13 ms·

Should Ethereum be okay with enshrining more things in the protocol?

75 points by skilled 3y ago

dcreater 3y ago
Ethereum should be ok withering away to make way for new crop. It's a tainted chain.
- pazimzadeh 3y ago
  Because…
  - cmcaleer 3y ago
    Because paying fees measured in dollars for transaction times sometimes measured in minutes is absurd when chains exist where fees are fractions of a cent with transactions consistently measured in low seconds. L2s solve this to an extent but it's very user-unfriendly and confusing.
    - palmfacehn 3y ago
      The wallet UX is horrible. There will always be a portion of people who will download and run malicious software or enter sensitive data into obvious scams. However the entire wallet security model makes it too easy for malicious sites to drain wallets. Other chains have innovated by creating contract specific key pairs and the GIANT RED WARNINGS you'd expect when creating a key pair with permission to transfer assets. I'm not sure that the expensive transactions in ETH are something entrenched interests are willing to do away with.
    - mattdesl 3y ago
      Most of the chains that solve this do so by making certain compromises (around security, decentralization) that Ethereum core develops are unwilling to adopt. Other chains are simply cheaper to use because there is less market pressure (ie: fewer users).
  - deleted 3y ago
    [deleted]
  - deleted 3y ago
    [deleted]
- 5350-uiop-1130 3y ago
  isn't it layer 2's now, and L3. almost like they're building a pyramid :D it seems like these new chains just exist to sustain the illusion of newness, and the creation of new shitcoins on new platforms, giving the idea of opportunity but actually just allowing the same shovel sellers (CEXs/miners/validators) to take in fees on gambling. and i think decentralization is a meme topic. at best you have a handful of insiders in a PVP stalemate, at worst you end up in a fractured tribal warfare and liquidity vampirism.
  - kylebenzle 3y ago
    You are correct. In the space most projects are scams, pretty much EVERYTHING on Ethereum, including Ethereum, is a cash grab by people who missed the boat with Bitcoin. The Bitcoin project (BTC) failed and is now call Bitcoin Cash (BCH) which is doing great as p2p cash but it turns out no one cares about p2p cash, just cash.
    - kranke155 3y ago
      Spoken like a Bitcoin maxi.
      - sMarsIntruder 3y ago
        Which is definitely better than talking about shitcoin. Oh, wait.
  - spaceman_2020 3y ago
    I have a lot of misgivings about crypto, but its also true that we’re moving towards a world where the digital economy is massive, global, and deeply embedded in livelihoods. That world does require new tools to ascertain ownership of digital assets (since a lot of people will make their living through creating/selling these assets) and paying for digital assets (global commerce requires global and open payment systems). At least crypto is trying to fix this problem
    - 3y ago
kylebenzle 3y ago
Or: In which Ethereum developers simultaneously all lost their minds.
dleeftink 3y ago
Between "enshrined in-protocol account abstraction", "pre-verification gas", "liquid staking" and "single-slot finality", this style of blog writing is not easy to follow along. The author would do well to minimise jargon and elaborate the core tenets in smaller chunks, rather than the wall of technical terms it currently is presented as.
- hbbio 3y ago
  There is always jargon somewhere and blockchains are complex systems: As it is a "distributed giant computer protocol" there are always debate on enshrined in protocol (as built-in vs implemented with the existing primitives), account abstraction being the hot topic right now as a way to simplify the UX for users without wallets, etc. I am really not sure it would be better without jargon as each of these terms has a precise meaning.
  - dleeftink 3y ago
    I'm okay with jargon, but the ratio can be off sometimes. When the ratio becomes too skewed, there's risk of side-fumbling or even encabuloration [0]. [0]: https://youtu.be/RXJKdh1KZ0w https://youtu.be/RXJKdh1KZ0w
- ToucanLoucan 3y ago
  Alternative view: No one who isn't already in on the Ethereum c̶o̶m̶m̶u̶n̶i̶t̶y̶ scam gives a shit about this. Besides-which: All of crypto use obfuscated technical and communal terms all through all their material, documentation and writing. Some of this is because the underlying tech is very complicated and the discussions of it's politics are also by virtue of that, some of it is because they like their technobabble because it makes it seem more interesting than it actually is and lends it authority from people who don't know any better, who are their best new investors. Edits: I swear you could strike text on here but it seems I can't figure out how. Edited edit: thank you kind stranger
  - kylebenzle 3y ago
    I̶t̶ d̶o̶e̶s̶n̶'t̶, b̶u̶t̶ d̶o̶e̶s̶ s̶u̶p̶p̶o̶r̶t̶ u̶n̶i̶c̶o̶d̶e̶ t̶e̶x̶t̶, s̶o̶ u̶s̶e̶ j̶u̶s̶t̶ a̶n̶o̶t̶h̶e̶r̶ s̶i̶t̶e̶ a̶n̶d̶ t̶h̶e̶n̶ c̶o̶p̶y̶-̶p̶a̶s̶t̶e̶ t̶h̶e̶ r̶e̶s̶u̶l̶t̶ h̶e̶r̶e̶. :̶)̶ [1] https://capitalizemytitle.com/strikethrough-text-generator/ https://capitalizemytitle.com/strikethrough-text-generator/
injeolmi_love 3y ago
The purpose of blockchains is to fulfill users needs, not to allow developers to enjoy creating what they view as perfect and clean solutions. Vitalik pushed hard for L2 scaling over L1 which lead to the set of biggest user headaches on ethereum; ecosystem fragmentation. Individuals and small projects can’t develop experimental dapps on L1 because the gas fees are too high, but if they use an L2 then they only access a small portion of the userbase. Contrast this with development on BSC where there’s enough L1 scaling to make experimentation not excessive expensive, but L2 solutions are still available for large projects that need it and have the developer resources to make cross chain dapps painless for users. It’s kind of funny because btc had the same issue, where scaling the base protocol was rejected. That decision allowed ethereum to emerge as a competitor. Now eth has followed that same path with predictable results.
- kranke155 3y ago
  Huh interesting. I do think L2 scaling is a disaster, I wasn’t aware Vitalik did it.
  - injeolmi_love 3y ago
    If it’s interesting to you, his public advocacy on his blog for L2 goes back to 2017[1] where he dismisses block size scaling as a centralizing risk. Of course now that we have ofac geth, liquid and cex staking; Parlia Consensus and other consensus methods where the number of validators is capped (usually at a few hundred) but voting is done through delegation are in actual fact more decentralized than ethereum. To be fair though no one knew this is how things would turn out on 2017; back then the idea that just a few hundred actors could control a blockchain was scary. Now it’s a success compared to chains where just 3-5 actors could attack a chain. [1] https://vitalik.ca/general/2017/12/31/sharding_faq.html https://vitalik.ca/general/2017/12/31/sharding_faq.html
    - kranke155 3y ago
      Thank you for sharing this.
- 3y ago
lxgr 3y ago
If Ethereum was a website, it would be running an x86 VM (such as [1]), running a custom web browser and database engine, to display mostly static websites and the occasional comments section under a blog post. As an engineer I'm 10% fascinated and 90% horrified by the sheer complexity. [1] https://github.com/copy/v86 https://github.com/copy/v86

