5 ms·

It's not just you. I'm not about to go rewatch that video to pick out the inaccuracies again because it's such a long video, but he definitely could have benefi

It's not just you. I'm not about to go rewatch that video to pick out the inaccuracies again because it's such a long video, but he definitely could have benefited from running his script by a software developer for fact-checking.

parthianshotgun 3y ago
Examples?
- everfree 3y ago
  Like I said I'm not planning to go back and re-watch the entire video to make a list (I'd be writing an entire essay), but here's one illustrative example I noted the first time I watched it: "[Proof of Stake] suffers from delays when elected validators are offline and the system needs to draw again." It's easy to look at a poorly designed Proof Of Stake protocol and point out flaws. But since his beef is with PoS itself, I think it's fair to measure his claim up against Ethereum's beacon chain which is considered to be one of the better PoS designs: * Ethereum's validators are self-chosen, not elected. * There is a ~99.5% participation rate, meaning that 1 in 200 slots are missed. Offline validators are very, very rare. * When this 1 in 200 chance occurs and a slot is missed, Ethereum's elastic block size mechanism (EIP-1559) ensures that the chain catches up by effectively adding additional capacity to the subsequent blocks. * Whereas this slight unpredictability happens very rarely in Proof Of Stake, it happens constantly under Proof Of Work. This is because PoW is an inherently unpredictable poisson process. Thus, PoS is a substantial improvement over PoW in this way. * The result of this 1 in 200 fluke is that your transaction takes 18 seconds instead of 6 seconds to reach preliminary finality. And that's only for Layer 1 transactions which are by their nature high-value; Layer 2 transactions enjoy quicker and more predictable soft finality. I also remember there being issues in his economic analysis of PoS, an unwillingness to engage with scaling technologies (hand-waving it away as based on nothing), no mention of for example Secret Shared Validators or Rocket Pool as solutions to the solo staking minimum, no mention of the history or state expiry roadmaps when discussing the growing size of the chain. Those are just some more examples, reconstructed from some old notes of mine I found, without me spending too much more time on this.
  - djur 3y ago
    Line Goes Up only briefly touches on proof of stake and mostly says that PoS had not yet proven itself as a solution to the problems with PoW. But I think it's important to understand that the central argument of the video is not a technical one. The inefficiency and scaling problems of cryptocurrency networks play a rhetorical role in the presentation, but the primary attack is on the concept itself. He argues that even if the technical problems were solved, the social and economic changes promised by cryptocurrency are undesirable. Any attempt to 'debunk' him based on quibbles about how up-to-date his understanding of different blockchain technologies is kind of missing the point.
    - everfree 3y ago
      > He argues that even if the technical problems were solved, the social and economic changes promised by cryptocurrency are undesirable. I didn’t realize his argument is merely that crypto will change the world in an undesirable way. I thought he was arguing that crypto will be ineffective at changing it at all. That makes his argument much easier to address. Investing isn’t about judging a technology as good or bad, it’s about judging it as profitable or unprofitable. If he’s not arguing that the line won’t go up, then his argument is frankly irrelevant to me as an investor. I empathize with people who believe crypto will have an overall negative effect on the world, but it’s not like it will go away if investors refuse to buy units of it. And if crypto does cause real, lasting social and economic changes over the coming decades, I personally doubt that a layman video journalist will be the one to accurately predict the nature of that transformation. The most accurate prediction is probably going to come from someone much more versed in macroeconomics and/or the tech itself. Probably from someone who understands how proof of stake works.
      - djur 3y ago
        I think it's safe to say that the purpose of the video is not to provide investment advice.
        everfree 3y ago

parthianshotgun 3y ago

Examples?

everfree 3y ago
Like I said I'm not planning to go back and re-watch the entire video to make a list (I'd be writing an entire essay), but here's one illustrative example I noted the first time I watched it: "[Proof of Stake] suffers from delays when elected validators are offline and the system needs to draw again." It's easy to look at a poorly designed Proof Of Stake protocol and point out flaws. But since his beef is with PoS itself, I think it's fair to measure his claim up against Ethereum's beacon chain which is considered to be one of the better PoS designs: * Ethereum's validators are self-chosen, not elected. * There is a ~99.5% participation rate, meaning that 1 in 200 slots are missed. Offline validators are very, very rare. * When this 1 in 200 chance occurs and a slot is missed, Ethereum's elastic block size mechanism (EIP-1559) ensures that the chain catches up by effectively adding additional capacity to the subsequent blocks. * Whereas this slight unpredictability happens very rarely in Proof Of Stake, it happens constantly under Proof Of Work. This is because PoW is an inherently unpredictable poisson process. Thus, PoS is a substantial improvement over PoW in this way. * The result of this 1 in 200 fluke is that your transaction takes 18 seconds instead of 6 seconds to reach preliminary finality. And that's only for Layer 1 transactions which are by their nature high-value; Layer 2 transactions enjoy quicker and more predictable soft finality. I also remember there being issues in his economic analysis of PoS, an unwillingness to engage with scaling technologies (hand-waving it away as based on nothing), no mention of for example Secret Shared Validators or Rocket Pool as solutions to the solo staking minimum, no mention of the history or state expiry roadmaps when discussing the growing size of the chain. Those are just some more examples, reconstructed from some old notes of mine I found, without me spending too much more time on this.
- djur 3y ago
  Line Goes Up only briefly touches on proof of stake and mostly says that PoS had not yet proven itself as a solution to the problems with PoW. But I think it's important to understand that the central argument of the video is not a technical one. The inefficiency and scaling problems of cryptocurrency networks play a rhetorical role in the presentation, but the primary attack is on the concept itself. He argues that even if the technical problems were solved, the social and economic changes promised by cryptocurrency are undesirable. Any attempt to 'debunk' him based on quibbles about how up-to-date his understanding of different blockchain technologies is kind of missing the point.
  - everfree 3y ago
    > He argues that even if the technical problems were solved, the social and economic changes promised by cryptocurrency are undesirable. I didn’t realize his argument is merely that crypto will change the world in an undesirable way. I thought he was arguing that crypto will be ineffective at changing it at all. That makes his argument much easier to address. Investing isn’t about judging a technology as good or bad, it’s about judging it as profitable or unprofitable. If he’s not arguing that the line won’t go up, then his argument is frankly irrelevant to me as an investor. I empathize with people who believe crypto will have an overall negative effect on the world, but it’s not like it will go away if investors refuse to buy units of it. And if crypto does cause real, lasting social and economic changes over the coming decades, I personally doubt that a layman video journalist will be the one to accurately predict the nature of that transformation. The most accurate prediction is probably going to come from someone much more versed in macroeconomics and/or the tech itself. Probably from someone who understands how proof of stake works.
    - djur 3y ago
      I think it's safe to say that the purpose of the video is not to provide investment advice.
      - everfree 3y ago