971–980 of 1001 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
"about to release" nothing We use Eth 2.0 since December. Staking is even available with insurance on coinbase. If you keep your copy pasta up to date, your FUD will be more believable.
Energy usage and price are related. Should be interesting.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
People are buying it now to run apps making money off of defi. Binance has their own network thats growing similarly. Both do have a huge amount of speculators. There are other up and coming complements to the market aswell including Polkadot. Some like ethereum for its maturity and dev team.
> People are buying it now to run apps making money off of defi. Serious question - what does this actually mean? What defi apps are people running to make money besides minting other coins?
Uniswap being another
A more comprehensive lost of ether based defi apps
https://www.blocksocial.com/ethereum-defi-platforms/
There are also other blockchain ecosystems with their own defi projects.
In general, you have some cryto assets, you loan those to someone or some decentralized system that uses those assets to make money(like banks, financial institutions, and market makers).
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> By the logic of that article asymmetric cryptography doesn't, because the value equal to what's protected by the key is magically wasted somewhere. Of course, that isn't true, because it's not possible to break asymmetric cryptography by brute force with expenditure equal to whatever is protected. Same applies to PoS. Not quite. He's arguing that MC = MR implies that PoS is really PoW through obscure means. There's…
> If ETH were PoS at the time of the split, it would be a lot less obvious from the chainstate which one people would choose to use. Both chains' participants would try to make it look like their chains had more users by some other means. But the point in the article is that those "other means" are not only costly actions, but also the marginal cost each fork can afford for these actions is, in equilibrium, equal to…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> By the logic of that article asymmetric cryptography doesn't, because the value equal to what's protected by the key is magically wasted somewhere. Of course, that isn't true, because it's not possible to break asymmetric cryptography by brute force with expenditure equal to whatever is protected. Same applies to PoS. Not quite. He's arguing that MC = MR implies that PoS is really PoW through obscure means. There's…
>This game of convincing people that your fork is the true fork is exactly what stake-grinding is Stake grinding is something else, in coins like NXT the producer of the next block was set by the seed based on the previous block, so it was possible to bruteforce blocks until you were also the next generator. >The article argues that the act of convincing you is, itself, a form of PoW. He makes a much stronger claim t…
This sounds exactly like a special case of the game of convincing people that your fork is the true fork. NXT stakers each have their own preferred forks (i.e. the ones in which they get the most tokens), and are willing to spend energy to make it so their fork is accepted by the network.
> He starts from the assumption that PoS uses exactly same resources as PoW and then shows it's true based on the assumption.
Maybe it's not well-written here, but his argument is that PoS ultimately will require the same energy commitments as PoW through the act of each staker trying to convince both other stakers and newcomers (i.e. with no a priori knowledge of how the chain evolved) that their preferred fork is the fork the network accepts. A PoS chain may not take the same initial resources as a PoW chain, but it will over time.
Source: I've spoken to the author at conferences.
> What does 'true' and 'legitimate' mean here? The whole point is to interact with other people, so naturally I'm going to use the same network that people I want to interact with use.
And how do we know which fork this is, out of all the alternatives? You either have to ask people (i.e. you need a priori knowledge obtained out-of-band), or you need a way to independently but deterministically choose the fork that the economic majority of people use (which is the problem PoW solves).
> PoW doesn't change anything here, it's an arbitrary fork like any other.
Except, this is not what's happening in real life. People follow the canonical chain, and PoW helps them all determine what the canonical chain is without having to ask around.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Proof of work consumes a real world resource. Proof of stake does not, therefore proof of work exchanges REAL value for virtual value. It literally takes actual value in the world and deletes it. What’s the difference with the US financial institutions buying up all the big mining rigs and then buying up all the stakable tokens ?
Energy is not being exchanged for "virtual value", but rather "shared belief". Wars have been fought to force shared beliefs. It's fairly common in history for "real world resources" to be permanently burned in order to create a shared belief system in order to facilitate trade. For example, the Roman Empire or any other empire. I'd rather use electrons to create shared belief than bullets and bombs.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Electricity is the best form of energy to use as the basis for Proof of Work, because there is no pre-requisite on how to generate the required electricity. compare: electric cars vs ice cars, electric cars can also end up consuming "dirty" electricity from coal fired plants, but that's an option vs. ice cars.
Could the concept of proof-of-work be extended to prove that work was done cleanly, ie: using only renewable electricity rather than that produced from fossil fuels? Perhaps renewable electricity producers could issue some sort of signed token which is then incorporated into the blockchain as proof that renewable electricity was purchased?
Algorand has been Proof of Stake for years (2019 MainNet launch) and it's actually carbon-negative [1]. It's a shame more people don't know about it. Its founder is a Turing-award-winning MIT professor (Silvio Micali) who solved the blockchain trilemma [2] with the Pure Proof of Stake consensus algorithm. The tech is leaps and bounds ahead of other cryptos. [1]: https://www.algorand.com/resources/news/carbon_negative…
How is it “leaps and bounds” ahead of e.g. PoS Ethereum?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
False. PoS Beaconchain is already running, since December 2020, and the merge is expected to happen Q3 2021 or Q1 2022. Sharding is not immediately necessary for Eth2 to scale - we have rollups in the meantime for that.
“Ethereum 2.0 is an upcoming set of upgrades to Ethereum that's intended to make it significantly faster, less expensive, and more scalable. As part of the upgrade, participants may stake ETH tokens to help secure the network. In exchange for staking, participants then receive rewards on their staked ETH. Staked ETH (and rewards) can't be unstaked until Ethereum 2.0 fully launches, which most experts estimate will ha…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Energy is not being exchanged for "virtual value", but rather "shared belief". Wars have been fought to force shared beliefs. It's fairly common in history for "real world resources" to be permanently burned in order to create a shared belief system in order to facilitate trade. For example, the Roman Empire or any other empire. I'd rather use electrons to create shared belief than bullets and bombs.
Virtual value/shared belief are the same thing. The fact remains we are destroying something of utilitarian value to create something that has no utility past being tradable and valuable because people follow trends
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Creating a fork is not a fraud. That was and is always a possibility, people were free to disagree, and Ethereum Classic represents that disagreement. If you went through that, then you would have ETH and ETC, and a choice of what to use, develop, mine, etc.
If I had created the DAO and I was the one going to lose 50 million, no fork would have happened, and Buterin (and you probably) would have told me, from their high horses, "though luck pal, you see, that's the beauty of smart contracts, they're final and no one should be able to do anything about it". If you preach a set of principles and then backtrack on them when it's convenient for you, you're a hypocrite and ha…
Simple as that, it's decentralized, that's the whole point, you fundamentally can't tell people which fork to believe, people use whatever fork they want. And the people mostly wanted the fork with their money in the DAO preserved. People who wanted the unaltered chain stayed there, no big deal.