5 ms·

I'd suggest following ethereum and it's founder Vitalik. He's explicitly said things like, "If all that we accomplish is lambo memes and immature puns about "sh

I'd suggest following ethereum and it's founder Vitalik. He's explicitly said things like, "If all that we accomplish is lambo memes and immature puns about "sharting", then I WILL leave. Though I still have a lot of hope that the community can steer in the right direction." He has worked with the UN world food program, and posts a lot of material on voting, economic fairness, and social aspects of blockchain in general. It seems like he is genuinely interested in using blockchain for general societal good, rather than just speculative price chasing.

dontTango 6y ago
Ethereum removed the 100M soft cap on EIP 669. This was quietly slipped through with no debate. ETH shouldn't be trusted.
- Entwickler 6y ago
  Can you provide evidence of no debate, and reasons on why the soft cap is a bad idea when transactions burn eth anyways and the eth inflation rate is around 4% per year, and slated to drop to 0.5%-2.0% with the transition to ETH 2.0?
  - whoisninja 6y ago
    typical monetary policy issue, if it is easy to change - they will keep changing
- rodiger 6y ago
  Inflation is good for currencies / anything that's meant to be used.
  - spurgu 6y ago
    One exception to this that pops to mind is computers, which have gradually gotten cheaper. Even though you always get a better one if you wait, it hasn't deterred consumers.
    - a1369209993 6y ago
      That's not a exception; in fact it's probably the most blatant supporting evidence available for "Inflation is good for [...] anything that's meant to be used.". Computers have been undergoing borderline hyperinflation (factor of two every year-and-a-half or so) for decades, and this is extremely good for anyone who wants to use a computer.
      - ogogmad 6y ago
        You got it the wrong way round. Deflation means when prices are dropping. The price of computers has fallen over time predictably and exponentially, and yet that hasn't stopped people from buying them. The Keynesian argument against deflation is that it disincentivizes people from spending money as they expect prices to drop. This disincentive hasn't prevented the computer industry from being a huge success. The fact that you know that if you wait some time you can get a faster and cheaper computer doesn't prevent you ad infinitum from buying computers.
        rodiger 6y ago
        Kinda unintuitive, but if you look at processing power as a currency, it is actually undergoing hyperinflation (number of computers + processing power increases every year). Meaning you buy a computer, assuming its value will drop (due to the inflationary nature).
        spurgu 6y ago
        > if you look at processing power as a currency, it is actually undergoing hyperinflation So in relation (for this particular scenario) the USD is undergoing hyperdeflation..? Whatever you call it the psychological effect with computers is the same as with a rising bitcoin price - you get more bang for the buck the longer you hold off on your purchase.
        a1369209993 6y ago
        > So in relation (for this particular scenario) the USD is undergoing hyperdeflation..? Relative to computers/processing power, yes, although you generally wouldn't describe it that way, since USD is (comparatively) stable with respect most other stores of value - it's computers that are changing in value, so it's computers that should be described as undergoing inflation. Relative to (the relevant average of) other stores of value, dollars are undergoing inflation, just more slowly than computers.
- DennisP 6y ago
  EIP669 was a difficulty bomb delay. The difficulty bomb was never intended to make monetary policy. The point was to keep upgrades from failing to deploy due to node operator complacency. The difficulty bomb forces them to upgrade their code in some way, either to the upgraded version, or to the same old version with a bomb delay. Issuance right now is 2 ETH/block. The white paper just promised 5 ETH/block forever. https://ethereum.org/en/whitepaper/ https://ethereum.org/en/whitepaper/
drcross 6y ago
DAO rollback made them untrustable for me. You do you but a key required feature of my cryptocurrency should be sovereignty.
- anonymousDan 6y ago
  I hear this criticism a lot. And I don't disagree with it fundamentally, but I would be interested to hear how its advocates justify the decision. How do the Ethereum founders attempt to rebut it? Are there any good counterarguments?
  - abstrct 6y ago
    I'll preface the following by saying I fundamentally disagreed with rolling back the DAO as the entire purpose of these networks is immutability and their trustless nature. The reasons for it, even on their own, all make a lot of sense: - Ethereum has always wanted to move to Proof of Stake, a move that would have been impossible if 25% of the networks funds were suddenly in the hands of a nefarious actor. - The DAO was intended to seed development into projects that would benefit ethereum and the blockchain space as a whole. It was an incredible amount of capital that was all intended to help evolve the network. Losing all this capital and momentum would have been detrimental to that goal. - The DAO was arguably an unlicensed security and losing the funds of that many investors would have been a problem for many who had a hand in building it. By returning investments, they basically made this a non-issue. So again, do I agree with the choice? Absolutely not, you should not proclaim "code is law!" until it's inconvenient for you. Did they have a choice? No, the roll-back was inevitable as soon as the DAO contract was deployed.
  - blurpesec 6y ago
    Some rebuttal: 1) There wasn't a rollback of the blockchain - the method to fix this was an irregular state change (I.e - at block z, change balance at address x to address y). This was only possible because the nature of the attack left all of the compromised funds locked in place for 30 days. Arguably, if it required a rollback of the blockchain, people probably wouldn't have gone along with it. (Though node operators and miners may still have as evidenced by the bitcoin supply bug and rollback in 2010) 2) The funds in the DAO at the time were roughly 14% of the total supply at the time. This is ~1.5x the amount of ether currently custodied by the largest ether custodians today. 3) The common argument of this event being a slippery slope and that it would lead to frequent recovery of hacked funds has turned out to be false. 4) Since the state change was introduced as a software upgrade, node operators (mining pools & infrastructure providers) all had to opt into the change - which a large majority did. This would indicate that most organizations and individuals were either in favor of this solution or were apathetic to the solution

dontTango 6y ago

Ethereum removed the 100M soft cap on EIP 669. This was quietly slipped through with no debate. ETH shouldn't be trusted.

