockchains lose any power if they have to interact with the outside world. You can make guarantees around how ETH moves from A to B, but if say, a physical product is involved then the blockchain can't do anything about it.

Re: The Merge

#74

Post by randomran01234 »

0x64 wrote: post #68
globalreset wrote: post #29

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…

You are wrong about the majority of validators having to approve a certain transaction for them to be included. Even if 80 % of the network were censoring, those transactions would, on average, make it into every fifth block.

Can you point to any sources? I would like to read about how this will be accepted even if the majority is against inclusion.

Re: The Merge

#75

Post by derefr »

scottiebarnes wrote: post #65
derefr wrote: post #63

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes, and? This is orthogonal to PoW vs PoS. In either case, you can treat the resulting cartel as "a single party" for purposes of modelling them. It's also not really a scenario worth considering. In order to cooperate, the miners/validators need to have full alignment on their goals. Which is very unlikely for Sybil attacks, which almost always destroy systemic economic value — including the value held by the attac…

One relevant question is which system allows for the pooling of resources easier. In PoW you have mining pools, and a member changing pools is trivial as changing an address. In PoS you have large organizations like Coinbase running staking for users. Don't know how withdrawls will work, but that could be a very significant amount of eth. Coinbase would have to vote a certain way to comply with laws.

From the Coinbase User Agreement (https://www.coinbase.com/legal/user_agreement/united_states#...):

> 1.4. Governance and Voting. For certain Digital Assets, the underlying protocols offer stakers the ability to vote on matters related to the governance of protocol-level issues. Coinbase may or may not support voting for such assets, and may cease supporting voting at any time in its discretion. Coinbase will comply with your instruction to vote your Supported Digital Assets to the extent Coinbase or its affiliate supports voting for such Supported Digital Assets. In certain cases, Coinbase may vote on your behalf where Coinbase or the applicable protocol does not support delegated voting; in those instances, Coinbase will vote with the protocol’s recommendation.

But what about jurisdictions that compel them to vote in certain ways?

From the Coinbase page on Eth2 staking (https://help.coinbase.com/en/coinbase/trading-and-funding/co...):

> To be eligible to stake ETH, you must: [...] Live in a jurisdiction eligible for ETH staking.

> Which regions are eligible for ETH staking? [...] United States (excluding Hawaii & New York)

In other words: they're just not going to offer the service in any place that compels them to vote a certain way.

I presume most delegatable validators have chosen a similar option: avoiding the problem entirely by not taking anyone's money if they're from those jurisdictions. Just as most ICOs in 2017, when the US didn't have regulatory clarity on crypto being a security or not, just avoided the problem entirely by preventing (direct) sales to US-market investors.

Re: The Merge

#76

Post by tromp »

flotzam wrote: post #56
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…

> 2b. If > 67% of the network refuses, transactions can be successfully censored. Similar with PoW. For both PoW and PoS, the proper response is to socially coordinate forking out the censoring block producer majority (like with the Bitcoin UASF that was threatened over much less egregious miner misbehavior). PoS improves on PoW here in two ways: 1. Non-censoring PoS block producers can have a tiny meatspace presence…

With PoW, even if a majority of hashpower refuses to include a particular transaction in their mempool (and hence in blocks they mine), that transaction can be mined by some minority miner.

It's only when the majority is colluding to reorg the chain that the transaction can be censored.

Re: The Merge

#77

Post by paulpauper »

camjohnson26 wrote: post #31
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...

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

so what if more do it? then you got a problem. just 3 miners control >50%

Re: The Merge

#78

Post by TakeBlaster16 »

randomran01234 wrote: post #70
TakeBlaster16 wrote: post #52

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Again, it is not possible for staking pools to differ on "values". If a validator does not vote with the majority, their funds will be slashed by the protocol.

Trying to understand how this differs in practice. Anyone delegating to a staking pool is forced into their values. Ethermine recently started blocking OFAC transactions, so does the majority of miners in that pool agree with this? If so, what is the defence against censorship in this scenario except for some to exit the pool and use another that aligns with their values?

Ethereum is still using PoW as of today, so anything Ethermine did recently isn't really relevant to discussions about PoS. As long as Ethereum is using PoW, pools of any size can pick and choose what transactions to include in a block. Once Ethereum switches to PoS, that will no longer be possible (without further protocol changes)

Re: The Merge

#79

Post by seibelj »

nibbleshifter wrote: post #26
thematrixturtle wrote: post #22

A less starry-eyed take: https://davidgerard.co.uk/blockchain/2022/08/20/proof-of-sta...

Oh, that guy. He tends to be technically incorrect regularly and gets rather arsey when you call him on it.

He is a crank, he does post here sometimes to bicker with you which can be amusing

Re: The Merge

#80

Post by seibelj »

jjulius wrote: post #71
kranke155 wrote: post #7

Earlier quoted context omitted.

NFTs work and they allow artists to - make money off digital art in a global permissionless market (didn’t exist before) - easily charge royalties in perpetuity for resale of their art Some aspects of DeFi - the ones that were properly audited and whose function is not a ponzi derivative - work absolutely fine. Compound, AAVE, Uniswap, Curve Finance.

>... easily charge royalties in perpetuity for resale of their art... Hi. Artist here. I have yet to actually see any example of this occurring with a piece of NFT art. Do you have an example of an NFT that is actively collecting royalties for the artist via resale?

https://opensea.io/collection/nickelodeon-rugrats-heyarnold-...

My company is one of the largest NFT companies. This is one of our projects. Millions of dollars in secondaries on OpenSea and our hosted marketplace at https://Nickelodeon.xyz/

We collect all royalties and remit payment to the rights holders which include all artists and creators with residuals on Rugrats, of which there are many. They get their check quarterly along with all the other payments (movies, tshirts, video games, etc.)

This isn’t exactly rocket science

Post reply on HN