7 ms·

Case in point: was an early adopter of Eth, mined many of the very early blocks. Sold it all back in February. One of the reasons? The whole Eth 2.0 upgrade

Case in point: was an early adopter of Eth, mined many of the very early blocks. Sold it all back in February. One of the reasons? The whole Eth 2.0 upgrade requires both a base level node (Ethererum sanctioned) and a "2.0 validator node" where one is supposed to trust a 3rd party implementation with minimally 10s of thousands of dollars per stake. At least with a 1st party node the Ethereum Foundation stood behind it but now there is no official release backing the future of the project, only a spec. How is anyone sane supposed to run their own servers in this case?

faangiq 4y ago
Also ETH is nonsense with no use case.
- optimiz3 4y ago
  Wouldn't go that far - the programmable aspects were at release were certainly unique and value added.
  - coldpie 4y ago
    Wait till this guy hears about stored procedures.
  - RC_ITR 4y ago
    To do what? (Other than enable financial engineering)
    - fddhjjj 4y ago
      Why would programmable money be useful for anything beyond financial engineering. It’s literally engineering + finance. Why is financial engineering inherently universally without qualification bad? I have a mortgage, an index fund, and an ATM card. I :heart: financial engineering.
      - freemint 4y ago
        > Why is financial engineering inherently universally without qualification bad? Yeah because it takes up engineering time and produces no tangible good but to widen inequality.
        fddhjjj 4y ago
        I cited three examples of financial engineering. Just to be clear you oppose mortgages, index funds, and ATM machines? I agree all of these or at least mortgages and index funds probably increase inequality especially given uneven access. As far as tangible goods — home ownership, retirement savings, and less time spent waiting at the bank.
        RC_ITR 4y ago
        You did not cite 3 examples of "financial engineering," you cited examples of "financial services." If crypto made it meaningfully easier to borrow capital to invest in utility assets, then I'd :heart: it too. (Mortgages) If crypto made it meaningfully easier to own equity capital in assets priced by utility, then I'd :heart: it too. (ETFS) If crypto made it meaningfully easier to transact for utility goods/services with my capital, then I'd :heart: it too (ATMS) Crypto dos none of these things. What it does do, is it allows me to arb trade against misinformed retail liquidity providers who foolishly put their capital into DEX's.
        fddhjjj 4y ago
        Can you provide a decision rule that distinguishes financial services from financial engineering? I do not feel as confident as you seem that the group of things called “crypto” will not be useful for financial services.
        RC_ITR 4y ago
        My definition: Financial engineering is the quantitative isolation and amplification of financial risk/reward, usually through leveraged/synthetic derivative products. There's no perfect source, but you can see similar definitions here [0] [1] [2] To give you a crypto example of this, Aave is financial engineering, because it allows users to make a bet that they can execute high-volume short-duration trades that yield more than Aave lending fees. In terms of what is financial services, my definition is: Any action taken that allows capital holders to better deploy their capital into the real (read: goods and services) economy. Again, no prefect source, but [3] [4] [5] Again the key nuance here is financial services primarily focus on supporting the real economy, while financial engineering is primarily focused on risk/reward And to be frank, I would absolutely love it if cryptocurrencies supported the real economy in literally any way shape or form. I would get "BTC4Life" tattooed on my forehead, I would dedicate my life to working for the innovators in the space, but unless you've got some secret, I don't think you can give me an example of literally anything cryptocurrency does to support the real economy that a centralized solution couldn't also do. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Financial_engineering https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Financial_engineering [1] https://www.investopedia.com/terms/f/financialengineering.asp#:~:text=Financial%20engineering%20is%20the%20use,new%20and%20innovative%20financial%20products https://www.investopedia.com/terms/f/financialengineering.as.... [2] https://www.iaqf.org/what-is-financial-engineering https://www.iaqf.org/what-is-financial-engineering [3] https://www.imf.org/external/pubs/ft/fandd/2011/03/basics.htm https://www.imf.org/external/pubs/ft/fandd/2011/03/basics.ht... [4] https://www.cisa.gov/financial-services-sector https://www.cisa.gov/financial-services-sector [5] https://www.law.cornell.edu/definitions/uscode.php?width=840&height=800&iframe=true&def_id=12-USC-2042094144-351334289&term_occur=999&term_src=title:12:chapter:53:subchapter:V:part:C:section:5536 https://www.law.cornell.edu/definitions/uscode.php?width=840...
    - aasasd 4y ago
      Put in one buck, take out two bucks. The American Dream.
  - JustFinishedBSG 4y ago
    I don't see any value in the ability to program a very very limited Ti-89 for hundreds of dollars per hours ( and matching ecological impact )
    - dehrmann 4y ago
      I found this to be a very interesting feature, but yes, it's woefully inefficient, competes with efficient tech, and I'm not convinced it'll follow a Moore's Law trend and be a viable 286 replacement in 2035.
  - ALittleLight 4y ago
    Are there any useful programs that aren't about creating or moving tokens or "play to earn" style games? (Which, to be clear, I do not consider useful)
- kybernetyk 4y ago
  They have a use case: roll backs when something goes """"wrong"""" ;)
bouncycastle 4y ago
Ethereum sanctioned, you mean Geth? Geth does not go away in 2.0. You will still need it, as it's still the main software that executes the transactions. "2.0 validator" is not a node, it's more like a client that talks to the PoS chain nodes (Beacon).
- optimiz3 4y ago
  Until there's an Ethereum Foundation backed validator, a huge number of people are going to stay away. The Ethereum Foundation can do things like roll back a broken DAO. A 3rd party offering a potentially broken validator cannot force a fork to fix things. It's also super weird the foundation is not building the validation code into Geth and making it a baseline part of a reference node as PoW certainly is.
  - bouncycastle 4y ago
    Nope. The Ethereum Foundation foundation cannot do anything either. Think of the foundation as someone like the World Wide Web Consortium. They research and lead the protocol(s) standardisation, but it's not up to them to do the implementation, besides perhaps providing a reference implementation.
jlokier 4y ago
The Ethereum Foundation takes the view that "client diversity" of proof-of-stake validator implementations is a security requirement: https://ethereum.org/en/developers/docs/nodes-and-clients/client-diversity/ https://ethereum.org/en/developers/docs/nodes-and-clients/cl... Shipping an endorsed EF implementation would undermine that requirement. So instead, they publish and regularly update a spec, the major clients are all open source, to some extent the EF has sponsored the development of multiple clients, there is continuous interop testing between all the major clients going on, and the client teams meet at weekly EF meetings. Ideally they would like to see client diversity in the execution layer as well (Geth et al), and consider single-client (Geth) dominance to be a weak part of the system.