Entwickler 6y ago
Can you provide evidence of no debate, and reasons on why the soft cap is a bad idea when transactions burn eth anyways and the eth inflation rate is around 4% per year, and slated to drop to 0.5%-2.0% with the transition to ETH 2.0?
- whoisninja 6y ago
  typical monetary policy issue, if it is easy to change - they will keep changing
rodiger 6y ago
Inflation is good for currencies / anything that's meant to be used.
- spurgu 6y ago
  One exception to this that pops to mind is computers, which have gradually gotten cheaper. Even though you always get a better one if you wait, it hasn't deterred consumers.
  - a1369209993 6y ago
    That's not a exception; in fact it's probably the most blatant supporting evidence available for "Inflation is good for [...] anything that's meant to be used.". Computers have been undergoing borderline hyperinflation (factor of two every year-and-a-half or so) for decades, and this is extremely good for anyone who wants to use a computer.
    - ogogmad 6y ago
      You got it the wrong way round. Deflation means when prices are dropping. The price of computers has fallen over time predictably and exponentially, and yet that hasn't stopped people from buying them. The Keynesian argument against deflation is that it disincentivizes people from spending money as they expect prices to drop. This disincentive hasn't prevented the computer industry from being a huge success. The fact that you know that if you wait some time you can get a faster and cheaper computer doesn't prevent you ad infinitum from buying computers.
      - rodiger 6y ago
        Kinda unintuitive, but if you look at processing power as a currency, it is actually undergoing hyperinflation (number of computers + processing power increases every year). Meaning you buy a computer, assuming its value will drop (due to the inflationary nature).
        spurgu 6y ago
        > if you look at processing power as a currency, it is actually undergoing hyperinflation So in relation (for this particular scenario) the USD is undergoing hyperdeflation..? Whatever you call it the psychological effect with computers is the same as with a rising bitcoin price - you get more bang for the buck the longer you hold off on your purchase.
        a1369209993 6y ago
        > So in relation (for this particular scenario) the USD is undergoing hyperdeflation..? Relative to computers/processing power, yes, although you generally wouldn't describe it that way, since USD is (comparatively) stable with respect most other stores of value - it's computers that are changing in value, so it's computers that should be described as undergoing inflation. Relative to (the relevant average of) other stores of value, dollars are undergoing inflation, just more slowly than computers.
DennisP 6y ago
EIP669 was a difficulty bomb delay. The difficulty bomb was never intended to make monetary policy. The point was to keep upgrades from failing to deploy due to node operator complacency. The difficulty bomb forces them to upgrade their code in some way, either to the upgraded version, or to the same old version with a bomb delay. Issuance right now is 2 ETH/block. The white paper just promised 5 ETH/block forever. https://ethereum.org/en/whitepaper/ https://ethereum.org/en/whitepaper/

drcross 6y ago

DAO rollback made them untrustable for me. You do you but a key required feature of my cryptocurrency should be sovereignty.

anonymousDan 6y ago
I hear this criticism a lot. And I don't disagree with it fundamentally, but I would be interested to hear how its advocates justify the decision. How do the Ethereum founders attempt to rebut it? Are there any good counterarguments?
- abstrct 6y ago
  I'll preface the following by saying I fundamentally disagreed with rolling back the DAO as the entire purpose of these networks is immutability and their trustless nature. The reasons for it, even on their own, all make a lot of sense: - Ethereum has always wanted to move to Proof of Stake, a move that would have been impossible if 25% of the networks funds were suddenly in the hands of a nefarious actor. - The DAO was intended to seed development into projects that would benefit ethereum and the blockchain space as a whole. It was an incredible amount of capital that was all intended to help evolve the network. Losing all this capital and momentum would have been detrimental to that goal. - The DAO was arguably an unlicensed security and losing the funds of that many investors would have been a problem for many who had a hand in building it. By returning investments, they basically made this a non-issue. So again, do I agree with the choice? Absolutely not, you should not proclaim "code is law!" until it's inconvenient for you. Did they have a choice? No, the roll-back was inevitable as soon as the DAO contract was deployed.
- blurpesec 6y ago
  Some rebuttal: 1) There wasn't a rollback of the blockchain - the method to fix this was an irregular state change (I.e - at block z, change balance at address x to address y). This was only possible because the nature of the attack left all of the compromised funds locked in place for 30 days. Arguably, if it required a rollback of the blockchain, people probably wouldn't have gone along with it. (Though node operators and miners may still have as evidenced by the bitcoin supply bug and rollback in 2010) 2) The funds in the DAO at the time were roughly 14% of the total supply at the time. This is ~1.5x the amount of ether currently custodied by the largest ether custodians today. 3) The common argument of this event being a slippery slope and that it would lead to frequent recovery of hacked funds has turned out to be false. 4) Since the state change was introduced as a software upgrade, node operators (mining pools & infrastructure providers) all had to opt into the change - which a large majority did. This would indicate that most organizations and individuals were either in favor of this solution or were apathetic to the solution