75 points by skilled 3y ago

dcreater 3y ago

Ethereum should be ok withering away to make way for new crop. It's a tainted chain.

pazimzadeh 3y ago
Because…
- cmcaleer 3y ago
  Because paying fees measured in dollars for transaction times sometimes measured in minutes is absurd when chains exist where fees are fractions of a cent with transactions consistently measured in low seconds. L2s solve this to an extent but it's very user-unfriendly and confusing.
  - palmfacehn 3y ago
    The wallet UX is horrible. There will always be a portion of people who will download and run malicious software or enter sensitive data into obvious scams. However the entire wallet security model makes it too easy for malicious sites to drain wallets. Other chains have innovated by creating contract specific key pairs and the GIANT RED WARNINGS you'd expect when creating a key pair with permission to transfer assets. I'm not sure that the expensive transactions in ETH are something entrenched interests are willing to do away with.
  - mattdesl 3y ago
    Most of the chains that solve this do so by making certain compromises (around security, decentralization) that Ethereum core develops are unwilling to adopt. Other chains are simply cheaper to use because there is less market pressure (ie: fewer users).
- deleted 3y ago
  [deleted]
- deleted 3y ago
  [deleted]
5350-uiop-1130 3y ago
isn't it layer 2's now, and L3. almost like they're building a pyramid :D it seems like these new chains just exist to sustain the illusion of newness, and the creation of new shitcoins on new platforms, giving the idea of opportunity but actually just allowing the same shovel sellers (CEXs/miners/validators) to take in fees on gambling. and i think decentralization is a meme topic. at best you have a handful of insiders in a PVP stalemate, at worst you end up in a fractured tribal warfare and liquidity vampirism.
- kylebenzle 3y ago
  You are correct. In the space most projects are scams, pretty much EVERYTHING on Ethereum, including Ethereum, is a cash grab by people who missed the boat with Bitcoin. The Bitcoin project (BTC) failed and is now call Bitcoin Cash (BCH) which is doing great as p2p cash but it turns out no one cares about p2p cash, just cash.
  - kranke155 3y ago
    Spoken like a Bitcoin maxi.
    - sMarsIntruder 3y ago
      Which is definitely better than talking about shitcoin. Oh, wait.
- spaceman_2020 3y ago
  I have a lot of misgivings about crypto, but its also true that we’re moving towards a world where the digital economy is massive, global, and deeply embedded in livelihoods. That world does require new tools to ascertain ownership of digital assets (since a lot of people will make their living through creating/selling these assets) and paying for digital assets (global commerce requires global and open payment systems). At least crypto is trying to fix this problem
  - 3y ago

kylebenzle 3y ago

Or: In which Ethereum developers simultaneously all lost their minds.