faangiq 4y ago

Also ETH is nonsense with no use case.

optimiz3 4y ago
Wouldn't go that far - the programmable aspects were at release were certainly unique and value added.
- coldpie 4y ago
  Wait till this guy hears about stored procedures.
- RC_ITR 4y ago
  To do what? (Other than enable financial engineering)
  - fddhjjj 4y ago
    Why would programmable money be useful for anything beyond financial engineering. It’s literally engineering + finance. Why is financial engineering inherently universally without qualification bad? I have a mortgage, an index fund, and an ATM card. I :heart: financial engineering.
    - freemint 4y ago
      > Why is financial engineering inherently universally without qualification bad? Yeah because it takes up engineering time and produces no tangible good but to widen inequality.
      - fddhjjj 4y ago
        I cited three examples of financial engineering. Just to be clear you oppose mortgages, index funds, and ATM machines? I agree all of these or at least mortgages and index funds probably increase inequality especially given uneven access. As far as tangible goods — home ownership, retirement savings, and less time spent waiting at the bank.
        RC_ITR 4y ago
        You did not cite 3 examples of "financial engineering," you cited examples of "financial services." If crypto made it meaningfully easier to borrow capital to invest in utility assets, then I'd :heart: it too. (Mortgages) If crypto made it meaningfully easier to own equity capital in assets priced by utility, then I'd :heart: it too. (ETFS) If crypto made it meaningfully easier to transact for utility goods/services with my capital, then I'd :heart: it too (ATMS) Crypto dos none of these things. What it does do, is it allows me to arb trade against misinformed retail liquidity providers who foolishly put their capital into DEX's.
        fddhjjj 4y ago
        Can you provide a decision rule that distinguishes financial services from financial engineering? I do not feel as confident as you seem that the group of things called “crypto” will not be useful for financial services.
        RC_ITR 4y ago
        My definition: Financial engineering is the quantitative isolation and amplification of financial risk/reward, usually through leveraged/synthetic derivative products. There's no perfect source, but you can see similar definitions here [0] [1] [2] To give you a crypto example of this, Aave is financial engineering, because it allows users to make a bet that they can execute high-volume short-duration trades that yield more than Aave lending fees. In terms of what is financial services, my definition is: Any action taken that allows capital holders to better deploy their capital into the real (read: goods and services) economy. Again, no prefect source, but [3] [4] [5] Again the key nuance here is financial services primarily focus on supporting the real economy, while financial engineering is primarily focused on risk/reward And to be frank, I would absolutely love it if cryptocurrencies supported the real economy in literally any way shape or form. I would get "BTC4Life" tattooed on my forehead, I would dedicate my life to working for the innovators in the space, but unless you've got some secret, I don't think you can give me an example of literally anything cryptocurrency does to support the real economy that a centralized solution couldn't also do. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Financial_engineering https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Financial_engineering [1] https://www.investopedia.com/terms/f/financialengineering.asp#:~:text=Financial%20engineering%20is%20the%20use,new%20and%20innovative%20financial%20products https://www.investopedia.com/terms/f/financialengineering.as.... [2] https://www.iaqf.org/what-is-financial-engineering https://www.iaqf.org/what-is-financial-engineering [3] https://www.imf.org/external/pubs/ft/fandd/2011/03/basics.htm https://www.imf.org/external/pubs/ft/fandd/2011/03/basics.ht... [4] https://www.cisa.gov/financial-services-sector https://www.cisa.gov/financial-services-sector [5] https://www.law.cornell.edu/definitions/uscode.php?width=840&height=800&iframe=true&def_id=12-USC-2042094144-351334289&term_occur=999&term_src=title:12:chapter:53:subchapter:V:part:C:section:5536 https://www.law.cornell.edu/definitions/uscode.php?width=840...
  - aasasd 4y ago
    Put in one buck, take out two bucks. The American Dream.
- JustFinishedBSG 4y ago
  I don't see any value in the ability to program a very very limited Ti-89 for hundreds of dollars per hours ( and matching ecological impact )
  - dehrmann 4y ago
    I found this to be a very interesting feature, but yes, it's woefully inefficient, competes with efficient tech, and I'm not convinced it'll follow a Moore's Law trend and be a viable 286 replacement in 2035.
- ALittleLight 4y ago
  Are there any useful programs that aren't about creating or moving tokens or "play to earn" style games? (Which, to be clear, I do not consider useful)
kybernetyk 4y ago
They have a use case: roll backs when something goes """"wrong"""" ;)

bouncycastle 4y ago

Ethereum sanctioned, you mean Geth? Geth does not go away in 2.0. You will still need it, as it's still the main software that executes the transactions. "2.0 validator" is not a node, it's more like a client that talks to the PoS chain nodes (Beacon).

optimiz3 4y ago
Until there's an Ethereum Foundation backed validator, a huge number of people are going to stay away. The Ethereum Foundation can do things like roll back a broken DAO. A 3rd party offering a potentially broken validator cannot force a fork to fix things. It's also super weird the foundation is not building the validation code into Geth and making it a baseline part of a reference node as PoW certainly is.
- bouncycastle 4y ago
  Nope. The Ethereum Foundation foundation cannot do anything either. Think of the foundation as someone like the World Wide Web Consortium. They research and lead the protocol(s) standardisation, but it's not up to them to do the implementation, besides perhaps providing a reference implementation.

jlokier 4y ago

The Ethereum Foundation takes the view that "client diversity" of proof-of-stake validator implementations is a security requirement: https://ethereum.org/en/developers/docs/nodes-and-clients/client-diversity/ https://ethereum.org/en/developers/docs/nodes-and-clients/cl... Shipping an endorsed EF implementation would undermine that requirement. So instead, they publish and regularly update a spec, the major clients are all open source, to some extent the EF has sponsored the development of multiple clients, there is continuous interop testing between all the major clients going on, and the client teams meet at weekly EF meetings. Ideally they would like to see client diversity in the execution layer as well (Geth et al), and consider single-client (Geth) dominance to be a weak part of the system.