4 ms·

Here are a few of the reasons that come to mind as to why this transition has been taking us so long: * The design of the Beacon Chain is far more optimised th

Here are a few of the reasons that come to mind as to why this transition has been taking us so long: * The design of the Beacon Chain is far more optimised than our initial designs for a PoS system * There are far more crypto-economic edge cases in a PoS system when compared to PoW * Software development is hard and time estimates are even harder * The use of a hybrid fork choice to balance safety and liveness trade-offs * There is a crazy amount of value being handles on Ethereum so it is necessary to be conservative with our changes (move fast and break things is not an option) * There are 4 concurrent implementations being developed all of which need to be inter-compatible, and production ready * As Ethereum governance is decentralised we need a shelling point for exactly what Ethereum PoS looks like, this takes time * We have worked hard to create, encourage, and embrace standards with other chains so that the cryptocurrency community of tomorrow is more inter-compatible (eg. IETF BLS standard or libp2p networking) * We have spent time designing around quantum-computing resistant backups for the majority of the cryptography (eg. validators all have a Lamport backup key though most don't realise it) * New cryptography has been developed and previously abandoned schemes revitalised (eg. Verifiable Delay Functions or the Legendre PRF)

rfd4sgmk8u 5y ago
* Its a technically flawed solution that now has so much hype, abandoning the idea would lead to further FUD, tarnishing the project's future direction. So we must go through the motions to appease the energy FUD warriors.
- CarlBeek 5y ago
  lol, Ethereum's Beacon Chain already been running since Dec 1. See https://beaconcha.in/ https://beaconcha.in/ Please point me towards the flaws.
  - rfd4sgmk8u 5y ago
    Point me at its purpose? As far as I can tell, it was a trick to remove coin from circulation, locking it away where it could not be used again. The fact that people have tokenized these beacon coins on other chains to trade show that people want their money back!
    - jwitko 5y ago
      No, it really doesn't. This is akin to saying because people take out second mortgages they really want their money back that they bought their house with. Being able to leverage a committed sum of money via collateralization is as old as financial systems themselves. If you can find any specific reasons for your take I'm very open to hearing about them?
      - rfd4sgmk8u 5y ago
        In the world of hard money (bitcoin), leverage is extremely dangerous, you may never be able to repay the loan. You would not want to borrow a house worth of bitcoin in a 2nd mortgage -- you could never pay it back! In the legacy financial world, 2nd mortgages just lead to private inflation of the fiat money supply (the money is being conjured out of nothing to pay for an asset that was already paid for). Nothing is produced, except some energy is burned updating centralized databases. Having systems where both realities exist is great. I'm a fan of hard money. It is honest.
    - ascendantlogic 5y ago
      To establish "good enough" distributed consensus without burning absolutely enormous amounts of energy doing throwaway math problems?
      - rfd4sgmk8u 5y ago
        I understand what they wanted to achieve, and I understand that they cannot achieve this. Seems that burning absolutely enormous amounts of energy is the only secure way of doing it. I guess rather than fight the universe, we better find a way to do it cleanly!
        ascendantlogic 5y ago
        > and I understand that they cannot achieve this Gonna need some citations here for this one.
defaultname 5y ago
And by far the most significant hindrance to moving away from proof of work is that there a number of significant players who have a large economic interest in PoW. Ethereum was promising this move many years ago, but it always was an extraordinarily low priority. There are a lot of people with perverse biases. Many of the comments enthusiastically defending Bitcoin are people who are sitting on BTC and have watched it get pummelled due to its ludicrous enormous-energy-for-something-that-does-nothing-for-humanity reality (seriously -- if I see one more chart comparing the entirety of the financial industry with Bitcoin. The former powers the entire world. The latter powers some speculators, criminals, and a minuscule number of legitimate transactions).
- vmception 5y ago
  I disagree about the priority, they literally didn't know what they were doing or how to do it just yet. The security demands this community wants are and were completely science fiction as there is no proof of stake network that has met the goals they are aiming for, and they are simply much closer to reality now. There was poor governance and management that debilitated their ability to function during the 3 year bear market. And they got their act together. In the mean time, more product market fit was made apparent and upgrades to the instruction set for arbitrary execution was done to the network and continues to this day. The Ethereum network consists of many-to-many relationships for approval transactions for ERC20 tokens to interact with other smart contracts. This wasn't even foreseeable 18 months ago, and 18 months before that the ERC20 protocol wasn't even ratified.
- webXL 5y ago
  > Does nothing for humanity Really? If that energy consumption problem wasn't there, what advantages does Ethereum have over Bitcoin? Would it even exist, since it offers many of the same features?
  - meowface 5y ago
    Ethereum natively supports smart contracts. Bitcoin doesn't support them natively; any attempt to add them has to be a separate layer on top. That's why the past few years have seen a rise in fungible and non-fungible tokens (average merit of those aside for the sake of argument, since this is just answering the question "it offers many of the same features"), pretty much all of which are hosted on Ethereum or Ethereum code forks like Binance Smart Chain.

