4 ms·

They forgot the feature where if a smart contract doesn't go the way they want it, they create a default-opt-in hard fork of the currency. Sorry if I don't tru

by cjslep 9y ago

They forgot the feature where if a smart contract doesn't go the way they want it, they create a default-opt-in hard fork of the currency. Sorry if I don't trust the "small group of legends" more than the government.

jhildings 9y ago
Can you provide a solution to force all miners to run the same software forever? Exactly
- cjslep 9y ago
  Your hostile strawman/reducto-ad-absurdum is not appreciated. My criticism is a valid one, despite my mortal limitations.
sf_rob 9y ago
And in the same breath criticize Bitcoin for consolidation of mining power (which is a valid criticism).
- leashless 9y ago
  There are cans of worms I could not open. I'm sorry.
lawik 9y ago
Was this around The DAO? Any good reading on it?
nugget 9y ago
I am a fan of Ethereum but I wish they (and other alt-coins) would be honest about the fact that there is very much a central authority at work; in Ethereum's case, it's a small network of developers and mining pools. That's not necessarily bad, but let's at least be honest about it. Admit that central authorities have a role to play (and may take many different forms). Recent events clearly reflect, to me at least, that the value of a blockchain doesn't depend upon the lack of a central authority (indeed, investors may feel safer with a steady hand on the wheel) or immutability (Ethereum violated supposed rule #1 and look at how the market has voted, i.e. ETH/ETC price variance).
- erikpukinskis 9y ago
  In what way is a voluntary network of independent miners a central authority?
  - nugget 9y ago
    The top 5 ETH pools control about 75% of the hash rate. Buterin (for whom I have lots of respect) and others have routinely commented that centralization is a problem in both PoW and PoS systems. In both systems, the problem is "the rich get richer" (as PoW is essentially "proof of stake" in the form of expensive hardware and electricity). But more to the point, look at what happened with ETH and ETC. The Ethereum Foundation could have decided to hard fork without any particular % of support. Consensus was needed for price support, not to complete the fork. Let's say they forked with only 25% support. The new fork retains the ETH brand. The old chain rebrands (i.e. ETC). The market then votes on how much they value the old versus the new. Now look at ETH/ETC since the fork: the market is saying that they feel more comfortable with a known, trusted authority (i.e. small group of developers with trademarks and a conference schedule) than they do with true democratized first principles of immutable code. I'm not a righteous zealot, I agree with what ETH did and would have done the same thing; I am just calling it out for what it is. Humans love to collect, horde, and trade items: puka shells, tulips, dot com stocks. Speculation is hard-wired into the human DNA. At some points, asset prices become hopelessly disconnected from the value and utility of the underlying asset. I think the initial rush into crypto was healthy because it funded (and continues to fund) hundreds of full-time researchers who can push the field forward. But at some point the speculative fever becomes a disease that can hurt more than it helps. The sooner we develop real-world applications based on public blockchains as an anchor-point to reality, the better.
    - nicksdjohnson 9y ago
      > And my point was that if you look at ETH/ETC, the market is saying that they feel more comfortable with a known, trusted authority (i.e. small group of developers with trademarks and a conference schedule) than they do with true democratized first principles of immutable code. But the fork wasn't a referendum on the governance model of Ethereum. If you picked ETC, you get your liberterian utopia - but you also get a chain where someone made off with 10% of the Ether supply.

by cjslep 9y ago

jhildings 9y ago

Can you provide a solution to force all miners to run the same software forever? Exactly

cjslep 9y ago
Your hostile strawman/reducto-ad-absurdum is not appreciated. My criticism is a valid one, despite my mortal limitations.

sf_rob 9y ago

And in the same breath criticize Bitcoin for consolidation of mining power (which is a valid criticism).

leashless 9y ago
There are cans of worms I could not open. I'm sorry.

lawik 9y ago

Was this around The DAO? Any good reading on it?

nugget 9y ago

I am a fan of Ethereum but I wish they (and other alt-coins) would be honest about the fact that there is very much a central authority at work; in Ethereum's case, it's a small network of developers and mining pools. That's not necessarily bad, but let's at least be honest about it. Admit that central authorities have a role to play (and may take many different forms). Recent events clearly reflect, to me at least, that the value of a blockchain doesn't depend upon the lack of a central authority (indeed, investors may feel safer with a steady hand on the wheel) or immutability (Ethereum violated supposed rule #1 and look at how the market has voted, i.e. ETH/ETC price variance).

erikpukinskis 9y ago
In what way is a voluntary network of independent miners a central authority?
- nugget 9y ago
  The top 5 ETH pools control about 75% of the hash rate. Buterin (for whom I have lots of respect) and others have routinely commented that centralization is a problem in both PoW and PoS systems. In both systems, the problem is "the rich get richer" (as PoW is essentially "proof of stake" in the form of expensive hardware and electricity). But more to the point, look at what happened with ETH and ETC. The Ethereum Foundation could have decided to hard fork without any particular % of support. Consensus was needed for price support, not to complete the fork. Let's say they forked with only 25% support. The new fork retains the ETH brand. The old chain rebrands (i.e. ETC). The market then votes on how much they value the old versus the new. Now look at ETH/ETC since the fork: the market is saying that they feel more comfortable with a known, trusted authority (i.e. small group of developers with trademarks and a conference schedule) than they do with true democratized first principles of immutable code. I'm not a righteous zealot, I agree with what ETH did and would have done the same thing; I am just calling it out for what it is. Humans love to collect, horde, and trade items: puka shells, tulips, dot com stocks. Speculation is hard-wired into the human DNA. At some points, asset prices become hopelessly disconnected from the value and utility of the underlying asset. I think the initial rush into crypto was healthy because it funded (and continues to fund) hundreds of full-time researchers who can push the field forward. But at some point the speculative fever becomes a disease that can hurt more than it helps. The sooner we develop real-world applications based on public blockchains as an anchor-point to reality, the better.
  - nicksdjohnson 9y ago
    > And my point was that if you look at ETH/ETC, the market is saying that they feel more comfortable with a known, trusted authority (i.e. small group of developers with trademarks and a conference schedule) than they do with true democratized first principles of immutable code. But the fork wasn't a referendum on the governance model of Ethereum. If you picked ETC, you get your liberterian utopia - but you also get a chain where someone made off with 10% of the Ether supply.