dleeftink 3y ago

Between "enshrined in-protocol account abstraction", "pre-verification gas", "liquid staking" and "single-slot finality", this style of blog writing is not easy to follow along. The author would do well to minimise jargon and elaborate the core tenets in smaller chunks, rather than the wall of technical terms it currently is presented as.

hbbio 3y ago
There is always jargon somewhere and blockchains are complex systems: As it is a "distributed giant computer protocol" there are always debate on enshrined in protocol (as built-in vs implemented with the existing primitives), account abstraction being the hot topic right now as a way to simplify the UX for users without wallets, etc. I am really not sure it would be better without jargon as each of these terms has a precise meaning.
- dleeftink 3y ago
  I'm okay with jargon, but the ratio can be off sometimes. When the ratio becomes too skewed, there's risk of side-fumbling or even encabuloration [0]. [0]: https://youtu.be/RXJKdh1KZ0w https://youtu.be/RXJKdh1KZ0w
ToucanLoucan 3y ago
Alternative view: No one who isn't already in on the Ethereum c̶o̶m̶m̶u̶n̶i̶t̶y̶ scam gives a shit about this. Besides-which: All of crypto use obfuscated technical and communal terms all through all their material, documentation and writing. Some of this is because the underlying tech is very complicated and the discussions of it's politics are also by virtue of that, some of it is because they like their technobabble because it makes it seem more interesting than it actually is and lends it authority from people who don't know any better, who are their best new investors. Edits: I swear you could strike text on here but it seems I can't figure out how. Edited edit: thank you kind stranger
- kylebenzle 3y ago
  I̶t̶ d̶o̶e̶s̶n̶'t̶, b̶u̶t̶ d̶o̶e̶s̶ s̶u̶p̶p̶o̶r̶t̶ u̶n̶i̶c̶o̶d̶e̶ t̶e̶x̶t̶, s̶o̶ u̶s̶e̶ j̶u̶s̶t̶ a̶n̶o̶t̶h̶e̶r̶ s̶i̶t̶e̶ a̶n̶d̶ t̶h̶e̶n̶ c̶o̶p̶y̶-̶p̶a̶s̶t̶e̶ t̶h̶e̶ r̶e̶s̶u̶l̶t̶ h̶e̶r̶e̶. :̶)̶ [1] https://capitalizemytitle.com/strikethrough-text-generator/ https://capitalizemytitle.com/strikethrough-text-generator/

injeolmi_love 3y ago

The purpose of blockchains is to fulfill users needs, not to allow developers to enjoy creating what they view as perfect and clean solutions. Vitalik pushed hard for L2 scaling over L1 which lead to the set of biggest user headaches on ethereum; ecosystem fragmentation. Individuals and small projects can’t develop experimental dapps on L1 because the gas fees are too high, but if they use an L2 then they only access a small portion of the userbase. Contrast this with development on BSC where there’s enough L1 scaling to make experimentation not excessive expensive, but L2 solutions are still available for large projects that need it and have the developer resources to make cross chain dapps painless for users. It’s kind of funny because btc had the same issue, where scaling the base protocol was rejected. That decision allowed ethereum to emerge as a competitor. Now eth has followed that same path with predictable results.

kranke155 3y ago
Huh interesting. I do think L2 scaling is a disaster, I wasn’t aware Vitalik did it.
- injeolmi_love 3y ago
  If it’s interesting to you, his public advocacy on his blog for L2 goes back to 2017[1] where he dismisses block size scaling as a centralizing risk. Of course now that we have ofac geth, liquid and cex staking; Parlia Consensus and other consensus methods where the number of validators is capped (usually at a few hundred) but voting is done through delegation are in actual fact more decentralized than ethereum. To be fair though no one knew this is how things would turn out on 2017; back then the idea that just a few hundred actors could control a blockchain was scary. Now it’s a success compared to chains where just 3-5 actors could attack a chain. [1] https://vitalik.ca/general/2017/12/31/sharding_faq.html https://vitalik.ca/general/2017/12/31/sharding_faq.html
  - kranke155 3y ago
    Thank you for sharing this.
3y ago

lxgr 3y ago

If Ethereum was a website, it would be running an x86 VM (such as [1]), running a custom web browser and database engine, to display mostly static websites and the occasional comments section under a blog post. As an engineer I'm 10% fascinated and 90% horrified by the sheer complexity. [1] https://github.com/copy/v86 https://github.com/copy/v86