rfd4sgmk8u 5y ago

* Its a technically flawed solution that now has so much hype, abandoning the idea would lead to further FUD, tarnishing the project's future direction. So we must go through the motions to appease the energy FUD warriors.

CarlBeek 5y ago
lol, Ethereum's Beacon Chain already been running since Dec 1. See https://beaconcha.in/ https://beaconcha.in/ Please point me towards the flaws.
- rfd4sgmk8u 5y ago
  Point me at its purpose? As far as I can tell, it was a trick to remove coin from circulation, locking it away where it could not be used again. The fact that people have tokenized these beacon coins on other chains to trade show that people want their money back!
  - jwitko 5y ago
    No, it really doesn't. This is akin to saying because people take out second mortgages they really want their money back that they bought their house with. Being able to leverage a committed sum of money via collateralization is as old as financial systems themselves. If you can find any specific reasons for your take I'm very open to hearing about them?
    - rfd4sgmk8u 5y ago
      In the world of hard money (bitcoin), leverage is extremely dangerous, you may never be able to repay the loan. You would not want to borrow a house worth of bitcoin in a 2nd mortgage -- you could never pay it back! In the legacy financial world, 2nd mortgages just lead to private inflation of the fiat money supply (the money is being conjured out of nothing to pay for an asset that was already paid for). Nothing is produced, except some energy is burned updating centralized databases. Having systems where both realities exist is great. I'm a fan of hard money. It is honest.
  - ascendantlogic 5y ago
    To establish "good enough" distributed consensus without burning absolutely enormous amounts of energy doing throwaway math problems?
    - rfd4sgmk8u 5y ago
      I understand what they wanted to achieve, and I understand that they cannot achieve this. Seems that burning absolutely enormous amounts of energy is the only secure way of doing it. I guess rather than fight the universe, we better find a way to do it cleanly!
      - ascendantlogic 5y ago
        > and I understand that they cannot achieve this Gonna need some citations here for this one.

defaultname 5y ago

And by far the most significant hindrance to moving away from proof of work is that there a number of significant players who have a large economic interest in PoW. Ethereum was promising this move many years ago, but it always was an extraordinarily low priority. There are a lot of people with perverse biases. Many of the comments enthusiastically defending Bitcoin are people who are sitting on BTC and have watched it get pummelled due to its ludicrous enormous-energy-for-something-that-does-nothing-for-humanity reality (seriously -- if I see one more chart comparing the entirety of the financial industry with Bitcoin. The former powers the entire world. The latter powers some speculators, criminals, and a minuscule number of legitimate transactions).

vmception 5y ago
I disagree about the priority, they literally didn't know what they were doing or how to do it just yet. The security demands this community wants are and were completely science fiction as there is no proof of stake network that has met the goals they are aiming for, and they are simply much closer to reality now. There was poor governance and management that debilitated their ability to function during the 3 year bear market. And they got their act together. In the mean time, more product market fit was made apparent and upgrades to the instruction set for arbitrary execution was done to the network and continues to this day. The Ethereum network consists of many-to-many relationships for approval transactions for ERC20 tokens to interact with other smart contracts. This wasn't even foreseeable 18 months ago, and 18 months before that the ERC20 protocol wasn't even ratified.
webXL 5y ago
> Does nothing for humanity Really? If that energy consumption problem wasn't there, what advantages does Ethereum have over Bitcoin? Would it even exist, since it offers many of the same features?
- meowface 5y ago
  Ethereum natively supports smart contracts. Bitcoin doesn't support them natively; any attempt to add them has to be a separate layer on top. That's why the past few years have seen a rise in fungible and non-fungible tokens (average merit of those aside for the sake of argument, since this is just answering the question "it offers many of the same features"), pretty much all of which are hosted on Ethereum or Ethereum code forks like Binance Smart Chain.