4 ms·

So a Lightning Network clone for Ethereum. Anyway bad time to enter Ethereum, they have much bigger problems than scaling (see: hard fork for DAO).

by kbody 10y ago

jamespitts 10y ago
Could you explain why you think that the hard fork release means that this is a bad time to build services on the Ethereum network?
- Hortinstein 10y ago
  not sure what OPs reason is, but I agree. I am really disappointed by the Ethereum team considering the option of providing a revision in their chain's history in order to prevent a loss caused by an independent application. There is a conflict of interest since very prominent Ethereum devs have vested interests in the DAO and revising this history goes against many of the ideas that they stated Ethereum was built around. Watching some of the talks from the first Ethereum Dev convention highlights this hypocrisy as they specifically advocate for "the code is law". I still have a vested interest in Ethereum as an Ether holder, but the last few weeks have not really impressed me about it's communities adherence to their stated values.
  - wildlogic 10y ago
    Completely agree with this sentiment... I'm extremely disappointed by even the consideration of this idea by the core team. This could be a very hard but valuable lesson for both the community at large and the core team, but instead it is turning into a political drama fest in complete violation of the principles this entire idea was founded on.
    - acgourley 10y ago
      I am curious - what principal(s) do you or gp think Etherium was founded on that which a hard fork decision will go against? I think you can tell by the way I phrased the question I disagree. I own < $10 in DAO so I don't think I'm too biased here, and I believe in a pow system if you can get a majority the miners to agree than nearly any decision is justified.
      - underwires 10y ago
        I am pretty sure they are referring to "the code is law" as quoted above. That is apparently changing to "the code is law unless we think that is unfair". I am not as worried about it in the longer term, but it's a big setback in the immediate term. Ethereum will have to convince the world that it has truly returned to "the code is law" at some point in the future.
        acgourley 10y ago
        That was either edited in or I missed it - but in either case I see it as "The code is law and the participants use a work-based consensus system to decide which code is run"
  - natrius 10y ago
    Code is not law. Code will never be law. No one is going to pay attention to records in a database that say something different from what everyone wants it to say. Despite this, blockchains are an incredibly powerful platform for social and economic software. They help people come to consensus on what those records in a database should say with very little effort, and bug-tolerant systems will be built that take advantage of this power to make trade easier without monopoly middlemen.
- appleflaxen 10y ago
  Not OP, but it bothers me because a hard fork means that bad investments are bailed out by all currency holders. The reversal of opinion in parts of the ethereum community regarding bailouts is incredible. The only thing more shocking is that they appear unable to recognize it. I don't want that in my cryptocurrency voting pool, so I'll pay less to enter it.
woah 10y ago
I think that you've become confused about the distinction between the Ethereum virtual machine and the Ethereum public blockchain. Raiden is a project that will work on any blockchain running EVM code, not only the blockchain that has had this DAO drama. So, for example, many of the internal private blockchains in use at major banks and corporations will be able to benefit from Raiden. There is an interesting discussion to be had about the merits of Turing-complete (EVM) vs not Turing-complete (Bitcoin script), but you have chosen to focus on some off-topic drama instead.
- homogeneous 10y ago
  > So, for example, many of the internal private blockchains in use at major banks and corporations will be able to benefit from Raiden. What is the purpose of a "private blockchain"? Why not just use a traditionally centralized application if your organization is the only user?
  - underwires 10y ago
    I suppose if you have a network of organizations that are vetted but not trusted 100%
    - homogeneous 10y ago
      This doesn't really make sense to me, an example would be helpful. Also, wouldn't it be trivial for a "vetted but not trusted" party to mount a 50% attack against the private blockchain since there is very little hashing power backing up the network?
      - woah 10y ago
        The private blockchains are generally using proof of stake protocols like Tendermint, or just classical byzantine fault tolerant protocols instead of proof of work. These protocols can be trusted if at least 2/3 of the participants can be trusted and there is no hashing involved at all. They are generally replacing trusted third parties like clearinghouses. Instead of needing to trust (and pay for) a third party clearinghouse running a centralized db, these enterprises just need to trust that 1/3 of the participants in the consortium running the blockchain won't collude to attack the protocol. And even if there is an attack, there will be a big paper trail. You may ask "why not just use a BFT database system with signed logs?" Well, this is what a blockchain basically is, wrapped in a package with a bunch of other stuff.

So a Lightning Network clone for Ethereum. Anyway bad time to enter Ethereum, they have much bigger problems than scaling (see: hard fork for DAO).

by kbody 10y ago

So a Lightning Network clone for Ethereum. Anyway bad time to enter Ethereum, they have much bigger problems than scaling (see: hard fork for DAO).

jamespitts 10y ago

Could you explain why you think that the hard fork release means that this is a bad time to build services on the Ethereum network?

Hortinstein 10y ago
not sure what OPs reason is, but I agree. I am really disappointed by the Ethereum team considering the option of providing a revision in their chain's history in order to prevent a loss caused by an independent application. There is a conflict of interest since very prominent Ethereum devs have vested interests in the DAO and revising this history goes against many of the ideas that they stated Ethereum was built around. Watching some of the talks from the first Ethereum Dev convention highlights this hypocrisy as they specifically advocate for "the code is law". I still have a vested interest in Ethereum as an Ether holder, but the last few weeks have not really impressed me about it's communities adherence to their stated values.
- wildlogic 10y ago
  Completely agree with this sentiment... I'm extremely disappointed by even the consideration of this idea by the core team. This could be a very hard but valuable lesson for both the community at large and the core team, but instead it is turning into a political drama fest in complete violation of the principles this entire idea was founded on.
  - acgourley 10y ago
    I am curious - what principal(s) do you or gp think Etherium was founded on that which a hard fork decision will go against? I think you can tell by the way I phrased the question I disagree. I own < $10 in DAO so I don't think I'm too biased here, and I believe in a pow system if you can get a majority the miners to agree than nearly any decision is justified.
    - underwires 10y ago
      I am pretty sure they are referring to "the code is law" as quoted above. That is apparently changing to "the code is law unless we think that is unfair". I am not as worried about it in the longer term, but it's a big setback in the immediate term. Ethereum will have to convince the world that it has truly returned to "the code is law" at some point in the future.
      - acgourley 10y ago
        That was either edited in or I missed it - but in either case I see it as "The code is law and the participants use a work-based consensus system to decide which code is run"
- natrius 10y ago
  Code is not law. Code will never be law. No one is going to pay attention to records in a database that say something different from what everyone wants it to say. Despite this, blockchains are an incredibly powerful platform for social and economic software. They help people come to consensus on what those records in a database should say with very little effort, and bug-tolerant systems will be built that take advantage of this power to make trade easier without monopoly middlemen.
appleflaxen 10y ago
Not OP, but it bothers me because a hard fork means that bad investments are bailed out by all currency holders. The reversal of opinion in parts of the ethereum community regarding bailouts is incredible. The only thing more shocking is that they appear unable to recognize it. I don't want that in my cryptocurrency voting pool, so I'll pay less to enter it.

woah 10y ago

I think that you've become confused about the distinction between the Ethereum virtual machine and the Ethereum public blockchain. Raiden is a project that will work on any blockchain running EVM code, not only the blockchain that has had this DAO drama. So, for example, many of the internal private blockchains in use at major banks and corporations will be able to benefit from Raiden. There is an interesting discussion to be had about the merits of Turing-complete (EVM) vs not Turing-complete (Bitcoin script), but you have chosen to focus on some off-topic drama instead.

homogeneous 10y ago
> So, for example, many of the internal private blockchains in use at major banks and corporations will be able to benefit from Raiden. What is the purpose of a "private blockchain"? Why not just use a traditionally centralized application if your organization is the only user?
- underwires 10y ago
  I suppose if you have a network of organizations that are vetted but not trusted 100%
  - homogeneous 10y ago
    This doesn't really make sense to me, an example would be helpful. Also, wouldn't it be trivial for a "vetted but not trusted" party to mount a 50% attack against the private blockchain since there is very little hashing power backing up the network?
    - woah 10y ago
      The private blockchains are generally using proof of stake protocols like Tendermint, or just classical byzantine fault tolerant protocols instead of proof of work. These protocols can be trusted if at least 2/3 of the participants can be trusted and there is no hashing involved at all. They are generally replacing trusted third parties like clearinghouses. Instead of needing to trust (and pay for) a third party clearinghouse running a centralized db, these enterprises just need to trust that 1/3 of the participants in the consortium running the blockchain won't collude to attack the protocol. And even if there is an attack, there will be a big paper trail. You may ask "why not just use a BFT database system with signed logs?" Well, this is what a blockchain basically is, wrapped in a package with a bunch of other stuff.